This is so damn good I'm speechless. I can only thank whoever "Unbekoming" is for his/her/their amazing ability to write such comprehensive-yet-conscise essays (and PDF books) that pull back the curtain on these medical myths that we've been conditioned to believe to be "established science!" What I pay for this subscription is worth the entire year's price on an almost daily basis! THANK YOU!
One more thing: I have special interest in the "science of genetics" issue since I have 2 grandchildren (twins) who were diagnosed with CFibrosis at birth, initially with a PCR test and then with another enzyme test. They're 9.5 yoa now and neither of them have shown any symptoms of CF BUT they've been assigned a life of taking CF drugs "to prevent it from developing." Imagine the position of the parents. Their beloved children having to take serious drugs every day of their life and being afraid to wean them due to the fear of their developing CF!
Another subject related to the lack of real science behind genetics would be how the "science of genetics" has now transitioned to 'insilico' computer programs - even further removed from actual biology.
I've been trying to get it stopped for a couple of years now. The mother is the problem - she's a medical system professional (PT) and her parents are a retired doctor/hospital admin and a retired RN - all 3 of which are "true believers" in all things cast as "medical science." She's been thru psychological hell thinking that her children both have "the gene for CF" so it's extremely baked-in for her.
My heart goes out to you, having to standby as a grandparent while the medical establishment exercises its influence over your precious grandchildren. Best wishes to you and the sweet children.
OK, good to know ("his"). I'm sure there's a good reason that you choose to stay anonymous. The most I've been able to glean is that you're an Australian man with grown children. I'm just amazed at (1) the amount of terrific material that you're able to research and generate, (2) your sharp intellect and (3) your "nose" for the truth (intuition) -- "takes one to know one!" (I'm a retired professional investigator with a "jones" for truth-seeking.) I initially subscribed because I saw that you were hip to the same truth-tellers in the medical field that I had also discovered since 2020. So naturally I'm curious about you and your background just as I am with regard to other truth-tellers. Thanks again!
I am glad I did not have the brains to study "medicine"
I would now be looking back on a lifetimes work wondering how much harm I did to people who trusted me.
And I would know that almost everything I was taught is wrong.
God bless the doctors who have walked away from this well paid circus and began practising functional medicine.
Here are a few, Dr David Cartland, Dr Sam White, Dr Tom Cowen. Dr Sam Bailie, Dr Mark Bailie, Dr Anne McCloskey, those are the ones I can remember by name, its not many is it, all the rest are still taking the money and hoping all this truth stuff will just go away.
I have read a lot of books about NPD, narcissistic personality disorder and it seems that a lot of surgeons are on that spectrum.
In fairness, I do believe many people enter the "profession" with good intentions but they are corrupted by the power, prestige and money, that's all about to change. I believe we are on the cusp of a great health awakening.
This makes me think of that game where you stack blocks and then have to pull one without the tower tumbling. I wonder how many people have sent in DNA and got a result completely out of the blue, like my friend, who knows where their ancestors came from, but the DNA test said something quite different. I think I would believe my ancestors.
Fantastic article, Unbekoming! Proof of a concept I've been preaching to patients for a very long time, as well as a major topic of the post I published earlier today. Epigenetics rules over genetics.
I heard Dr L lecture probably about 30ish years ago. Interesting guy. There are a host of others I would love to have Unbekoming tackle as well. Will make a list and throw it in a comment.
🚨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!”
You forgot to include the tabs of hallucinogenic Acid to interpret the mismatched hodgepodge of "results" as a "double helix" as Watson and Crick were using.
🤣 Good catch! The title of the article was "Genetics Was Built on Bad Chemistry," and apparently Watson and Crick took that as an invitation rather than an obstacle to "scientific" discovery. 🧪😆
Incredible. You are such a gifted communicator. Do not have the words for how brilliant and explanatory your dissertation of our reality is. Thank you.
Ms. Jolie is high nobility, you need to wonder if she actually underwent the procedure, or if it was marketing and mind control, like the rest of the bullshit.
A great article, eye-opening examples and references! I think of us humans as Meta-physical beings temporarily inhabiting a physical form. Trying to define us purely through biological/chemical/electrical processes and ignoring our essential nature as consciousness, which is currently difficult to physically pinpoint, indicates a different principle is operating. Kinda like the wave-particle duality in quantum physics? Is it DNA or the cause and effect principle like the concept of "karma" operating as we journey through this adventure called life... Fun!
Unbekoming just always comes through with good and accurate posts! Just like the PCR hoax, (I still need to find one viable sample with Covid-19 to work with. We who conducted the lab test with these 1500 samples at the 7 universities are now suing the CDC for Covid-19 fraud. The CDC still has not sent us a viable, isolated and purified sample of Covid-19. If they can’t or won’t, then I say there is no Covid-19. It’s fictional.’ )
The DNA Franklin images (see Matthew Cobb - A Mind in Motion) from Kings college and the Accidental Cardboard Cutout? Led to the Crick and Watson DNA (still a major Mystery!). Crick published articles and think-pieces in Nature, the leading scientific journal, and in 1994 he wrote a hugely successful popular book about his ideas, The Astonishing Hypothesis, which helped to shape the thinking of both scientists and the public about the nature of consciousness.
Bottom Line? Today’s medicine is regularly being exposed as not more than balderdash/bunk/illusions and wishful thinking.
What is your view of the Meselson-Stahl experiment, which is what actually led to Crick, Watson and Franklin's boss, Maurice Wilkins, getting the Nobel prize?
Do you agree with the experimental design?
Do you have alternative explanations for the outcomes?
what experimental design? The Nobel Prize was given for a purely theoretical 1 page hand waving paper and a pencil sketch by Crick's wife. Have you actually read it?
There is literally NO evidence of DNA whatsoever. So when I say DNA is a hoax, I honestly, truly mean it. For anyone that has seen through the Virus Hoax, it should be easy to conclude with whatever level of sophistry you wish to implore; There is no evidence of DNA existing…In all likelihood DNA probably might not be what we think it is… or just; DNA doesn’t exist.
The cultural implications and effects of genetic dogma of genetic 'control' - ie life as coded commands that may be mitigated —is the anthropomorphic projection of a human identification with mechanism, system and control function.
It can also be seen as the 'Rockefeller science' of bought and bent models by which risk is defined, predicted and managed.
The documented story of an aspect of that model and a summary education in how science was distorted relative to evolution theory, cell theory, gene theory and cancer theory is well presented in the following interview with Edward Calabrese:
The whole interview is available at the link I give. Youtube has only a limited less controversial selection from it. Ignore/skip the corporate intro/outro. The interview doesn’t need it or benefit by it.
