This virus is udderly cow-culated

Riddle: A virologist, a fetal bovine, and an African green monkey walk into a lab . . .

I am confident readers can detail and complete this riddle more creatively and humorously than I can. Have at it!

In October 2020, I posted a short essay, “The Defense is Rwaawwng.” Therein, I described how Tom Cowan demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could only be grown in poisoned monkey kidney cellsunable to be cultured in human tissue cells. So even if there was a virus, it seems it lacked the capability to infect any human. The entire virus story should have been squashed at that point.

15 months later, Tom Cowan hammers yet another nail into the virology coffin. I will, once again, keep this succinct.

It may be time for a brief primer on FBS. No, FBS is not a syndrome involving irritable bowels (that is IBS!). FBS refers to Fetal Bovine Serum, which is used ubiquitously for in vitro R&D, including the culturing of viruses (inaptly termed isolation) and the manufacturing of vaccines. See this four-minute video depicting how FBS is produced. Essentially (as characterized in the linked video), FBS is a clotted blood growth supplement harvested from pregnant slaughterhouse cows, and subsequently used in cell cultures — so as to provide a cultivation medium (due to its inherent growth factors). Fortunately, the brief aforementioned video describing this heinous process is animated. 

Watch Tom Cowan in his January 28, 2022 webinar destroy any notion that an actual virus has been genuinely identified. At best, it has been udderly cow-culated, as most (if not all) reported findings of SARS-CoV-2 have been developed in vitro in a mathematical compound containing fetal bovine serum (FBS). At worst, the only intact SARS-CoV-2 virus has been a computed AI construct — a fictitious virus solely existing as a computer-generated simulation (which I first posited in April 2020). 

In a nutshell, the illusive SARS-CoV-2 genome is contaminated! Given the confounding process that is utilized to create the genetic soupy mess (supernatant mixed with Vero cells producing dead tissue and cellular debris), the genome will nearly always be tainted. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that any genomic data exists representative of this purported virus that can be trusted. 

To elaborate, based on “borrowed material” from Mike Stone at ViroLIEgy.com, Cowan explained that nearly every viral culture is comprised of FBS, which contains a “diverse repertoire of RNA species” (see Reference #3 below). Even after ultra-centrifugation, some FBS-derived RNA remains, thereby interfering with the “downstream RNA analysis” (see Reference #3 below). Accordingly, once FBS is added to a cell culture, it will invalidate any RNA analysis “forevermore” (as per Cowan). 

FBS-derived RNA contamination invariably leads to misinterpretations of the source of the RNA. Do virologists account for this? 

It is crucial to understand that any reported “sequencing” of the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” can be (and most likely is) befuddled by the presence of fetal calf serum artifacts. 

Given the potential contamination of SARS-CoV-2 “discoveries” by FBS-derived RNA (reminding readers this has only been done in vitro), it must be acknowledged that the genetic material may have been sourced from the host material (FBS in the culture). 

Do you see why any genomic sequencing of a virus culture may be utterly erroneous?

As I also implied in my October 2020 post, if this virus had its day in court, the judge would immediately dismiss the virus on the grounds it was corrupted. It does not exist in any pure, unadulterated form; hence, all data tracing back to its spurious discovery is compromised, ergo suggestive of nullification. 

Summarily expressed in the comprehensive January 1, 2022 article posted at ViroLIEgy.com, “What You Need to Know About ‘Covid-19’ in 2022,” 

The “SARS-COV-2” hoax should have ended before it ever began if the scientific community had been honest about the lack of a purified/isolated “virus.” Without this evidence, there can be no genome. Without the genome, there can be no PCR test. Without the PCR test, there can be no cases. Without the cases, there can be no lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, masks, and restrictions. Without these measures, there will be no reminder of fear and no need for vaccines. Without this evidence, there can be no mandates and thus no control.

Perhaps, now, Tom can joyously go back to organic gardening, and I can resume sticking to humble homesteading. Unfortunately, my gut tells me we have a much longer way to go. In fact, as Tom asserted in his most recent presentation — “we are just getting started.” 

There is still much more to unlearn.

Addendum (February 1, 2022): As per Sally Fallon Morell (via email today, in response to my post), “FBS is removed from the still-living fetus pulled from its mother just before birth. The calf is bled dry while still living. FBS is used in the production of lab meat and as a culture in many biological processes. As it is high in iron, it would be expected to be a good culture for pathogens, and most pathogens are iron-loving. The whole thing is disgusting–witch craft.” I concur with Sally. This is disgusting witch craft. Absolutely horrifying.

References:

1) “The End Of Virology: The 3rd Phase Of Control Experiments For SARS-COV-2”

2) “Genome Contamination a Widespread Problem

Anyone claiming that the existence of a genome is proof of a purified/isolated “virus” is completely mistaken. The contamination of genomes is admittedly a widespread problem and one that is only getting worse. While it is a well-known issue, contamination of the database has not been properly assessed nor corrected. The use of inaccurate and incomplete reference sequences has only further propagated the problem into a vicious perpetual cycle of erroneous genomes built upon erroneous genome.

3) “Fetal Bovine Serum RNA Interferes with the Cell Culture derived Extracellular RNA

Here, using RNA sequencing, we demonstrate that FBS contains a diverse repertoire of protein-coding and regulatory RNA species, including mRNA, miRNA, rRNA, and snoRNA. The majority of them (>70%) are retained even after extended ultracentrifugation in the preparations of vesicle-depleted FBS (vdFBS) commonly utilized in the studies of extracellular vesicles (EV) and intercellular communication. FBS-associated RNA is co-isolated with cell-culture derived extracellular RNA (exRNA) and interferes with the downstream RNA analysis. 

4) “Fetal bovine serum—a cell culture dilemma” (abstract)

5) “Ribonucleic artefacts: are some extracellular RNA discoveries driven by cell culture medium components?

In a recently published study, Anna Krichevsky and colleagues raise the important question of whether results of in vitro extracellular RNA (exRNA) studies, including extracellular vesicle (EV) investigations, are confounded by the presence of RNA in cell culture medium components such as foetal bovine serum (FBS). The answer, according to their data, is a resounding “yes”. Even after lengthy ultracentrifugation to remove bovine EVs from FBS, the majority of exRNA in FBS remained. Although technical factors may affect the degree of depletion, residual EVs and exRNA in FBS could influence the conclusions of in vitro studies: certainly, for secreted RNA, and possibly also for cell-associated RNA.

6) “Gibco FBS – Process”

7) Christine Massey letter to Dr. Mercola

8) Christine Massey letter to Dr. McCullough

9) “Covid-19 Virus Isolation: Where is the EVIDENCE? Sars CoV2, The Trojan Horse in the Room

After extensive review of this subject, it is obvious there are serious flaws with the entire foundational premise and methodologies utilized in the field of virology. In fact, the core problems are so blatant and profound, it is amazing these issues have been so successfully obfuscated from public awareness and scrutiny until now.

Our researchers fully understand it will be nearly unfathomable for many to believe an entire field of science, so central to 20th & 21st century ‘modern’ medicine, is based on pseudo-science and fraudulent isolation standards and methods.  

However, the evidence must be faced on the merits. 

Refutations such as ‘too many people couldn’t be this wrong’ or ‘Sars CoV2 must be real, what about all the people who died’, do not actually address the evidence on the merits.   

Throughout history, there have been many examples when group think and consensus opinion turned out to be completely wrong. 

It is time to get over the belief in truth by consensus opinion as a legitimate barometer of what is real. 

167 thoughts on “This virus is udderly cow-culated

  1. In that eight minute video above, Stefan Lanka said that what people will come to realize is not that the emperor is naked – but that there isn’t even a frickin’ emperor. I like that one!

    Contaminated genome, tainted genome, erroneous genome.

    Okay! But what is the evidence there is any such thing as a genome in the first place? Where and when has the existence of such a doubly twisted genetic punched paper tape of incredible length ever been empirically verified?

    Is it all just a fanciful 1950ies theory inspired by monolithic mainframe mechanics in the dawn of the computer age? A bold hypothesis bolstered by the prestige of a rising paradigm and the certainty of its utter unverifiability without highly specialized equipment?

    So God is a programmer, and Life a program in execution? We feed that genetic punched paper tape to the ribosome, and then – magic! – life takes shape?

    The genome would be the program, the ribosome would be the processor, the result would be Life itself, and – you’ll bet! – thanks to science, Mighty Human is in charge, or rather, Mighty Science, and you better believe it! Mighty Science has control, and can make modifications in a new way. Not the old doggy style way, which has given us all the different doggy races, but the new way with pinpoint accuracy and surgical precision.

    When and where has it ever been proven outside Jurassic Park?