Anyone who has active curiosity for pattern recognition - rather than wanting to be told what to think, will appreciate the interview content. i got a lot more from it than Calabrese overtly intended. His personal focus is demonstrating hormesis - an adaptive advantage within what is otherwise presented as a linear cumulative damage - against the evidence and despite the evidence.
Health and safety issues gained regulatory priority - in the case of radiation damage - set over the testing of 'nuclear explosions'. But the spread has become the weaponisation of 'public health' under 'medical' pretext.
So the cultural framing is of a global scale running systems capture while the sacrifice to its 'god' takes all kinds of forms of socially masked violence framed within virtues of 'protection'.
I don't know if a genie is merely a phonetic simile, but the WISH for control over life, others and world gives rise to the experience of subjection, limitation, conflict pain and loss.
The market for magic 'solutions' in variants of post traumatic dissociation becomes the driver of the game.
I ran out of time to write more, but power struggle seeks to usurp and capture the root level - as the highest order of which all else is derived and dependent.
I see this primarily within what we call 'consciousness' but extended or reflected in mutually agreed definitions - that align as dictates as to what can be seen, accepted, allowed or shared. A set of rules and filters that sort of operate like command codes.
Hello Binra. Your first paragraph nails it: "The cultural implications and effects of genetic dogma of genetic 'control' - ie life as coded commands that may be mitigated —is the anthropomorphic projection of a human identification with mechanism, system and control function." [End quote]
I call these forms of projection "negative magic". Modern man - via mass media, have inverted positive creation into negative projection. The dis-ease has waxed contagious for decades.
Yes. I see this discernment as critical to much more than our current cultural or collective variant. Living Thought as distinct from symbolic or imagic representations that are GIVEN power and thus be-lived and suffered as Powers —set archetypal to both trauma and drama of Projected self-specialness.
Mind Is the function and nature of thought-extension - but thought does not go OUT of mind to become something else, separate or alien to Itself...excepting in concept taken out of living Context. As if.
Projection as expelling, getting rid of, excluding is also the projecting of a specific focus - like a spot light - to seek or see ONLY as judgement dictates, and thus to discard, mask out, or deny all else.
The Mind of Creation knows (recognises self) in all by extending all.
There is no parallel in our perception of a self and world for true Creation.
We might call this the Mind of God, but God's Son or Extension is not separate from the Father. The quality of recognition is of the felt qualities of being - as 'This Is my Beloved' — delight or joy in being. Knowing of being does not 'fit' into a framework of judgement but does hold the field of realignment and reintegration from a fragmented or split mind. (Healing or undoing mis-perception).
The mind in projection 'knows not what it does'. Doing or action is the correlation of judging. The mind of judgement 'knows something ELSE'—from which it makes a 'self'.
The wish that Reality Be other than it Is, can project imagination, but cannot make or create in truth. Its' reality' is then a thought-adjustment that rests on mutually reinforcing 'agreements' as distinct from mutually extending recognition.
I felt the desire to sketch something out - not as a personal response TO you, but from a shared recognition with you, in gratitude.
Unselfconscious joy in being is not 'mysterious or complicated' - nor in truth contingent on external permissions, but rather of an alignment or wholeness of purpose where 'inner and outer are one'. The 'doings serve a vehicle for the unfolding fulfilment of being.
That we are human being — not human specimens (objects to an 'alien mindset' of predictive control definitions. Is a matter of acceptance. But while we want what we think it gives us, we set our Self as a choice that can be ferred, prevaricated and worked into a drama.
But then - that's our 'thing' isn't it: self-will as a dramatic tension/release. At least until it hollows out to a polarised insanity that reveals something of its 'maker'. Not our true Creator.
All words and symbols can be used differently. I don't choose them to impose one over others but simply to point to what can be observed, felt and know within - whether given words or not. It is my trust that the guidance behind the words is also in the reader - such that resonances and relevance can alight in the heart and mind as one. Such is the ordinary moment of a 'Field of Communioned Communication'.
This essay is not a brave outsider questioning orthodoxy. It is a chain of confident-sounding errors written by people who appear not to have opened a molecular biology textbook published after 1953. Every "gotcha" in it dissolves the moment you check a primary source, a reagent list, or a sequencing instrument manual. The rhetorical move is consistent: take a real historical limitation (Miescher had no controls, Photo 51 alone didn't prove the helix), pretend the field stopped there, and ignore the seventy-plus years of orthogonal techniques — nanopore sequencing, CRISPR, cryo-EM, mass spectrometry, NMR, trio genome sequencing — that independently confirm what the early work guessed at. Miescher and controls. The 1869 paper was a first description, not the validation of DNA's existence. DNA has since been characterized by hundreds of independent techniques that don't share Miescher's chemistry: enzymatic digestion with DNase (which specifically destroys it), mass spectrometry, NMR, single-molecule fluorescence, atomic force microscopy, nanopore sequencing, and Sanger sequencing — each with its own controls. The "no control in 1869" point is irrelevant to whether DNA exists; it's been re-isolated by orthogonal methods millions of times.
The "phosphorus came from the reagents" claim is chemically wrong. Miescher used sodium sulfate, HCl, ether, and NaOH — none contain phosphorus. The phosphorus had to come from the sample.
Bases never observed. False. Individual nucleotides have been resolved by cryo-EM, X-ray crystallography of oligonucleotides, and direct single-molecule imaging. Nanopore sequencers physically read bases one at a time via ionic current changes.
Chargaff's ratios. A=T and G=C hold to within tight tolerances across thousands of sequenced genomes. The original 1950 data showed the pattern clearly enough that Watson and Crick recognized its structural implication. Whole-genome sequencing has confirmed it exhaustively.
The "ballpoint pen spring" claim. Any helix produces an X-shaped diffraction pattern — that's basic Fourier optics, known since Cochran, Crick, and Vand (1952). The pattern's dimensions (3.4 Å rise, 34 Å pitch, 20 Å diameter) are what identified DNA's structure, not just the X shape. The spring analogy confuses "helices diffract like helices" with "the pattern isn't specific."
"No crystals in cells." Irrelevant. Crystallography determines molecular structure; the molecule retains its structure outside the crystal. This is confirmed by solution NMR, cryo-EM of DNA in near-native conditions, and live-cell super-resolution microscopy.
Unfalsifiability. Genetic causation is routinely falsified — that's why we distinguish Mendelian, polygenic, and non-genetic conditions. Identical twin studies, adoption studies, and GWAS quantify heritability rather than assume it. CRISPR provides direct causal tests: edit the gene, observe the phenotype change. Sickle cell, Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, and thousands of other conditions have been causally linked this way.
Paternity testing. The Poetsch study showed single-locus mismatches without the mother's profile — standard practice uses 20+ STR loci with maternal exclusion, yielding error rates below 1 in a billion. The Fairchild case is genuine tetragametic chimerism, confirmed independently by tissue biopsy showing two cell lines.
"Dwarfism falsifies genetics." Achondroplasia's 80% de novo rate is predicted by genetics — it's caused by a specific FGFR3 point mutation (G1138A) that has been sequenced, replicated in mouse models, and corrected experimentally. De novo mutations aren't an ad hoc rescue; they're directly measurable in parent-child trio sequencing.
Adaptation vs. genetics. Tanning and alcohol tolerance are gene expression responses — melanocytes upregulate tyrosinase, hepatocytes upregulate CYP2E1. These are genes doing exactly what genetics predicts.
The essay mistakes "I don't understand the validation" for "no validation exists
Science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects. This is not a dodge — it is the foundational epistemology of all modern physics, chemistry, and astronomy..Show me a photograph of a fart, my wife would definitely argue that they exist :-)
If you cannot visually detect something and have to use indirect methods (standard in genetics) - it's a model. If you are only using indirect methods without controls (also standard in genetics) - it's a hypothesis/theory only. If you cannot make anything "work" based on your theoretical hypothesis, like actually make a biologic drug to a specification (impossible in current "synthetic biology" space) - your theory failed. You are welcome to this science 101 lesson .
Respectfully, you are being silly Every measurement is indirect at some level. A thermometer doesn't "directly" detect temperature — it detects mercury expansion. A scale doesn't "directly" detect mass — it detects spring compression or electromagnetic force.
The actual scientific standard is not directness of measurement but convergent validity — do multiple independent methods using different physical principles reach the same conclusion? For nucleotides, five independent methods (X-ray crystallography, NMR, mass spectrometry, cryo-EM, chemical synthesis) converge identically. That convergence is stronger evidence than any single "direct" observation could provide.
Have you ever actually worked in a genetics laboratory and conducted experiments? It is clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about
Molecular genetics uses controls extensively and rigorously:
Knockout controls — remove a gene, observe loss of function, reintroduce it, observe restoration. This is a controlled experiment by any definition
Isogenic controls — cell lines identical except for the specific sequence being studied
CRISPR editing uses unedited parent lines as controls in every published experiment
Sanger sequencing is validated against known reference sequences as internal controls
"Based on your theoretical hypothesis, like actually make a biologic drug to a specification (impossible in current "synthetic biology" space) - your theory failed."
Counter examples:
Insulin — human insulin has been produced to exact molecular specification in bacterial and yeast systems since 1982. Millions of diabetics depend on it daily. The sequence is specified, synthesized, expressed, purified, and verified to molecular specification every manufacturing batch, what alternate reality do you live in?
Biological Weapons -The M-rna vaccines expressed a cytotoxic spike protein replete with custom side by side prolines in the s2 region of the spike protein designed to ensure a mishaped protein is expressed at the ACe 2 receptor region of the cell surface that is like a magnet to attract prions and form Fibrils, your basic building blocks to amyloid plaques.
i could go on about the SV40 contamination using the CMV mamallian vector in ecoli bacteria in manufacturing to ensure the injections were carcinogenic.
So sadly the M-rna vaccines "worked" very well at murdering and maiming millions. A horrible application of molecular genetics that sadly is a counter example of what you proclaimed "impossible".
You have done nice detective work in showing a corrupted and murderous medical military political complex but your knowledge of basic science appears to leave much to be desired.
Based on your background I don't believe you are that obtuse and may have another motive that I am not aware of.
If you are so smart and can make "human insulin" synthetically (I am spitting my coffee laughing right now), can you make me synthetic apple juice? Should be easy, no? Also, would be nice to make a synthetic Domaine Romane Conti, which sells for tens of thousands per bottle, should be easy-peasy for "synthetic biology" that can make "human insulin" precisely, and one-size-fit-all humans, too! Wow. Except every person's real insulin is unique to them and it's composition likely changes diurnally and with many other factors. Nobody is making "human insulin", silly. They are making a synthetic drugs that act on those pathways. Same with "hormones" or "enzymes" or "vitamins" or anything else produced by synthetic chemical methods. You are not making any "building blocks of life", you are making toxic bullshit cocktails. Do you know how DNA is synthesized? I do. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/breaking-very-bad-how-to-reliably?r=uaapz
It's you live in the alternative reality. Besides being very large-molecule, unstable, synthetic chemical drugs (with some e.coli and other human and animal cells mixed in, depending on what is being made) biologics cannot be manufactured to spec, and are not being manufactured to spec, and there is no FDA manufacturing inspection requirements for biologics, officially, since 2017. Biologics have never been regulated as pharmaceutical products because it is not possible to do with rotting tissues (in case of real tissue derived biologic materials and cultures) or with unstable synthetic piles of garbage (the "synthetic versions"). By the way which set of laws regulate biologics, and when were those laws passed? can you cite that without doing an AI search? Of course, you don't know any of that, why would you... I don't need to convince you of anything, feel free believing your colored balls, zigzags and abracadabra on the computer screen, and "genetic engineering" bullshit, it's really irrelevant to me or to the objective reality what you believe in. Have a great day.
Your DNA article lists reagents used in synthesizing DNA and with zero evidence implies they end up in the final product. On insulin: in 1977 a small group of researchers working out of a warehouse in San Francisco proved you could get bacteria to express a human gene by synthesizing somatostatin from scratch. That proof of concept led directly to human insulin being expressed in E. coli in 1978 and approved for diabetic patients by 1982. it produced human insulin identical to what your pancreas makes, eliminated immune reactions in sensitive patients, and removed the entire industry's dependence on animal pancreas supply. That is not semantics, that is applied molecular genetics solving real clinical problems."That is molecular genetics working exactly as described — not your bullshit semantics, not theory.
Nothing you have posted here has negated my arguments. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child who believes if they can't see something it doesn't exist. Please stop holding yourself out as an "expert" in the medical freedom movement as you are a real embarrassment and frankly harmful as a representative of this movement.
"it's caused by a specific FGFR3 point mutation (G1138A) that has been sequenced, replicated in mouse models, and corrected experimentally"
LOL
You got caught mousing about..... now tell us about causation and correlation and stop throwing jargon around... You are coherent - within the vocabulary that genetics has created. Maybe your work involved torturing mice at some point? For the benefit of....?
What good has genetics brought to humanity? How does that compare to all the evil it is used to prop up? Does evil exist in a science world or is it all just a grey goo?
Quote: “Over the past decade, the scientific literature has expanded dramatically. Researchers are now investigating endocrine disruption, alterations of the gut microbiome, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, metabolic disease, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neuroinflammation, possible effects on autism spectrum disorder and ADHD, chronic low-dose exposure, cumulative exposure to multiple agricultural chemicals, and whether commercial glyphosate formulations behave differently than glyphosate alone.”