    Given the total lack of successful practical application of modern genetics, the entire theory should be met with the most radical doubt. As I wrote before on this blog, what has to monetized via a fraudulent pandemic directly out of the tax payers’ pockets cannot be much more than a new scheme for selling snake oil. Oh wait, it can: a new scheme of herding sheeple.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “But what is the evidence there is any such thing as a genome in the first place?
      “Where and when has the existence of such a doubly twisted genetic punched paper tape of incredible length ever been empirically verified?
      “A bold hypothesis bolstered by the prestige of a rising paradigm and the certainty of its utter unverifiability without highly specialized equipment?”

      Ditto to those questions, and implications. The virus, as the current example, potentially falsifies everything that is said to underpin that virus’s existence.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In Stephers’ original post, October 2020, the test monkeys seemed to be suffering kidney damage from some toxic effect. https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/10/19/the-defense-is-rwaawwng/

        Jim West also had an even earlier post — way back in August, 2020 — on his blog taking on the non-virus mania. https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/08/viriso.html

        Kudos to Oregon Matt too, and all who have advanced this critical truth in the face of huge enemy fire. The stakes are incredibly high, but my gut tells me it’s just a matter of time before the wheels start to wobble and fall off the Great Virus Hoax. It’s gone on long enough.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Lumi-
      On that Lanka quote, if he’s talking about a paradigm shift to terrain theory(?) then shouldn’t the emperor “exist,” but just turn out to be a stable hand? Or sewage worker? Or pick your metaphor?

      On practical applications of modern genetics, is it not widely used in agriculture? Gene editing, CRISPR, this sort of thing? I’m not knowledgeable in that area, but everyone has heard of its widespread use. And I agree, practical applications and engineering are where the rubber meets the road, when it comes to backing up theoretical claims.

      Are all of those applications being misrepresented, in your view? They’re using conventional means, or somehow blowing smoke around minor tech advances or something?

      Ab/ Fakeologist posted an interesting critique of genetic science a week or so ago. I wish I could remember the author, but it was a one-post blog (at the time) whom I had never heard of.

      Anyway, the author went through the history, back to some early figures of the late 19th Century, who first identified “nuclean” IIRC, or nucleic acid. And some of the “letters” we still hear about in DNA, the A, C, T, G (adenosine, cytosine, thymine, guanine. Some came later.)

      Incredibly, they did all this through very crude (as I read it) chemical experiments. And yet their foundational work held up pretty well, and was merely built on in later decades. Even with great advances in microscopes.

      This writer found that in each case of a seismic advance in genetic theory, there was not really much replication or checking of the results, or additional proofs or evidence, from other scientists. These new discoveries seemed to be immediately taken on board the scientific community, on the flimsiest foundation.

      (Perhaps this is incorrect – surely such discoveries would set off a wave of excitement, attempts to duplicate? I have in fact read about that in other cases – eg, during the Eighties when cold fusion was claimed, many scientists attempted and failed to replicate it.)

      If the writer is correct though, it seems that there are these epochal events in science. One day, Nature (the journal) publishes three or four earth-shaking articles. Of course the date is 11/11/55 or something, and the figures involved have “interesting” backgrounds.

      The groundling scientists cheer and huzzah (I guess?) and begin referring to it all in their own papers as a given. They carry on research as if it’s so (and maybe it is! Or, close enough for rock n roll…)

      It suggests to me that we’re not privy to the real origins of “the science” – whether there are “dark labs” or WHAT behind it all… Who knows… But they have these “controlled releases” to the general science community, and the public, using cover stories and front figures. They control the timing of theoretical and technological advances – and/or the direction of “advances” – the paradigms.

      I don’t say there’s nothing to it. Although whether it’s entirely correct… Maybe they can deliver results/ technology/ engineering without sharing the actual underlying theory? Even with the workaday scientists? Well, now I’m out on a limb, over my head, so I’ll leave it there :^)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for your comment, TimR. It is meaningful to me.

        “On that Lanka quote, if he’s talking about a paradigm shift to terrain theory(?)”

        He’s not, although he might very well do that on other occasions, just not here, where he’s talking about virology, the emperor parading in his new clothes (let’s say Corona clothes, although he’s not being very specific and I’m not going to do an exegesis of his words) – so, Corona clothes which Lanka is going to show as non-existant, and then further to show that there isn’t even an emperor because the whole of virology is unscientific and built on delusions, so there is no science, which is why (at 5:36 in the video) the German Law on the prevention of infectious diseases, which requires everything to be founded in science, must not rely on virology or its claims, but instead dismiss them entirely as erroneous.

        Are all of those applications being misrepresented, in your view? They’re using conventional means, or somehow blowing smoke around minor tech advances or something?

        Absolutely! And precisely! Why would they not submit crop seeds and plants to certain chemicals they sell along with the seeds in order to teach them how to resist to and grow in spite of them? And rinse and repeat like Mendel and dog and horse breeders and conventional crop breeders did and do? It’s a proven concept, after all. It works, all by Nature, with a little selective help from Man.

        But I don’t have expert domain knowledge either. I’ll tell you why I don’t trust their claims.

        In Germany, back in school in the 1980ies, so-called Gentechnik (gene technology) was repeatedly on the curriculum – but not in biology! It was talked about, discussed, debated, pro & con etc, in kinda like ethics classes, which have no clear purpose, used to be filled with religion or philosophy, which then gave way to more modern boring talk-show style discussion à la “Should Man be allowed to play God?” – you get the idea.

        In the US and other countries, such classes may be completely nonexistent, and for very good reasons as they’re a waste of time. But not so in Germany.

        These classes (catch them while they’re young) were mirrored by equivalent discussions and feature magazines in mass media. A quick Google search reveals such discussions in German (Gentechnik, Mensch, Gott), French (génétique, homme, Dieu) and Italian (genetica, uomo, Dio). You guys know best whether or not you have these discussions in your respective countries.

        Anyway, the upshot is that a religious resistance against genetics is nurtured by such discussions. I remember this very well from school days. Well, yes, there could be a point if genetics were actually real. But what progress have we seen in semiconductor and computer technology, and what progress in genetics? An explosion into a new universe in the first case, and nothing much if anything at all in the second.

        But we still have this belief that genetics (as in GMO) is something we have to worry about, something hostile to Creation, and even if you’re not religious at all: something unnatural, with Nature (100% pure and biological, of course) taking the place of God, and genetics the place of Man the usurper (possibly satanic).

        So don’t take this lightly and ponder the evidence: Hardly any progress at all in genetics, and no tangible benefit, actually a complete failure – but still an entrenched, slightly fearful belief in the possibilities and the reality of the underlying science.

        In fact, I see evidence of this every day with all the alternative views and theories spread in the anti-Corona cloud on Telegram. But even mainstream consumers often prefer “biological” and tend to shy away from “GMO”, which is why it is never advertised.

        I’m curious to read that blog post you’re relating in your comment. Sounds so great that I immediately started wondering whether it might be fake itself.

        I do not doubt the reality of nucleic acids or their chaining. And they sure are important for life. For example, one I happened to know about, because of sports and muscles, is ATP – adenosine tri-phosphate.

        What I do doubt (as a programmer) is the idea that the DNA chains contain code that carries the hereditary information that instructs the building of proteines via the ribosomes. It seems way too much calqued on the way computers work.

        Man has always – from the clay figures (think pottery) of the Genesis to our days – taken the most advanced technology in his possession to explain himself to himself.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_life_from_clay

        Like

        1. I agree, when you lay it out that way, it does seem like there is a contrived narrative around DNA science, some sort of grand dialectic that taps into our subconscious and slots us into our roles… Not sure if that necessarily invalidates there being any “real science” behind it all. Hypothetically if it were all “real” (or partly real), all the more reason to manage public perception of it and create one of their famous dialectical schisms…

          True though, it is a little overly neat/ convenient how it maps onto computer metaphors.

          I did find that blog post:
          https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/

          Evidently it’s an amateur/ student who has a skeptical bent, and decided to perform what he calls a “critical check” by looking at the primary sources and origins of the field.

          Like

          1. Thank you for posting the URL of that blog post. I read it yesterday. I haven’t done the research work he or she apparently has done, but it reads like a description of what was done in the history of DNA research followed by some very sound critical thinking. A very good read.

            Erwin Chargaff is mentioned in that blog post. I first heard of him in some of Stefan Lanka’s talks about a year ago. Lanka, IIRC (didn’t make notes and woud need to check), seems to hold him in high esteem as a critic of establishment science.

            I find Chargaff a very interesting figure. He is credited with some of the groundworks that led to the “discovery of the double helix structure”. There are so-called “rules” named in his honour. Turns out these rules are essentially proportions of A/T and G/C in various types of gunk.

            It’s a bit like the von-Neumann architecture in computer architecture: if you bother to look it up, it turns out to be something extremely trivial (common memory for code and data), which by the way is the source of most vulnerabilities in computing.