Correct me if I am wrong. I am not a molecular geneticist but I have read enough to know that they are treading into dangerous areas without clear understanding of what they are doing. That is what scares me about the work.
a) a study of CRISPR found that there were over 100 other changes to the DNA beyond the desired one(s)
b) Since the number of proteins greatly exceeds the number of genes it implies that RNA+DNA is performing some dance to create all those proteins that we dont fully understand. But they feel justified to insert genes (randomly placed?) and turn them on (no off switch?) without an understanding of how that dance is affected.
c) Studies of genetically modified cells shows they produce heat shock proteins indicating they are under some sort of unnatural stress.
d) then of course all the GMO crops that are impervious to glyphosate pesticides which have known harms: carcinogenic, interrupts shikimate pathway, binding of essential minerals by chelation making them unavailable, disrupting the tight junctions in the gut and blood brain barrier potentially leading to autoimmunity, disruption of the microbiome.
The arrogance of dumping what is essentially a modified amino acid that disrupts protein synthesis into the environment by the mega tons just amazes me. And onto crops just before harvest is criminal.
The BT GMO crops are a similar exercise in arrogance. “Oh, it doesnt affect mammal digestion. Oops, yes it does.”
Then the next insult: instead of rethinking the failing strategy, they create plants that are immune to even more toxic herbicides. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
e) dumping or allowing GMO organisms - bacteria, mosquitoes, etc - into the environment without much understanding of the consequences.
Remember that one of the very first GMO products was Tryptophan which killed people. They quietly took it off the market and blamed it on the amino acid instead of the genetic manipulation process that created it. I was pissed because I had been taking tryptophan for years to deal with insomnia without any problems.
Personally I think this tech should be left in the lab until they know wtf they are doing and can guarantee safety.
a.) When CRISPR cas 9 was first used in research, they saw a lot of off target effects but this has been optimised over time. It is now extremely efficient and specific.
b.) A single gene can create tens to hundreds of different proteins. RNA is also ‘expressed’ (increases/decreases depending on requirement) whereas DNA remains stable, so RNA will always exceed DNA in humans, this is partly how we evolved to be more complex. We did not just simply increase the number of genes, we actually have fewer genes than bananas but we have very high levels of protein diversity.
c.) heat shock proteins are essential for crops, it is probably the mechanism for which they survive under harsh conditions, hence the rationale for selection. This does not worry me.
d.) This one I agree with to an extent - relying on such a specific mechanism does reduce biodiversity and risk the spread of a new resistant weed which then creates a new, more intense cycle. I do think that this is shortsighted and there’s no doubt that increased exposure could cause health concerns and currently regulations may not be adhered to in such extreme climate conditions as rural farmers need high yields just to get by. We need serious action to support farmers globally and invest heavily in organic farming. I am not against GMOs but multiple different avenues should be used as a supplementation for organic farming, not 90% of soya bean farming.
e.) Hard to discuss this without proper information but the L-Tryptophan was a bad batch - nothing to do with the editing itself.
I think this tech will become a necessity as the climate crisis continues unfortunately. I would love for major investments into global organic farming, but this is just not realistic. We need to produce food reliably and the current scope of the climate shows great unpredictability from severe droughts to severe storms. The cost of soft commodities are rapidly increasing and climate change is a big contributor. I know some people deny that climate change is even a thing, but you only have to listen to this whole Greenland debacle whilst looking at a map to see what the people at the top truly believe.
Normally, a baby comes from one egg and one sperm.
In tetragametic chimerism, a mother releases two eggs, and two different sperm fertilize them. Usually, this would result in fraternal twins. However, very early in the womb, these two separate embryos fuse together into one single baby.
Because the baby grew from two different starting pairs, they are literally their own twin.
Most people with this condition look totally normal and never find out. However, because they have two different sets of DNA blueprinting their body, a few strange things can happen:
• Two Blood Types: They might have one blood type in part of their body and a different blood type in another.
• Patchwork Skin or Eyes: They might have two different colored eyes, or patterns on their skin that only show up under special light.
• DNA Test : Their blood might have DNA "Package A," but their hair or cheek cells have DNA "Package B."
When molecular scientists take a tiny skin sample from the darker patch of skin and a sample from the lighter patch, the DNA matches the physical boundary perfectly. The genetic code changes exactly where the physical traits change. If molecular genetics were "fake," there would be no reason for invisible microscopic patterns in a test tube to perfectly align with visible, physical markers on a human body.
"tetra" comes from the fact that normally in a pregnancy, a baby comes from two gametes: 1 egg + 1 sperm = 2 total. In this unusual condition, the baby is built from four gametes: (1 egg + 1 sperm) + (1 egg + 1 sperm) = 4 total. Those four sex cells create two separate embryos that merge into one person .
Chimeric refers to a mixture of two or more distinct entities in one body, the Chimera, is a beast from ancient Greek mythology. It wasn't just a mix of two things—it was a single monster made of three different animals:
It doesn't matter how many other studies confirm what they set out to confirm. The bias is there because there is agency and funding behind it and this is proven. Statistical analysis can prove anything. Even if the claims of "edit the genome- see the phenotype change" are true (consensus science is not credible no matter how much it claims to be- as per the statements of heads of the most prestigious journals).
Things are not as simple as that. There are other more complex relationships than one-way causation. Chemically damaging something at the sub-cellular level to produce visible changes in an organism does not mean that that something "causes" those things in vivo and in nature. But of course the Scientism paradigm does not see it as chemical damage but as "editing" because they are wanking with computers. Wanking in this field has lethal consequences called "diagnosis and lethal injection based on PCR test fraud".
This is so damn good I'm speechless. I can only thank whoever "Unbekoming" is for his/her/their amazing ability to write such comprehensive-yet-conscise essays (and PDF books) that pull back the curtain on these medical myths that we've been conditioned to believe to be "established science!" What I pay for this subscription is worth the entire year's price on an almost daily basis! THANK YOU!
His, and thank you.
One more thing: I have special interest in the "science of genetics" issue since I have 2 grandchildren (twins) who were diagnosed with CFibrosis at birth, initially with a PCR test and then with another enzyme test. They're 9.5 yoa now and neither of them have shown any symptoms of CF BUT they've been assigned a life of taking CF drugs "to prevent it from developing." Imagine the position of the parents. Their beloved children having to take serious drugs every day of their life and being afraid to wean them due to the fear of their developing CF!
Another subject related to the lack of real science behind genetics would be how the "science of genetics" has now transitioned to 'insilico' computer programs - even further removed from actual biology.
Get them off the drugs, it looks like the psychopaths have found an innovative way to harm children, as if vaccines weren't enough.
please stop giving your grandkids drugs, if you can influence their parents.