            Chargaff’s contribution to biochemistry, after all, doesn’t seem impressive. He spent his later years as a dysangelist of genetics, or if you prefer: evangelist of the dangers & perils of genetics. I’m going to post more about him in a new top-level comment below.

            Like

              1. Whow! A lot of threads coming together here. I watched a documentary on von Neumann a couple years ago, maybe even before I learnt the atomic bomb was a hoax. The guy struck me as a complete fraud. About time to draw a prosopographic network map in order not to get lost in this coordinated imposture.

                Like

                1. Ole Syd is basically talking about the founding of cybernetics there. Ole Heinz, the founder of second order cybernetics, once let slip the hustle…

                  Like

                  1. 2 books:
                    Death Object by Akko Nakatani
                    Hiroshima revisited by Michael Palmer

                    Also see Mathis’s analysis,
                    and there’s a video titled “ Nuclear Hoax – Nukes Do Not Exist!” that examines the nuclear test footage

                    Like

                  2. You could also read Anders Björkman’s nuke hoax pages, which are fun to read (if you tolerate his Swedish English):

                    https://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

                    Then, go to Youtube and check out the 1945 USAF videos of napalmed Japanese cities (Tokyo, Kobe, Osaka, Yokohama, you name it). There’s lots of footage. You’ll see the Hiro/Naga look in most of these places.

                    Also, check out detailed ground photos of Hiro/Naga. There are lots of things that are totally incongruent with the claimed shockwave and heat. In fact, thre is no trace of any major detonation. The damage is extensive, not intensive.

                    The so-called nuke dome in Hiroshima in itself, the building ot the trade chamber that has become iconic, made of brick & mortar, entirely and totally disproves any claims of an extraordinary detonation. Even the skeleton of its cupola disproves any claims of extraordinary shockwave & heat.

                    Like

                    1. Also worth remembering that the merry pranksters took special care to celebrate the steaming pile of crap in ci cago with a big FIASCO of Chianti.
                      Repeating myself, they never miss a good joke on us.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. I was blissfully unaware of the fiasco chiantomico in the pile of ci cago. Found it here, probably a canonical story:

                      https://www.cosediscienza.it/gli-ungheresi

                      And from another article (“Leo Szilard, a traffic light and a slice of nuclear history”, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN):

                      After the war, partly disillusioned with the cruel use to which his beloved physics had been put, Szilárd turned toward biology and was an important influence on the pioneering young scientists who were then inaugurating the fledgling field of molecular biology.

                      Nuclear physics, molecular biology. The parallelism had never occurred to me until this very moment although it was sort of present in the Chargaff comment from February 6.

                      Just had a suspicion and Google confirmed: there is even a “field” called quantum biology.

                      Like

                  3. I have a page on the nuclear hoax with links to the books below plus a few others. I might add more from comments on this page.
                    https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html

                    My favourite is this video which basically comprises a pertinently entitled propaganda film, A Tale of Two Cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but where the video-maker has chopped out the Nagasaki part and made it a different tale of two cities, Hiroshima and Tokyo and shows how compellingly similar the profiles of the two bombed cities are.

                    Like

                    1. You don’t believe in nukes but you believe in spaceships, darling?

                      Please don’t get her started on that one …

                      Like

      2. TIMR–this is such a good comment. The technology definitely exists. I think they can do more than we know, not less. I know I will convince no one by just stating it on the internet, but I convinced myself years ago of the reality of these sequences published in GenBank by being part of the process of deriving some sequence (from some animal tissue), submitting it, and seeing how it aligned with other already-published sequences. I’m not saying there isn’t something shady about the particular virus that is the topic of the day, but the general fact of genomes is not invented! It might be manipulated or misrepresented somewhat I guess. But I also believe the great advances in science don’t seem quite organic. It always (often?) seems to be presented as something being found that was being sought. How did they know what they were looking for already? That has always been a question at the back of my mind. Also, the funding structure of science means that SOMEONE is setting the agenda of what goes on in science. That is worth looking into. These days science to me is looking more like “scientific” tasks that are done in service of a (somewhat hidden) agenda of engineering something that is already planned, but needs to be worked out. It is NOT a bunch of enquiring minds just trying to figure out the world. The Human Genome Project for example was a PROJECT, not an investigation. Maybe “science” is the “Great Work?” I don’t know.

        Like

        1. Hope Springs-

          “by being part of the process of deriving some sequence (from some animal tissue), submitting it, and seeing how it aligned with other already-published sequences.”

          Can you please be specific here. How did you derive the sequence from the animal tissue? What tools, programs, hardware, whatever?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. OregonMatt–This is not in-depth, and it was years ago, so I will not remember this or that buffer solution, or this and that step, but very basically, I was (working at a very small institution on a very small research project) taking bird livers, mashing them up, mixing them with proper buffers to break down the cells into their component parts / and spinning down in centrifuges to get the segment of the cells that is DNA. Then, (after a bit more processing) it is put through a DNA sequencing machine (that my small institution was able to purchase) and sequence was read out by the machine. It is much more complex, and you can actually read up on the process if you want and get far superior explanations than that. This was more basic than the processes currently used, but will be in principle the same. I then took the sequence, and entered it into the GenBank database, and lo-and-behold, it matched up to the correct bird and the correct portion of DNA I was focused on. Again, this is just my word, but the work I was doing and the institution I was at was just way too peripheral to the science world for this to all be some part of an extremely elaborate scam. I have said this on this blog before, but I think the focus on everything being fake is really not going to get you to the truth. I think most everything being corrupted and some things being stage shows, and most of the news being to varying degrees part of a massive propaganda operation is closer to reality (from my own personal perspective).

            Like

            1. Hope Springs, that is an interesting account. Some questions:

              (1) What was the objective of that research project on bird livers?
              (2) What was the layman’s or Latin name of that “correct bird”?
              (3) Where can we find a publication relative to the study done years ago?
              (4) What was the name and model of the DNA sequencing machine used in the study?
              (5) What do you mean by “correct portion of DNA”?
              (6) As you were focused on that portion: Why were you focused on it, and how was it relevant or suspected of being relevant?
              (7) What was the name of that peripheral institution?
              (8) What was the year the study was conducted?

              I fully agree with you that “the focus on everything being fake is really not going to get you to the truth.” I would say that most stuff is not fake, but most stuff dealt with on this blog might well be. Such imprecise talk about most stuff is quite meaningless, of course. We need to be specific to make a point.

              Like

              1. Hi Lumi–I could answer all those questions (except the name and model of the sequencer–gone from memory. Possibly Google could help me with that–it was an earlyish model.) However–I left it vague as I’d like to remain slightly anonymous–just my preference. I can say though, that you can maybe just look at the sheer numbers of people who are working in the field of genetics/molecular biology/biochemistry etc, that are doing these sorts of things day in and day out, and I can tell you, again from experience, that most of them are very intelligent, yet not intelligent enough to each be a secret agent faking everything they do. There could certainly be gaps in understanding of the real implications of things, but the actual technical stuff is definitely happening. I find DNA to be very very fascinating, and the things that can be done with it both amazing and sinister. It is the code to the program that is us. And I think that beyond the natural human desire to understand our world and ourselves, SOMEone is really wanting to gather all that genetic information that is swirling around the face of the earth–in order to accomplish SOMEthing.

                Like

                1. SOMEone is really wanting to gather all that genetic information that is swirling around the face of the earth–in order to accomplish SOMEthing.

                  In your opinion, as someone who has worked in the field and knows her way around the labs and the jargon:

                  How is collecting “all that genetic information that is swirling around the face of the earth” different from collecting, say, 4096 bit numbers (or even arbitrary length numbers) matching (or not) a certain set of patterns? Because, you see, according to genetics, the entire miracle of Life is shifted into the ribosomes, with the DNA only providing instructions. Why would you want to collect instructions if you do not dispose of the processor?

                  And – here’s another big question! – does the processor work the same in every species? Does it even work the same in each individuum of a species? Is the code of Life compatible across species, or even within one?

                  As a computer programmer, I am so curious about how this works.

                  Like

                  1. Lumi–you are giving me very challenging questions as I haven’t really done these things or worked in the field for years–but I do love to be thinking about it again.

                    I’m thinking you are placing too much importance on the ribosome. The ribosome is really just a translating machine. (Maybe think of it as a 3-D printer?) Though I think they vary from organism to organism, and cell type to cell type, I think they would be fundamentally quite similar as they perform a very basic function of cellular life.

                    The DNA encodes the information for building the entire organism in a relatively stable format. There is then a process of copying (transcribing) small sections of the DNA to produce short copies called mRNA. These mRNA are “readable” (translatable) by the little cellular machines called ribosomes.

                    The particular bits of the DNA sequence that are being read at any one time are very particular to the cell-type and current environmental inputs (while the overall DNA sequence should be basically stable throughout the organism). Epigenetics looks at these changes to the DNA that don’t actually alter the genome sequence, but effect which bits are actually read, and therefore relevant to the cell/organism. There are complex and amazing mechanisms of shutting down sections of DNA that are not needed by a particular cell-type or at a particular time.

                    So the appropriate messages are copied into short bits called mRNA which then go to ribosomes to be “translated” into strings of amino acids, which then go on to be further processed and folded into unique 3-D shapes (proteins) which are the 3-D building blocks of life.

                    I’m not sure I understand your question about collecting numbers–the best I can say is that I think the code of life (DNA) is so very complex in the many manifestations that can come from only small changes to the sequence or the epigenetics, etc, that it perhaps is more complex information than our current computers can calculate/replicate?? Maybe?

                    Someone who interests me and might interest you is James Shapiro (not the Shakespeare scholar–the biologist) He sees evolution as a sort of self-directed process, rather than Darwinian selection of randomly occurring mutations. He talks about the read-write genome. As a computer programmer, you might understand this better than I do! I know pretty much nothing of programming.

                    Like

              2. You can consider the everything real is perceived through a lens of judgements and interpretations that delivers a result.
                Garbage in; garbage out is a new expression for as you sow so shall you reap.
                The basis for thought is its acceptance and extension as value.
                Shared value grows a richness of capacity for appreciation or living integrity.
                The mind can also think in its own image, as self-projections rather than living extension. Self-projections seek validation and reinforcement as the minds of those who share in them. Hence we have a segregative and an integrative capacity. One is innate, and the other acquired or learned.
                To look through a self-illusion will in a sense be ‘lied to’ in all that it thinks to see. Yet the release of such thinking allows innocent perception to use the abilities of a self-illusory development for the healing or undoing of error to truth revealing. True with-ness and worth-ship is qualitative but aligns practically to any specific situation. So in that sense staying with and staying open, allows the Field of being to realign the energetic coherence of innate function as our particular gift of being, to the whole.
                This alignment has physical and tangible result at a level of order our thinking blocks, for synchronicity of resonance is not a linear separation of a cause from its effect. But in such a construct, we have a specific focus through which to explore and experience facets of Totality or Infinity through a seeming dissociation and separation. That can operate as an oppositional polarity to Everything As Is, or All That I Am.
                Hence we need multiple perspective as shared wit and with-ness so as to transcend the binary mindset of reality as image and form, or indeed as theory and model.
                Polarised identity seeks (a lost sense of) control.
                By means that reinforce covert identity.

                Like

        2. Hope Springs-
          We seem to be on a very similar page. What you write about it “not being inquiring minds,” that it’s pre-determined projects, top down, etc. You have a huge advantage over me having worked in labs though and observed the “sociology of science” at first hand. As a complete layperson, I can only try to get a peek at that world, say by reading books like “Disciplined Minds.”

          I wonder what you make of “Tartarian theory,” if you’ve heard of it? Full disclosure, I’ve hardly looked at it, just heard “Steve from Spacebusters” bring it up in a Fakeologist podcast. But it grabbed me because it fit with what I was saying about that “Critical Check” paper (linked above.)

          As I understand it, it proposes that there are regular population reduction events – mass floods, natural disasters of some kind – every x number of centuries. And that a small group of humans (elite families, secret societies) have managed to retain continuity across these events. They are able to plan for and predict the next catastrophe, and take shelter while the rest of humanity is wiped out.

          Then, in the apocalyptic aftermath, presumably they would “resurface” or return, and begin managing the ragtag band of survivors. They would retain the experience and knowledge of past eons, and release it to the public in managed chunks. They would rebuild society, and develop the social and physical infrastructure to continue advancing their research – using a subset from the general public for the drudge work of science, as Francis Bacon described.

          (I may be butchering the “official” Tartarian theory, since I only heard a fragment. This is an awkward sketch as I have so many tangents or ideas about it that I haven’t really had a chance to weigh.)

          It’s very fantastical of course, but it’s interesting to consider, as it (or some framework roughly on those lines) seems to answer so many mysteries about history, science, etc.

          Like

          1. TIMR–(I just wrote a comment and it failed to post and I lost it –aagh!) Anyway, I’ll try again: I haven’t read Disciplined Minds, but I have heard of it and suspect it’s pretty insightful. I have often thought that just the level of detail on one tiny topic that scientists must spend years on to earn a PhD might do something to the brain. Like eyes focused on tiny detail for too long. I have heard of Tartaria but know little about it. From what you’ve said though, it does sound kind of interesting, at least to think about. I guess it would fit with the current (as I see it) attempted depopulation event combined with what seems to be a desire to compile as much genetic information as possible (before it is all lost?). I am particularly interested in your reference to Francis Bacon–will have to read up again on him–do you mean he described using a subset of the population to do scientific drudge work, or do you just mean “science, as Francis Bacon described”? Thanks!

            Like

            1. Sorry, I knew that was too unclear. I just recall reading a quote from Bacon, where he talks about approaching science in an organized way, compiling and analyzing vast reams of data about nature. Yes, it will be guided by questions, experiment, curiosity – but there will be a lot of tedious work that it wouldn’t make sense for an individual scientific “genius” (in earlier times) to undertake. The “Great Work” or enterprise will benefit from a kind of bureaucratic scale and sheer volume of facts sifted, rather than the scattered efforts of eccentrics and lone geniuses. Something to that effect… And to answer specifically, I guess the latter, he was describing his vision for science; I’m sure he never said the whole population is necessary just to produce that subset of scientific drudges :^)

              Like

        3. Hope Springs,

          I convinced myself years ago of the reality of these sequences published in GenBank by being part of the process of deriving some sequence (from some animal tissue), submitting it, and seeing how it aligned with other already-published sequences.

          as per your answer on February 3, 2022 at 1:05 pm you prefer to not reveal your name by pointing to that bird liver study you mentioned (which is perfectly understandable given that this is a small but radical DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM community far outside of what’s acceptable to the mainstream): Can you point us to a study that led to one of the “other already-published sequences” so that we know what that kind of study looks like?

          Like

          1. Well, the human genome project is the big one! And any time since then that someone takes a human sample, sequences the DNA, and enters that sequence into GenBank and it aligns with the published reference sequence, it is the same idea I was describing. My study was in no way ground-breaking or particularly interesting. It was just very important to me to convince me of the reality and meaningfulness of the sequences in GenBank–because I personally went through the process.

            Like

            1. -How you phrased this comment is very interesting. Unless you’re being sarcastic, you appear to accept the “reality” of the Emperor having his clothes on (human genome > Genbank project expressing legitimate science). To then get validation of your own copycat-style research, you simply put your gunk into some cute little sequencing machine that tells you that the Emperor (Genbank) gives his approval. A perfect circular “science”set-up that allows virology (and other things) continued existence.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. I’d like to see Cowan or Kaufman debunk the Lateral Flow Test – a landfill generating home kit, which is increasingly being used to prolong the state of emergency and a never ending “casedemic” – which is why they are “free”.
    The only “insight” into how it works is in this video, which leaves me rather sceptical to say the least!

    Like

    1. GD,

      This may jump start a conversation (albeit tangential to “debunking”): https://www.lebeauhealth.com/post/a-lethal-component-in-home-test-kits. The linked analysis is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lateral flow tests.

      I have more to say about the tests, with regard to recent recalls, as well as quantum dots. I will work on detailing this a bit in the next day or two, and drop in the comments thread.

      Moving forward, I think the focus should be on the lateral flow tests, as it seems they are swiftly becoming ubiquitous in homes (and yes, landfills!). I am basing this assertion simply by the increasing number of friends and family members who seem to be consistently relying on these potentially dangerous bionanotech-enabled devices.

      Like

      1. GD,

        Along the same lines as my comment above (again, not directly addressing the issue of “debunking” its utility) . . . It seems Jon Rappoport posted about the potentially dangerous lateral flow tests on December 30, 2021: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/12/30/new-covid-at-home-test-dangerous-and-misleading-but-everybodys-doing-it-so-who-cares-right/ (almost verbatim from the link above).

        Most interesting, though, is a comment in the thread by “the Watchman”:

        The Watchman says:
        December 31, 2021 at 11:25 pm
        Jon, ‘was doing a little more research on sodium azide. If you read Abbott’s SDS on sodium azide it sounds basically harmless, However their SDS PPE recommends: Protective clothing. Safety glasses. Gloves.

        https://manuals.plus/abbot/binaxnow-covid-19-ag-card-reagent-safety-data-sheet#binaxnow_covid-19_reagent_safety_data_sheet

        Now read Fisher Scientific’s SDS and you get quite a different story

        https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/20960.htm

        In both cases they have the same identifier for an SDS number

        Also if you look at the instructions for using the kits –

        https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download

        BINAXNOW COVID-19 AG CARD (PN 195-000) – INSTRUCTIONS FOR
        USE IN195000 Rev. 2 2020/12

        Page 3 specifically states:

        1. All components of this kit should be discarded as Biohazard waste according to Federal, State and local regulatory requirements.