I've been trying to get it stopped for a couple of years now. The mother is the problem - she's a medical system professional (PT) and her parents are a retired doctor/hospital admin and a retired RN - all 3 of which are "true believers" in all things cast as "medical science." She's been thru psychological hell thinking that her children both have "the gene for CF" so it's extremely baked-in for her.
My heart goes out to you, having to standby as a grandparent while the medical establishment exercises its influence over your precious grandchildren. Best wishes to you and the sweet children.
There is no rest for the wicked.
OK, good to know ("his"). I'm sure there's a good reason that you choose to stay anonymous. The most I've been able to glean is that you're an Australian man with grown children. I'm just amazed at (1) the amount of terrific material that you're able to research and generate, (2) your sharp intellect and (3) your "nose" for the truth (intuition) -- "takes one to know one!" (I'm a retired professional investigator with a "jones" for truth-seeking.) I initially subscribed because I saw that you were hip to the same truth-tellers in the medical field that I had also discovered since 2020. So naturally I'm curious about you and your background just as I am with regard to other truth-tellers. Thanks again!
😍🌞🥰
Do you know that the field of geology also falls apart just as quick as DNA?
Thanks for this article.
I am glad I did not have the brains to study "medicine"
I would now be looking back on a lifetimes work wondering how much harm I did to people who trusted me.
And I would know that almost everything I was taught is wrong.
God bless the doctors who have walked away from this well paid circus and began practising functional medicine.
Here are a few, Dr David Cartland, Dr Sam White, Dr Tom Cowen. Dr Sam Bailie, Dr Mark Bailie, Dr Anne McCloskey, those are the ones I can remember by name, its not many is it, all the rest are still taking the money and hoping all this truth stuff will just go away.
It won't!
doctors' brains could be studied for psychopathy.
I have read a lot of books about NPD, narcissistic personality disorder and it seems that a lot of surgeons are on that spectrum.
In fairness, I do believe many people enter the "profession" with good intentions but they are corrupted by the power, prestige and money, that's all about to change. I believe we are on the cusp of a great health awakening.
Please don't forget Carrie Madej and that Jewess something Gold (joking!).
https://abcnews.com/US/dr-simone-gold-leading-anti-vax-figure-sentenced/story?id=85445732
LoL!!!
This makes me think of that game where you stack blocks and then have to pull one without the tower tumbling. I wonder how many people have sent in DNA and got a result completely out of the blue, like my friend, who knows where their ancestors came from, but the DNA test said something quite different. I think I would believe my ancestors.
Seems the foundations for a lot of the 'sciences' are crumbling.
Fantastic article, Unbekoming! Proof of a concept I've been preaching to patients for a very long time, as well as a major topic of the post I published earlier today. Epigenetics rules over genetics.
Dr. Bruce Lipton's book the Biology of Belief is foundational in the concept that epigenetic rules the day.
Not sure if Unbekoming has done a paper on that yet. If not, please do. 🙏
Ah yes the great Bruce Lipton….
Words fail me - which is for the best.
I heard Dr L lecture probably about 30ish years ago. Interesting guy. There are a host of others I would love to have Unbekoming tackle as well. Will make a list and throw it in a comment.
🚨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!”
“If It’s Not Chemically Mangled, It’s Not Real!” Love it!
Damn close to many other manufactured 'realities'...
You crack me up Factscinator. 😁
Huge thanks for the wonderful feedback 👍 I’m delighted it managed to tickle your funny bone 🦴😄
You forgot to include the tabs of hallucinogenic Acid to interpret the mismatched hodgepodge of "results" as a "double helix" as Watson and Crick were using.
🤣 Good catch! The title of the article was "Genetics Was Built on Bad Chemistry," and apparently Watson and Crick took that as an invitation rather than an obstacle to "scientific" discovery. 🧪😆
This is hilarious! And spot on. Thank you; I’m rolling on the floor. 😂
Thanks a million, Angel! 😄🥂
Delighted the satire delivered a few laughs ⚗️🧬🤣
Have a fantastic day! 🎉
Incredible. You are such a gifted communicator. Do not have the words for how brilliant and explanatory your dissertation of our reality is. Thank you.
Ms. Jolie is high nobility, you need to wonder if she actually underwent the procedure, or if it was marketing and mind control, like the rest of the bullshit.
it sure looks like she did. she doesn't look well.
🎯
Another of the thousands of medical farces.
"Royal" science needed a story to support eugenics
and killing people for their land and wealth.
A great article, eye-opening examples and references! I think of us humans as Meta-physical beings temporarily inhabiting a physical form. Trying to define us purely through biological/chemical/electrical processes and ignoring our essential nature as consciousness, which is currently difficult to physically pinpoint, indicates a different principle is operating. Kinda like the wave-particle duality in quantum physics? Is it DNA or the cause and effect principle like the concept of "karma" operating as we journey through this adventure called life... Fun!
Absolutely stunning! Thank you for this excellent presentation!
DNA testing is now a billion dollar industry. Follow the money:).
Unbekoming just always comes through with good and accurate posts! Just like the PCR hoax, (I still need to find one viable sample with Covid-19 to work with. We who conducted the lab test with these 1500 samples at the 7 universities are now suing the CDC for Covid-19 fraud. The CDC still has not sent us a viable, isolated and purified sample of Covid-19. If they can’t or won’t, then I say there is no Covid-19. It’s fictional.’ )
The DNA Franklin images (see Matthew Cobb - A Mind in Motion) from Kings college and the Accidental Cardboard Cutout? Led to the Crick and Watson DNA (still a major Mystery!). Crick published articles and think-pieces in Nature, the leading scientific journal, and in 1994 he wrote a hugely successful popular book about his ideas, The Astonishing Hypothesis, which helped to shape the thinking of both scientists and the public about the nature of consciousness.
Bottom Line? Today’s medicine is regularly being exposed as not more than balderdash/bunk/illusions and wishful thinking.
What about String Theory in Physics, with its 11 Dimensions?
PS, you know Watson and Crick were high on LSD when the "discovery" of the "double helix" occurred, yes?
What is your view of the Meselson-Stahl experiment, which is what actually led to Crick, Watson and Franklin's boss, Maurice Wilkins, getting the Nobel prize?
Do you agree with the experimental design?
Do you have alternative explanations for the outcomes?
Do you believe the experiments to be fraudulent?
what experimental design? The Nobel Prize was given for a purely theoretical 1 page hand waving paper and a pencil sketch by Crick's wife. Have you actually read it?
👍😂🤣
There is literally NO evidence of DNA whatsoever. So when I say DNA is a hoax, I honestly, truly mean it. For anyone that has seen through the Virus Hoax, it should be easy to conclude with whatever level of sophistry you wish to implore; There is no evidence of DNA existing…In all likelihood DNA probably might not be what we think it is… or just; DNA doesn’t exist.