        Now look at the instructions in the home kit they send out:

        https://www.fda.gov/media/144574/download

        BinaxNOW™ CARD HOME TEST IN195100 Rev.3 2021/03

        page 4

        1. Dispose of kit components and patient samples in household trash.

        So in 4 months time it went from disposing as a bio-hazard waste to just dump it in the trash!!!

        Sincerely, the Watchman @

        https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/

        Subsequent to the aforementioned comment is an insightful comment by “Stubbers”:

        Stubbers says:
        January 1, 2022 at 11:14 am
        Here in Ontario Canada they sent the kids home with these BIOHAZARDS! Made by BTNX.

        They stated Contain animal matter, treat as bio hazard! Pretty much the same as the abbot. With no mention of the biohazard I found the MSDS sheet. So they contain Sodium Azide and small amounts of antigens or antibodies … Does that mean these contain the virus? What happens to the accumulation of these going into landfill?

        Test devices: Strips inside the housing contain small amounts of chemicals (proteins, surfactants, biological buffers, salts, carbohydrates, polymers, latex particles and preservative (sodium azide)) and small amounts of antibodies or antigens as active ingredients of the detection reaction, conjugated to latex particles or immobilised on the test line regions.

        Like

      1. XS,

        While we have seen these important analyses before, I appreciate you re-visiting/re-posting them. Hopefully, two years into this scam, we can perceive this information with keener insights.

        The first PDF circles us back to David Crowe’s seminal paper outlining the issues with antibody testing (his final update was in May 2020, before his tragic and untimely passing): https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/AntibodyTestingForCOVID.pdf.
        From p. 5: Since antigens are viral proteins the obvious place to obtain them would be from purified virus. However, since COVID-19 virus has never been purified, this is currently impossible.
        In lieu of this, traditional, impure materials (e.g. nasal swab) would be added to a cell culture, and proteins that were believed to be viral would be purified and used as antigens. But in modern tests most antigen proteins are ‘recombinant’, produced artificially from the published 30,000 base RNA sequence believed to be COVID-19.
        So, once again, we are back to antigen proteins/antibodies artificially and digitally derived from (mis)cow-culated sequencing and an erroneous (potentially cow-curated) genome.

        Like

        1. Thanks for the Crowe paper, Stephers. I was trying to get to the bottom of any connection between people who exhibited any kind of symptom [and the latest “variant” now has a whole spectrum of ailments, much wider than the original ones, which will send the brainwashed masses to get themselves tested…] and a positive LFT result. Clearly something is triggering [or not] this “black box” equipment with its magic antibody strip.
          Andrew Cowan says some interesting things about RNA at the very end of this recent video [from about 52mins] which are above my pay grade and verge on wild speculation yet seem plausible in explaining what we are excreting when we are ill and how these excretions might be picked up in either Antigen or PCR tests.
          https://www.bitchute.com/video/GX4aYwY40CLK/
          Earlier on Kaufman, in the same video, touches on the huge proportion of “junk DNA” in our genome which probably is far from junk.
          David Crowe writes about “Covid-19 RNA” which is what I suspect Andrew Kaufman is talking about here.

          Like

    2. Hope Springs:

      Food for thought along your line @17:00 timestamp. TPTB are on offence with specific goals. Or so it seems to me.

      Like

  3. Invest big in landfills. It’s a sure bet, as everything ends up there…. after sitting in a garage, parked in some desert or in a rented storage space (hedge funds are already all over this one) for a number of years.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Love your creative title and intro! (I’m going to think on a good addition to your riddle hehe). It is excellent to see this fine effort in continuing the serious examination of all of virology and beyond. For me it is in those AHA categories where things finally start to make some sense. And, it is easy to sum up beyond the simple and typical greed/control/power/all hail SCIENCE angles into another, very common, but less discussed foible of the mind—that of confusing the map with the territory.

    Like

  5. Way back in March or April of 2020, my dentist appeared to examine me looking like a movie freak, face completely covered and a pointed mask to boot. I said to him at one point that “The PCR test is the virus.” He might have looked at me like I am a loony, but who could tell. I could not see his face!

    I stand by that now almost two years later, that without the test(s) there is no virus. But it was calculated and planned to be that way! They know this. I grew up thinking doctors are really smart people, but now think they are really smart and deeply indoctrinated people, their sleep-deprived education the basis for systematic brainwashing. Even my hand therapist, a very nice gal, is under it all. I showed her a mask I wear (our faces are maybe a foot apart as she does her work) when the people who see it are not holding scalpels or otherwise inflicting pain on me … “This mask is useless.” She immediately said that fabric masks do not work well. I responded that I had only seen one study (Danish) with a large sample, a control group and run by professional statisticians that studied the effectiveness of masks, and it concluded they make no difference. I hate to cite that study, as it relied on bogus PCR testing for its conclusions. If I say that, I contradict myself. The Danish mask study is bogus.

    Yesterday I spent time transcribing Patrick Michaels and Terence Kealey regarding the state of science these days and going back to Vannevar Bush in the 1950s wherein they passed legislation that created government funding of most university science, which has now led to John Ioannidis and others saying that (actually the title of his paper) “most published research findings are false.” Science itself is challenged, and we should not now rely on it to produce honest research. I’ve had difficulty understanding how a field like virology can be completely corrupt. It is easy to see – the money demands it! (I know maybe eight people now who have exhibited symptoms of some sort, sniffles, stomach issues and the like, who run to get tested for Covid and test positive! The correlation is 100%! What I am wondering is if the people who collect data while doing the test make a note that there are symptoms, which then triggers the bogus positive result. I cannot think of any other way that a virus that does not exist turns up in symptomatic people without fail.)

    Anyway, we’ve had maybe seven inches of new snow, more to come today, and temperatures hovering around zero, “Montana cold” as I call it. I get to put on my snow suit and dig out, something I love doing. I need to live in a place that has seasons even as my wife loves the ocean. Maybe we can compromise in a place that offers both … Alaska?

    Like

  6. Yes, Mark, Covid tests, as you have said from the beginning are the pandemic, if that word actually has any meaning. Was it your exploration of the PsA test for prostate cancer, as I am trying to recall, that put you on the scent of the PCR Covid test fail? Obviously, we are surrounded by fakery (perpetrated by elitist psychopaths and sociopaths) and propaganda, but you nailed it very early on. I am most grateful for your diligence and and most thoughtful discernment skills. And so are random readers, participants and followers of your (POM) blog which includes a pretty impressive list of counties around the world — not all English-speaking either, I might add. This is all highly valuable to all 2.0 primates and should never be taken for granted. Until the lights go out I will remain a big fan of all you have accomplished here. Ciao!

    BTW, -15 degrees just North of Bozeman this morning. With the wind chill it’s too cold to go skiing even though overnight laid down 5 inches of fresh 4% powder. That is “Montana cold.”

    Like

    1. Right on, Steve. This “damned-demic” has just about blown itself out like any other storm…except, real storms are “for real” and this bullshit has no end to it’s limit. My question is….When are people going to wake up ? Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected in the first place ? Hmmm.

      Like

        1. How deep can we allow…
          the body’s obvious inability to protect us is the best defence the ego has against the recognition of God or knowledge by which it is undone.
          Just as the mask locks the fear of contagion in the mind of the wearer as a mind-virus false flagged to evidenced asserted real, so invested fears operate as ‘defences’ that DO the thing they are supposed to protect against.
          This is painfully obvious when looking at the ‘ego’ of a blind fear set as control over its world. But also meets the incapacity to hear or receive such information, until there is a fundamental stirring as willingness to re-evaluate even deeply invested identity – which is of course deeply unsettling.

          The pathological mindset projects its unowned fears onto anything and everything in belief it is protecting Self rather than the mask of a temporary sense of control in delay, limitation and conflict.

          Like

  7. A virologist, a fetal bovine, and an African green monkey all arrived a bit late to the lab for work.

    “Ok, my friends, let’s get busy”, said the virologist cheerfully, “The cafeteria is waiting for the soup of the day”.

    Liked by 2 people

        1. OM,

          That dark humor is heinously malevolent. Very difficult for me to watch. Apparently, “No Pressure” (https://screamer.wiki/No_Pressure) was a real PSA (released in 2010) produced on behalf of 10:10 (https://www.1010global.org/global/about/inside-1010-global/) – which is now called Possible: https://www.wearepossible.org/about-us. See the funders/partners of Possible here: https://www.wearepossible.org/funders-and-partners.

          Despite reportedly being pulled off the air within one day of its release, the revolting short is still listed on imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2363124/), as well as on the profile listing of one of its co-writers, Franny Armstrong (under her Writer credits https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1671943/?ref_=tt_cl_wr_1).

          It’s appalling to me that the film creators (and the 10:10 organization!) deemed it funny and appropriate.

          So, yeah, that is gross.

          Like

          1. I have to acknowledge to all here that I saw this video as a funny (though bloody) indictment of the climate alarmist mindset. It was not until I looked up this Franny Armstrong that I realized I had it backwards. She does want me dead, if I’m “unwilling” to participate in the 10/10 (now renamed Possible) movement. Death by explosion, no less….. Link to her in 2009: “https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/01/franny-armstrong-10-10”

            Like

  8. I have to ask, why do we have to endure Lanka and Associates in broken English? I get that these are Germans and that English is a second language, but at the same time, the technology is well advanced, called captions? We get to endure Fuehllmer (sp), obviously a plant and slow walker, and his English is good. And then Lanka, but we have to put our ears to our devices and replay – who in the hell can he reach using English that we can only barely comprehend? In this manner, is Lanka also a plant? He is sure in the hell not reaching anyone in the English speaking world, and absence of captions makes him unintelligible.

    Like

    1. Here a video where you hear Lanka talk, first time I hear and see him, just like his host and friend Tom Cowan, both I only knew by name.

      In the intro Cowan makes an ok joke that in the situation must have sounded funny, but he didn’t lead it in well and laughed about his own joke while his guest didn’t. Not a great start, but he is a unicornologist, not a podcaster.

      Lanka’s accent indeed is heavy, but to my ears sounds genuine. I have met (too) many Germans of his age who speak like this.

      Someone whose German accent does not sound genuine, no surprise considering he was trained by Hollywood, is Wernher von Braun. He has a strange, unnatural mix, which just sounds fabricated.

      That is not how Lanka sounds to me, but ask Barb, she can tell better.

      Like

      1. I disagree about Wernher von Baun’s German accent. It’s 100% genuine. From the following 1968 clip, where he is selling the Apollo program to the American public, doing propaganda work like a political pundit and clearly able to play the role (which is outside the science & engineering domain), you can immediately assess two things:

        (1) After having lived in the USA for 22 years, he still has a German accent. Not heavy, but noticeable. (Some people care about imitating the native accent, others don’t. Some people are good at articulation, others aren’t. Some don’t even hear how their own accent differs from the native one.)

        (2) His English – in terms of grammar, vocabulary, syntactical structuring, thought shaping – is very good, just as you would expect it to be. In fact, far better than many native speakers.

        Wernher von Braun interview regarding the Apollo program, 1968-03-22

        Like

    2. Mark, do you speak any foreign language better than Lanka’s English is? I don’t think so because then you’ll get a kind of flexibility or intuition and would understand others even if they only speak a so called broken language. If you think you speak a language try to make a crossword riddle in that language. That is the best test.
      Some people just can’t pronounce words in other languages properly as some people can’t remember faces or can’t sing or can’t repeat a rhythm. It does not mean of course Lanka can’t read English. that is a totally different set of skills. When I started (mostly here) commenting in English blogs I also was very unsecure how to express myself. I still make many errors I don’t see as such even though I know the spelling. On the other side, if you live in a foreign country for years and have to use the language every day you’ll become fluent. That’s why Reiner Füllmich speaks good. He lives partly in USA and partly in Germany. He owns a farm somewhere in the USA. Practice makes perfect. I know people who speak a dozen of languages, none of them good, but they understand immediately what everybody says to them. I still can read cyrillic alphabet a little bit and I’m able to read shields in Greece as in Bulgaria too.

      Like

      1. I’d like to point out two Germanisms in the last two sentences:

        “I know people who speak a dozen of languages, none of them good, but they understand immediately what everybody says to them. I still can read cyrillic alphabet a little bit and I’m able to read shields in Greece as in Bulgaria too.”

        None of them well, not good. (Adverb statt Adjektiv)

        Read signs, not shields. (Der Schild heißt shield, das Schild heißt sign.)

        But I’m sure most people will have understood anyway from the context.

        Like

    3. I agree Lanka’s accent is quite heavy. On the other hand, as a German, I do not find him hard to understand when he speaks English. Then, I’m used to hearing lots of foreign accents in English, as many people in Europe. English isn’t endemic 🙂 anywhere on the continent. Maybe you simply lack training in that regard?

      Lanka is definitely not a plant. He’s doing the best he can. When he speaks German he also has a regional South-Western accent which can be heard when he speaks English, too. His phrasing in German is often clumsy, and I can see that, in his head, he translates clumsy German literally into English, which makes it even more problematic. Language is not his forte. All in all, his demeanour & behaviour when talking (or writing, for that matter) – German or English – are not as you’d expect from a typical scientist.

      After all, so what? It’s a bit like complaining that the silver plate you’re being served your meal on is scratched and unpolished. No big deal, in my opinion, when you’re hungry.

      Like

      1. the problem there is, this people still have to make some money for a living. Lanka sells a paper where he and others write excellent scientific information in German. Some of it he publishes for free on http://wissenschafftplus.de/ (a word game meaning knowledge creates surplus which in German sounds like “science-plus”). He also gives seminars and many people pay for it. Tom Cowan may not need any money anymore, not sure about that, but he tells this as his own version of this new knowledge. If you only know Tom Cowan you’d never know about Stefan Lanka. The mainstream on the other side is full of people that don’t have to work for money. Even the main protagonists, Fauci, Drosten, Gates or the “Türke aus Mainz” (Lanka calls him that) Ugur Sahin don’t need to work for money. They all make money for the mainstream of course and even get paid for this but they never in their life had to make savings for future. That is the reason, why the mainstream can so easy sell his version and the independent folks constantly kind of fight with each other and hardly convince anybody. Except for people like us who are eager for knowledge. People who invented religions knew this from the beginning and knew how to become unbeatable.

        Like

        1. Wissen schafft plus. A play on words that is either lost on most people because the word is too long, or perceived as lame, which it is. Another indicator that language is not Lanka’s forte. He could need some help in that regard because what he has to say is so important.

          Like

  9. I’ve developed an eye for this and can tell a real dinosaur from a fake one when I see them on TV. (my favorite joke). The term “virologist” still sounds scientific. I prefer to think of them as “astrologists” although astrology may be more scientific than virology is. There is no way to unlearn something. People still didn’t unlearn the mosaic religions even though we can completely debunk them as fake. In the Christian world many people still go to churches, participate in church masses, etc. but they mostly only pretend to believe. I don’t think an educated person can honestly claim to believe in a religion but only a very few will openly admit that. That’s how Richard Dawkins make his money. People buy his books and that way they don’t have to admit it themselves. There are new religions now, which just are not called that yet. There is this Believe in News which is a world religion. The Corona cult is only a sub-religion derived from the News religion. That’s how I see this things.

    Like

  10. On my employment website there is a vax verify tab. We were asked to submit the proof of vaccination and a photo of the vaccine card. Many did that same week the OSHA verdict came back, and a day later corporate communication told us that we no longer have to input that information. Seems like they asked to soon, not sure if there could be a lawsuit on that issue. Employees now are not required, but can still volunteer their information. The vax verfiy tab has not been removed.

    On my State’s employment website where people would apply for unemployment, there is a vax verify tab. It has not been removed…. hmm.

    Seems that even though all mandates are being dropped and everything is going back precovid, the option to make vaccination a requirement is still in the cards, otherwise why not remove the vaccine verify tabs to input one’s immunization information…

    Like

    1. Greg,

      Hello from Puget Sound! I start my 5th or 6th gig with Going tomorrow (work week starts on a Friday)..
      And I told them I have Not been “vaccinated”!

      No problem!!! 🙂

      Hallowed Be Thy Name 🙂

      I’m going to find the finest Michelin-rated seafood restaurant in town!

      🙂

      Like

  11. ^^^ Pertinent and timely ^^^

    Published by Tom Cowan today (February 4, 2022):

    I’m thrilled to announce the first public launching of Stefan Lanka’s work. His findings, along with the work of an independent mathematician prove that the original SARS-COV-2 genome cannot be sequenced. You can read it here: https://bit.ly/3rqoDd0.

    From p. 3 of the first PDF: Evidence is lacking that only viral nucleic acids were used to construct the claimed viral genome for SARS-CoV-2. Further, with respect to the construction of the claimed viral genome strand, no results of possible control experiments have been published. This is equally true for all other reference sequences considered in the present work. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, an obvious control would be that the claimed viral genome cannot be assembled from unsuspected RNA sources of human, or even other, origin.