The cultural implications and effects of genetic dogma of genetic 'control' - ie life as coded commands that may be mitigated —is the anthropomorphic projection of a human identification with mechanism, system and control function.
It can also be seen as the 'Rockefeller science' of bought and bent models by which risk is defined, predicted and managed.
The documented story of an aspect of that model and a summary education in how science was distorted relative to evolution theory, cell theory, gene theory and cancer theory is well presented in the following interview with Edward Calabrese:
The whole interview is available at the link I give. Youtube has only a limited less controversial selection from it. Ignore/skip the corporate intro/outro. The interview doesn’t need it or benefit by it.
https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide/
Anyone who has active curiosity for pattern recognition - rather than wanting to be told what to think, will appreciate the interview content. i got a lot more from it than Calabrese overtly intended. His personal focus is demonstrating hormesis - an adaptive advantage within what is otherwise presented as a linear cumulative damage - against the evidence and despite the evidence.
Health and safety issues gained regulatory priority - in the case of radiation damage - set over the testing of 'nuclear explosions'. But the spread has become the weaponisation of 'public health' under 'medical' pretext.
So the cultural framing is of a global scale running systems capture while the sacrifice to its 'god' takes all kinds of forms of socially masked violence framed within virtues of 'protection'.
I don't know if a genie is merely a phonetic simile, but the WISH for control over life, others and world gives rise to the experience of subjection, limitation, conflict pain and loss.
The market for magic 'solutions' in variants of post traumatic dissociation becomes the driver of the game.
I ran out of time to write more, but power struggle seeks to usurp and capture the root level - as the highest order of which all else is derived and dependent.
I see this primarily within what we call 'consciousness' but extended or reflected in mutually agreed definitions - that align as dictates as to what can be seen, accepted, allowed or shared. A set of rules and filters that sort of operate like command codes.
Hello Binra. Your first paragraph nails it: "The cultural implications and effects of genetic dogma of genetic 'control' - ie life as coded commands that may be mitigated —is the anthropomorphic projection of a human identification with mechanism, system and control function." [End quote]
I call these forms of projection "negative magic". Modern man - via mass media, have inverted positive creation into negative projection. The dis-ease has waxed contagious for decades.
Yes. I see this discernment as critical to much more than our current cultural or collective variant. Living Thought as distinct from symbolic or imagic representations that are GIVEN power and thus be-lived and suffered as Powers —set archetypal to both trauma and drama of Projected self-specialness.
Mind Is the function and nature of thought-extension - but thought does not go OUT of mind to become something else, separate or alien to Itself...excepting in concept taken out of living Context. As if.
Projection as expelling, getting rid of, excluding is also the projecting of a specific focus - like a spot light - to seek or see ONLY as judgement dictates, and thus to discard, mask out, or deny all else.
The Mind of Creation knows (recognises self) in all by extending all.
There is no parallel in our perception of a self and world for true Creation.
We might call this the Mind of God, but God's Son or Extension is not separate from the Father. The quality of recognition is of the felt qualities of being - as 'This Is my Beloved' — delight or joy in being. Knowing of being does not 'fit' into a framework of judgement but does hold the field of realignment and reintegration from a fragmented or split mind. (Healing or undoing mis-perception).
The mind in projection 'knows not what it does'. Doing or action is the correlation of judging. The mind of judgement 'knows something ELSE'—from which it makes a 'self'.
The wish that Reality Be other than it Is, can project imagination, but cannot make or create in truth. Its' reality' is then a thought-adjustment that rests on mutually reinforcing 'agreements' as distinct from mutually extending recognition.
I felt the desire to sketch something out - not as a personal response TO you, but from a shared recognition with you, in gratitude.
Unselfconscious joy in being is not 'mysterious or complicated' - nor in truth contingent on external permissions, but rather of an alignment or wholeness of purpose where 'inner and outer are one'. The 'doings serve a vehicle for the unfolding fulfilment of being.
That we are human being — not human specimens (objects to an 'alien mindset' of predictive control definitions. Is a matter of acceptance. But while we want what we think it gives us, we set our Self as a choice that can be ferred, prevaricated and worked into a drama.
But then - that's our 'thing' isn't it: self-will as a dramatic tension/release. At least until it hollows out to a polarised insanity that reveals something of its 'maker'. Not our true Creator.
All words and symbols can be used differently. I don't choose them to impose one over others but simply to point to what can be observed, felt and know within - whether given words or not. It is my trust that the guidance behind the words is also in the reader - such that resonances and relevance can alight in the heart and mind as one. Such is the ordinary moment of a 'Field of Communioned Communication'.
Music of life, unheard? —yet we dance.
This essay is not a brave outsider questioning orthodoxy. It is a chain of confident-sounding errors written by people who appear not to have opened a molecular biology textbook published after 1953. Every "gotcha" in it dissolves the moment you check a primary source, a reagent list, or a sequencing instrument manual. The rhetorical move is consistent: take a real historical limitation (Miescher had no controls, Photo 51 alone didn't prove the helix), pretend the field stopped there, and ignore the seventy-plus years of orthogonal techniques — nanopore sequencing, CRISPR, cryo-EM, mass spectrometry, NMR, trio genome sequencing — that independently confirm what the early work guessed at. Miescher and controls. The 1869 paper was a first description, not the validation of DNA's existence. DNA has since been characterized by hundreds of independent techniques that don't share Miescher's chemistry: enzymatic digestion with DNase (which specifically destroys it), mass spectrometry, NMR, single-molecule fluorescence, atomic force microscopy, nanopore sequencing, and Sanger sequencing — each with its own controls. The "no control in 1869" point is irrelevant to whether DNA exists; it's been re-isolated by orthogonal methods millions of times.
The "phosphorus came from the reagents" claim is chemically wrong. Miescher used sodium sulfate, HCl, ether, and NaOH — none contain phosphorus. The phosphorus had to come from the sample.
Bases never observed. False. Individual nucleotides have been resolved by cryo-EM, X-ray crystallography of oligonucleotides, and direct single-molecule imaging. Nanopore sequencers physically read bases one at a time via ionic current changes.
Chargaff's ratios. A=T and G=C hold to within tight tolerances across thousands of sequenced genomes. The original 1950 data showed the pattern clearly enough that Watson and Crick recognized its structural implication. Whole-genome sequencing has confirmed it exhaustively.
The "ballpoint pen spring" claim. Any helix produces an X-shaped diffraction pattern — that's basic Fourier optics, known since Cochran, Crick, and Vand (1952). The pattern's dimensions (3.4 Å rise, 34 Å pitch, 20 Å diameter) are what identified DNA's structure, not just the X shape. The spring analogy confuses "helices diffract like helices" with "the pattern isn't specific."