    Like

  12. Kaufman and Bigtree, buddies with a difference of opinion. Kaufman the psyop is at it again creating confusion by appearing with Bigtree. Leaving it up to the viewers to pick sides. Bigtree’s association with Sasha Stone put him in the psyop category for me way back. Bigtree’s stance that viruses exist is telling of his psyop leanings.
    Kaufman should stop appearing on The Alex Jones Show and with flat earthers sites for instance. Is he trying to discredit himself and everything else he says by associating himself with very questionable people. I say yes, it is the psyop way. Keeping people dazed and confused. Also Kaufman can stop with the typical psyop production videos with the weird background music and meaningless animated covid balls images. And he is silent about anything Israel, or what Alison McDowell is talking about. Here again guilty by omission. His close buddy Cowan can also stop with the merchandising of $179.00 EMF wands and bags of rocks for $59.00. Cowan’s close connection to Kaufman is unsettling to me. They should be more like Alison and stop associating with the wrong people, stop with all the theatrical videos and the cheesy merchandizing. They lose credibility in my mind. Do not get me wrong I think germ theory is a hoax for sure and I am all in with terrain. Just don’t risk your ability to convince the general public by your style of video production, or the questionable people you associate with.
    The four bottles of water on the table was a strange thing for me too. What are they enticing the viewers to do by drinking this water. Water manufactured by Empire. I never drink bottled water for various reasons, with off gassing and plastic leaching a main concern. I am even more leary now to drink bottled water than before when the unvaccinated are definitely targets by Empire to get their specky little nanoparticle into their bodys. Bottled water would be an easy way to put nano or other unwanted particles to do it for the consumption by the unassuming masses. It seemed strange that they were promoting bottled water in this video. Just saying!
    https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/videos/the-truth-about-an-evening-with-del-bigtree-and-andrew-kaufman-m-d/

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Gino,

      {I apologize in advance, as this comment turned out to be VERY long!}

      No sacred cows here, right?! (Sorry, had to throw in a little bovine humor!)

      I appreciate your keen insights, and will watch the linked video of Kaufman and Bigtree. It was not on my radar.

      Meanwhile, I just posted in the thread a video of Cowan and Merritt. Notably, Merritt is consistently presenting herself with a virtual background of a carbon nanotube (AKA graphene sheet rolled into a tube), and she is selling carbon nano (C60 fullerenes) purportedly for health (https://www.themedicalrebelshop.com/#/). This ironic high strangeness is not lost on me. Regardless, something seems amiss with these individuals placed in our sphere of influence (even if and when they nullify a contagious virus). As you said, they are omitting.

      My question is . . . when are these individuals going to acknowledge the real cause of COVID? Simply put – that would be nano-biocytoxicosis (https://pieceofmindful.com/2021/04/23/confessions-of-an-engineered-nanoparticle/) – an inflammatory disorder caused by novel engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) being commercially produced and distributed/utilized globally since October 2019 (Note: This was occurring before the fall of 2019, but prior to amping up EMFs via 5G and beyond, as well as the ubiquitous application of LEDs/blue light – which also serve to modulate and interface with the nanotech).

      Even in the context of the increasing rate of “collapsing athletes,” no one is thinking outside the vax box. Did you know that artificial turf is sprayed with nanoparticle coatings? That is just the tip of the iceberg, though.

      From February 2013: https://www.scientific.net/AMR.662.186 (abstract only).
      Nanotechnology have [sic] wildly been applied in sports engineering, such as sports stadiums, field turf, racks, sports-wear, equipments [sic] and supplement [sic]. This may greatly change the present situation of sports and promote the advance of athletic sports, creating a lot of opportunity for the increase of the record of athletic sports.

      Also from February 2013: https://www.scientific.net/AMR.662.190 (abstract only).
      With the development of Nano research, many excellent performances of nanotechnology are discovered. And the space for application is enlarged. Competitive sports may become another new area for the application of nanotechnology. According to the study of sports facilities and equipments, training and sports scientific instruments, sports fatigue mechanism and recovery, sports injury and nutritional supplements, genetic material, this paper states the application prospects of Nanotechnology, a high-end technology in future competitive sports development. Further more, it strives to provide theoretical support for the future competitive sports development in technological innovation so as to impel the development of future competitive sports.

      Here is just one example of a new sports grass “enriched” with a nanoparticle (NP) coating (note its purported effects): https://domosportsgrass.com/en/pureti.

      More on this particular NP coating, PURETi, here (note it is comprised of TiO2, and is ascribed by NASA to be DUAL-USE: http://pureti.com/technology/safety.html.
      PURETi is, at its heart, a health care company. Towards that end we put safety first, welcome all questions and take all concerns seriously. We endeavor to be transparent, collaborative and scientifically rigorous in our approach. PURETi is a NASA Dual Use Technology Partner and winner of 6 environmental awards. PURETi has been successfully applied to 2+ million square feet of buildings and building materials. All PURETi products have been registered safe by the National Sanitation Foundation.
      The active ingredient in PURETi is Titanium Dioxide or TiO2. PURETi solutions are manufactured in America to FDA approved specifications for quality control. PURETi products contain 98% – 99% water, 1% -2% TiO2 in both amorphous and crystalline form and a tiny fraction of wetting agents.
      TiO2 is the ninth most common mineral on the planet, widely used in paints, cosmetics and food stuffs and has been extensively studied for its health and environmental impacts.
      The US FDA has classified TiO2 as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) and the European Science Commission has determined TiO2 to be safe in all forms – active and inactive, nano and micro.

      Despite the company raving about its safety, see here on the potential toxicity of TiO2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3423755/.

      Even more condemning is this report (note its cardiovascular effects, and that the NPs are observed directly in the tissue samples – as opposed to “viruses” which have never been observed directly in tissue/cells prior to being cultured in vitro): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6591966/ (June 2019).

      {One more thing to note: in the linked study, the rats exposed to NPs (TiO2) were already hypertensive (meaning they had a pre-existing/co-morbid heart condition). Granted, it would have have been more helpful to experiment on “healthy” (normotensive) rats, or at least use them as a control. It seems that may not have been done (please correct me if I am wrong). Even still (in the context of human athletes), it is possible that certain athletes may be prone to lung/cardio issues for various reasons, and may even have pre-existing vulnerability that was un-detected, prior to a collapsing/sudden death event. In fact, this concern is expressed in the study. See the third excerpt below in this regard.}

      From the June 2019 study:

      The possibility that manufactured nanoparticles (NPs) may affect cardiac performance, has led to recognize NPs-exposure not only as a major Public Health concern, but also as an occupational hazard. In volunteers, NPs-exposure is problematic to quantify. We recently found that inhaled titanium dioxide NPs, one of the most produced engineered nanomaterials, acutely increased cardiac excitability and promoted arrhythmogenesis in normotensive rats by a direct interaction with cardiac cells. We hypothesized that such scenario can be exacerbated by latent cardiovascular disorders such as hypertension.

      Many questions involving the effects of engineered nanomaterials on the environment, as well as human health, have been raised and need to be addressed [2]. Manufactured nanoparticles have become a new component of the air we breathe [3]. Since the heart and the lungs are intimately linked, it is difficult to identify the specific susceptibility of either organ to the effects of nanoparticles (NPs) [4]. It is possible to better define the impact of particle matter (PM) on individual organ impairment or disease [5, 6] through the use of animal models. Recently, in order to further clarify the relationships between fine particles and cardiopulmonary diseases, the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) has been widely used as a model of cardiovascular hypertension for researches on toxicology and pathogenesis of cardiovascular adverse effects of exposure to PM [7].

      Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is one of the most widely produced engineered nanomaterials. As consumption grows the chance of population exposure to fine or ultrafine TiO2 increases. In 2007 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimated 68.000 workers in U.S. directly in contact with TiO2 pigments, with an estimated production of TiO2 of 1.45 million metric tons / year (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-160/pdfs/2011-160.pdf) and the demand of TiO2 increases exponentially worldwide. Compared to the high risk of heart disease by PM exposure, the TiO2 effects are still partially known [12]. It is estimated 1.56 billion hypertensive people by 2025 [13]; nowadays, one third of the population between 15 and 69 years old suffer from high blood pressure, while half of them is either not conscious of the hypertension nor undergoes medical treatment [14]. It is thus considerable that a similar percentage of workers daily exposed to TiO2-NPs suffers of hypertension.

      Inhaled NPs are on the current concern for their effect on the cardiovascular system after translocation from the air-blood barrier [23]. Evidences are provided for inhaled NPs accumulation in the sites of vascular lesions [24], lymph nodes, liver, kidneys [25] and the heart [4].