"No crystals in cells." Irrelevant. Crystallography determines molecular structure; the molecule retains its structure outside the crystal. This is confirmed by solution NMR, cryo-EM of DNA in near-native conditions, and live-cell super-resolution microscopy.
Unfalsifiability. Genetic causation is routinely falsified — that's why we distinguish Mendelian, polygenic, and non-genetic conditions. Identical twin studies, adoption studies, and GWAS quantify heritability rather than assume it. CRISPR provides direct causal tests: edit the gene, observe the phenotype change. Sickle cell, Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, and thousands of other conditions have been causally linked this way.
Paternity testing. The Poetsch study showed single-locus mismatches without the mother's profile — standard practice uses 20+ STR loci with maternal exclusion, yielding error rates below 1 in a billion. The Fairchild case is genuine tetragametic chimerism, confirmed independently by tissue biopsy showing two cell lines.
"Dwarfism falsifies genetics." Achondroplasia's 80% de novo rate is predicted by genetics — it's caused by a specific FGFR3 point mutation (G1138A) that has been sequenced, replicated in mouse models, and corrected experimentally. De novo mutations aren't an ad hoc rescue; they're directly measurable in parent-child trio sequencing.
Adaptation vs. genetics. Tanning and alcohol tolerance are gene expression responses — melanocytes upregulate tyrosinase, hepatocytes upregulate CYP2E1. These are genes doing exactly what genetics predicts.
The essay mistakes "I don't understand the validation" for "no validation exists
post a picture of a nucleotide, Sid.
Science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects. This is not a dodge — it is the foundational epistemology of all modern physics, chemistry, and astronomy..Show me a photograph of a fart, my wife would definitely argue that they exist :-)
If you cannot visually detect something and have to use indirect methods (standard in genetics) - it's a model. If you are only using indirect methods without controls (also standard in genetics) - it's a hypothesis/theory only. If you cannot make anything "work" based on your theoretical hypothesis, like actually make a biologic drug to a specification (impossible in current "synthetic biology" space) - your theory failed. You are welcome to this science 101 lesson .
Sasha,
Respectfully, you are being silly Every measurement is indirect at some level. A thermometer doesn't "directly" detect temperature — it detects mercury expansion. A scale doesn't "directly" detect mass — it detects spring compression or electromagnetic force.
The actual scientific standard is not directness of measurement but convergent validity — do multiple independent methods using different physical principles reach the same conclusion? For nucleotides, five independent methods (X-ray crystallography, NMR, mass spectrometry, cryo-EM, chemical synthesis) converge identically. That convergence is stronger evidence than any single "direct" observation could provide.
Have you ever actually worked in a genetics laboratory and conducted experiments? It is clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about
Molecular genetics uses controls extensively and rigorously:
Knockout controls — remove a gene, observe loss of function, reintroduce it, observe restoration. This is a controlled experiment by any definition
Isogenic controls — cell lines identical except for the specific sequence being studied
CRISPR editing uses unedited parent lines as controls in every published experiment
Sanger sequencing is validated against known reference sequences as internal controls
"Based on your theoretical hypothesis, like actually make a biologic drug to a specification (impossible in current "synthetic biology" space) - your theory failed."
Counter examples:
Insulin — human insulin has been produced to exact molecular specification in bacterial and yeast systems since 1982. Millions of diabetics depend on it daily. The sequence is specified, synthesized, expressed, purified, and verified to molecular specification every manufacturing batch, what alternate reality do you live in?
Biological Weapons -The M-rna vaccines expressed a cytotoxic spike protein replete with custom side by side prolines in the s2 region of the spike protein designed to ensure a mishaped protein is expressed at the ACe 2 receptor region of the cell surface that is like a magnet to attract prions and form Fibrils, your basic building blocks to amyloid plaques.
i could go on about the SV40 contamination using the CMV mamallian vector in ecoli bacteria in manufacturing to ensure the injections were carcinogenic.
So sadly the M-rna vaccines "worked" very well at murdering and maiming millions. A horrible application of molecular genetics that sadly is a counter example of what you proclaimed "impossible".
You have done nice detective work in showing a corrupted and murderous medical military political complex but your knowledge of basic science appears to leave much to be desired.
Based on your background I don't believe you are that obtuse and may have another motive that I am not aware of.
If you are so smart and can make "human insulin" synthetically (I am spitting my coffee laughing right now), can you make me synthetic apple juice? Should be easy, no? Also, would be nice to make a synthetic Domaine Romane Conti, which sells for tens of thousands per bottle, should be easy-peasy for "synthetic biology" that can make "human insulin" precisely, and one-size-fit-all humans, too! Wow. Except every person's real insulin is unique to them and it's composition likely changes diurnally and with many other factors. Nobody is making "human insulin", silly. They are making a synthetic drugs that act on those pathways. Same with "hormones" or "enzymes" or "vitamins" or anything else produced by synthetic chemical methods. You are not making any "building blocks of life", you are making toxic bullshit cocktails. Do you know how DNA is synthesized? I do. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/breaking-very-bad-how-to-reliably?r=uaapz
It's you live in the alternative reality. Besides being very large-molecule, unstable, synthetic chemical drugs (with some e.coli and other human and animal cells mixed in, depending on what is being made) biologics cannot be manufactured to spec, and are not being manufactured to spec, and there is no FDA manufacturing inspection requirements for biologics, officially, since 2017. Biologics have never been regulated as pharmaceutical products because it is not possible to do with rotting tissues (in case of real tissue derived biologic materials and cultures) or with unstable synthetic piles of garbage (the "synthetic versions"). By the way which set of laws regulate biologics, and when were those laws passed? can you cite that without doing an AI search? Of course, you don't know any of that, why would you... I don't need to convince you of anything, feel free believing your colored balls, zigzags and abracadabra on the computer screen, and "genetic engineering" bullshit, it's really irrelevant to me or to the objective reality what you believe in. Have a great day.
Your DNA article lists reagents used in synthesizing DNA and with zero evidence implies they end up in the final product. On insulin: in 1977 a small group of researchers working out of a warehouse in San Francisco proved you could get bacteria to express a human gene by synthesizing somatostatin from scratch. That proof of concept led directly to human insulin being expressed in E. coli in 1978 and approved for diabetic patients by 1982. it produced human insulin identical to what your pancreas makes, eliminated immune reactions in sensitive patients, and removed the entire industry's dependence on animal pancreas supply. That is not semantics, that is applied molecular genetics solving real clinical problems."That is molecular genetics working exactly as described — not your bullshit semantics, not theory.
Nothing you have posted here has negated my arguments. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child who believes if they can't see something it doesn't exist. Please stop holding yourself out as an "expert" in the medical freedom movement as you are a real embarrassment and frankly harmful as a representative of this movement.
"it's caused by a specific FGFR3 point mutation (G1138A) that has been sequenced, replicated in mouse models, and corrected experimentally"
LOL
You got caught mousing about..... now tell us about causation and correlation and stop throwing jargon around... You are coherent - within the vocabulary that genetics has created. Maybe your work involved torturing mice at some point? For the benefit of....?
What good has genetics brought to humanity? How does that compare to all the evil it is used to prop up? Does evil exist in a science world or is it all just a grey goo?
Quote: “Over the past decade, the scientific literature has expanded dramatically. Researchers are now investigating endocrine disruption, alterations of the gut microbiome, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, metabolic disease, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neuroinflammation, possible effects on autism spectrum disorder and ADHD, chronic low-dose exposure, cumulative exposure to multiple agricultural chemicals, and whether commercial glyphosate formulations behave differently than glyphosate alone.”
Correct me if I am wrong. I am not a molecular geneticist but I have read enough to know that they are treading into dangerous areas without clear understanding of what they are doing. That is what scares me about the work.
a) a study of CRISPR found that there were over 100 other changes to the DNA beyond the desired one(s)
b) Since the number of proteins greatly exceeds the number of genes it implies that RNA+DNA is performing some dance to create all those proteins that we dont fully understand. But they feel justified to insert genes (randomly placed?) and turn them on (no off switch?) without an understanding of how that dance is affected.
c) Studies of genetically modified cells shows they produce heat shock proteins indicating they are under some sort of unnatural stress.
d) then of course all the GMO crops that are impervious to glyphosate pesticides which have known harms: carcinogenic, interrupts shikimate pathway, binding of essential minerals by chelation making them unavailable, disrupting the tight junctions in the gut and blood brain barrier potentially leading to autoimmunity, disruption of the microbiome.
The arrogance of dumping what is essentially a modified amino acid that disrupts protein synthesis into the environment by the mega tons just amazes me. And onto crops just before harvest is criminal.
The BT GMO crops are a similar exercise in arrogance. “Oh, it doesnt affect mammal digestion. Oops, yes it does.”
Then the next insult: instead of rethinking the failing strategy, they create plants that are immune to even more toxic herbicides. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
e) dumping or allowing GMO organisms - bacteria, mosquitoes, etc - into the environment without much understanding of the consequences.
Remember that one of the very first GMO products was Tryptophan which killed people. They quietly took it off the market and blamed it on the amino acid instead of the genetic manipulation process that created it. I was pissed because I had been taking tryptophan for years to deal with insomnia without any problems.
Personally I think this tech should be left in the lab until they know wtf they are doing and can guarantee safety.
a.) When CRISPR cas 9 was first used in research, they saw a lot of off target effects but this has been optimised over time. It is now extremely efficient and specific.
b.) A single gene can create tens to hundreds of different proteins. RNA is also ‘expressed’ (increases/decreases depending on requirement) whereas DNA remains stable, so RNA will always exceed DNA in humans, this is partly how we evolved to be more complex. We did not just simply increase the number of genes, we actually have fewer genes than bananas but we have very high levels of protein diversity.
c.) heat shock proteins are essential for crops, it is probably the mechanism for which they survive under harsh conditions, hence the rationale for selection. This does not worry me.
d.) This one I agree with to an extent - relying on such a specific mechanism does reduce biodiversity and risk the spread of a new resistant weed which then creates a new, more intense cycle. I do think that this is shortsighted and there’s no doubt that increased exposure could cause health concerns and currently regulations may not be adhered to in such extreme climate conditions as rural farmers need high yields just to get by. We need serious action to support farmers globally and invest heavily in organic farming. I am not against GMOs but multiple different avenues should be used as a supplementation for organic farming, not 90% of soya bean farming.
e.) Hard to discuss this without proper information but the L-Tryptophan was a bad batch - nothing to do with the editing itself.
I think this tech will become a necessity as the climate crisis continues unfortunately. I would love for major investments into global organic farming, but this is just not realistic. We need to produce food reliably and the current scope of the climate shows great unpredictability from severe droughts to severe storms. The cost of soft commodities are rapidly increasing and climate change is a big contributor. I know some people deny that climate change is even a thing, but you only have to listen to this whole Greenland debacle whilst looking at a map to see what the people at the top truly believe.
Brilliant work Sid 👏 I can’t believe we have to defend genetics in 2026.. the world is a mess.
Sid, you are completely off your rocker. Not just chimerism, but "tetragametic chimerism". Boy that is mighty impressive!
Normally, a baby comes from one egg and one sperm.
In tetragametic chimerism, a mother releases two eggs, and two different sperm fertilize them. Usually, this would result in fraternal twins. However, very early in the womb, these two separate embryos fuse together into one single baby.
Because the baby grew from two different starting pairs, they are literally their own twin.
Most people with this condition look totally normal and never find out. However, because they have two different sets of DNA blueprinting their body, a few strange things can happen:
• Two Blood Types: They might have one blood type in part of their body and a different blood type in another.
• Patchwork Skin or Eyes: They might have two different colored eyes, or patterns on their skin that only show up under special light.
• DNA Test : Their blood might have DNA "Package A," but their hair or cheek cells have DNA "Package B."
When molecular scientists take a tiny skin sample from the darker patch of skin and a sample from the lighter patch, the DNA matches the physical boundary perfectly. The genetic code changes exactly where the physical traits change. If molecular genetics were "fake," there would be no reason for invisible microscopic patterns in a test tube to perfectly align with visible, physical markers on a human body.
"tetra" comes from the fact that normally in a pregnancy, a baby comes from two gametes: 1 egg + 1 sperm = 2 total. In this unusual condition, the baby is built from four gametes: (1 egg + 1 sperm) + (1 egg + 1 sperm) = 4 total. Those four sex cells create two separate embryos that merge into one person .
Chimeric refers to a mixture of two or more distinct entities in one body, the Chimera, is a beast from ancient Greek mythology. It wasn't just a mix of two things—it was a single monster made of three different animals:
Hope this helps :-)
It doesn't matter how many other studies confirm what they set out to confirm. The bias is there because there is agency and funding behind it and this is proven. Statistical analysis can prove anything. Even if the claims of "edit the genome- see the phenotype change" are true (consensus science is not credible no matter how much it claims to be- as per the statements of heads of the most prestigious journals).
Things are not as simple as that. There are other more complex relationships than one-way causation. Chemically damaging something at the sub-cellular level to produce visible changes in an organism does not mean that that something "causes" those things in vivo and in nature. But of course the Scientism paradigm does not see it as chemical damage but as "editing" because they are wanking with computers. Wanking in this field has lethal consequences called "diagnosis and lethal injection based on PCR test fraud".
My Dad used to say,
When you assume something you end up making an ass of u and me !!!