      Ambient (indoor) air pollution, due to the rapid urbanization worldwide, is known to be an important trigger of cardiovascular diseases especially for the people/workers that exposed continuously to NPs emitting sources with poor ventilation [26]. Following our recent findings that showed inhaled TiO2 NPs in the heart [19], recent literature have shown that inhaled titanium dioxide NPs activate a plethora of cardiovascular effects, i.e., activation of complement cascade in the heart [27], induction of cytotoxicity in cardiomyoblast [28], microvascular and mitochondrial dysfunction in progeny of female SD rats exposed to TiO2 [29], induction of myocarditis [30] and depression diastolic function in response to adrenergic stimuli [31].

      I think we need to start perceiving the nanotech forest (whether graphene or TiO2, or otherwise) through the COVID/SARS-CoV-2 trees . . .

      {Sorry, again, for this very long and tedious comment.}

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I spent work and lab time looking into titanium dioxide and photocatalytic air cleaners a few years back. The tech works for air cleaning but the company I worked for rejected it due to incomplete chemical breakdown being more likely to occur as treated surfaces age. The presence of formaldehyde after air treatment was particularly concerning.

        If one were to use such air treatments, replacing treated sufaces every few months appears to be necessary. Saw this tech was being applied to paints, wallpaper, tile & glass surfaces, as well as in-duct cleaning elements that were activated by UV lamps. Since there are so many types of pollutants the breakdown products produced by the process are hard to predict. As the surfaces become dirty, incompleted pollutant breakdown led to new pollutants being formed.

        Lots of air cleaners coming out with this tech inside. If you buy, be prepared to stay on top of continual replacement of the replacable elements because going over the recommended usage period can have unintended bad effects.

        Like

      2. While looking into TiO2 air treatment technology, surfaces were being “doped” with various other elements by various manufacturers, so these are not all uniformly the same thing. The surfaces are activated by UV light, but doping the mix was, for instance, trying to drive the activation frequency down into visible light. The activated surfaces would catalytically transform water (humidity) and air into hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen peroxide was a main ingredient in the air cleaning properties. The humidity and the UV activation light had to contact the treated surface for the process to start.

        Spraying this stuff around as nano particles was not yet being done when I was actively looking into it. The original research was done by NASA for air treatment in aircraft or spacecraft.

        Like

        1. Do I understand correctly this is about odour absorbers? IIRC, Stephers posted something about a product called Febreze a couple months ago (May ’21). Link is in the link list below: “Clearing the Air: Febreze and the J&J Jab”

          Like

    2. I watched the first 17 minutes. Horrible intro, horrible moderators pawning and strutting around. Didn’t think much of that Del Bigtree fellow. Heard the name before but never seen him. Actually, the only reason to watch would be Kaufman. I’ve heard him a couple times with Cowan and Lanka and really liked him. With regard to the event you linked to, maybe he was only in it for the money. 🙂

      That said, what you write makes a lot of sense.

      Is he trying to discredit himself and everything else he says by associating himself with very questionable people. I say yes, it is the psyop way. Keeping people dazed and confused. Also Kaufman can stop with the typical psyop production videos with the weird background music and meaningless animated covid balls images.

      This whole association and framing business makes it harder than necessary to seperate the wheat from the chaff. On the other hand, I’ve come to accept it as the rule of the game. We must learn not to trust authority figures of any denomination.

      Stefan Lanka also sells or helps sell some water filter equipment (or similar), which personally I regard as nonsense. Tap water is generally very good in Germany, so no need to filter it, in my opinion. Haven’t bought bottled water in years, and I don’t like the plastic taste anyway. Real glass bottles are fine, of course. On the other hand, I can see why Lanka helps sell these products. He also wants a decent lifestyle for himself and his family, and be able to carry on his research, so why refuse such an offer? There is a market for these alternative products, which allows him to develop and back up his ideas. His establishment colleagues are financed and equipped 100% by taxpayer and industry money. To compete, insight is not enough, unfortunately.

      Like

  13. So I live in a house, and the house has a roof and walls, and so we have rooms, and in these rooms we have cupboards and drawers, and toilets and kitchen sinks, and a hell of a lot of devices and items and articles, some bigger, some very small.

    Now would I expect to find, on every brick, on every tile, on every beam and plank, on every tube and cable, on every fork and knife – would I expect to find the blueprint of the entire house including all the detailed contents?

    And yet this is precisely what Genetics would have me believe: In every core of every cell (leaving aside the criticism of cell theory for the moment) there has to be an identical copy of the blueprint of the whole body.

    What would be the purpose of such a foolish, cartoonish redundancy? Can you think of any?

    Like

    1. No, that’s a great point. I feel rather dense that it hadn’t crossed my mind – though in my defense, the stuff is presented with such a misplaced focus that it’s easy to miss the big picture of what the claim is sometimes.

      Like

    2. Cells are living things. They need these instructions to properly produce proteins to run the all the metabolic processes needed at the appropriate time, and to produce compounds for growth, repair or whatever their particular role is in the body. When the cell dies, the cell that replaces it should have the same instructions in order to do its job correctly.
      The analogy to inanimate objects that do not reproduce themselves is lacking.

      Like

      1. Fair point at first glance. Living things and houses don’t compare, although sometimes you wonder.

        I would go along with your objection if each cell had the blueprint for precisely the job it needs to get done in order to fulfill its role as part of the whole process of life. But genetics tells us each cell has the blueprint for the entire freakin’ body including all the physiological processes. So how in hell is the poor little cell supposed to figure what tiny part of the giga or tera codons of instructions it is supposed to have executed by its ribosomes?

        Seen from another angle (and this might be “tissue theory” as opposed to “cell theory”, something I haven’t looked at yet): Why does one “cell” that is created to replace another not learn what to do from its neighbors? Maybe the way children learn from their parents and other children? Wouldn’t that be more economical in terms of informational expenditure? In my economical & logical mind, it pains me to see at the very least 99,99999 % of the information in each and every cell totally wasted, and in fact making the poor little cell’s job of finding the right information so much more complicated.

        Wouldn’t that be like a novel edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that, for good fun and educational benefit, was unsorted?

        Like

  14. I also was once tasked with lab testing Febreeze air filters for filtration efficiency. The overwhelming scent laid over the “odor eliminating” chemical was so annoying to me I had to increase the lab exhaust during tests. My understanding is that this odor “eliminator” beta-cyclodextrin does no chemical breakdown but just prevents your nose from smelling captured chemicals, attaches to molecules and can be used to transport them. I found Stephers’ previous post on this to be quite informative.

    The TiO2 air cleaning products can actually be germicidal, generating chemical reactions in the air by catalytically producing H2O2, hydrogen peroxide. Since the catalytic reaction that produces the H2O2 is triggered by ultraviolet light, it would work as nano particles sprayed on sports pitches. Self cleaning glass was designed in Japan for use on the exterior of high rise buildings where it can be activated by ambient light. I suppose the TiO2 would do entirely different things after ingestion or inhalation, without the UV light hitting it.

    Like

  15. So I mentioned Erwin Chargaff in a comment above, and pointed out that he appeared in public as a dysangelist of genetics. Open his Wikipedia article to read some quotes supporting this claim:

    Erwin Chargaff – Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chargaff

    Chargaff warned in his 1978 book Heraclitean Fire of a “molecular Auschwitz” that “the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I only wish that mine had not been guilty of it”.

    A molecular Auschwitz! Simply gotta love that one! I certainly do.

    There are two nuclei that man should never have touched: the atomic nucleus and the cell nucleus. The technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology.

    Even greater than nukes – go figure that! 🙂

    My life has been marked by two immense and fateful discoveries: the splitting of the atom, the recognition of the chemistry of heredity and its subsequent manipulation. It is the mistreatment of nucleus that, in both instances, lies at the basis: the nucleus of the atom, the nucleus of the cell. In both instances do I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate.

    The mistreatment of nucleus. A bit contrived as an expression, but we get the drift: Human transgression again! Forbidden fruit syndrom. Sinning again and again. And bad things happen when barriers are violated. You’d better live in fear.

    You can hear him go on and on in this vein on Austrian talk radio in the 1980ies and 90ies. The Wiki article has a link. All in German, of course. Barbm124, take a listen, well worth your time.

    So what is Chargaff doing here? He is pumping up genetics to be the next horrible thing after the atomic bomb. Unlike with the atomic bomb, hey haven’t figured out how to properly visualize genetics. They might have pointed out someone, maybe punk musicians or ecologist politicians, as the unfortunate result of genetic engineering, but they chose not to. So in lieu of images they have to make a couple thousand words, thus conjuring up the “critical thinking” about the “perils of genetic technology”. Also gets the job done.

    The purpose and result is, as I wrote above a couple days ago, to install fear of genetics into people’s minds as a substitute for actual tangible results, of which there are none.

    Take a look at the list of Chargaff’s publications. Is he a scientist? No. He’s a “philosopher” – not a real one, but a cultivated media pundit that talks to and appeals to the intelligenzia. From listeing to him, he struck me as a nice and cultivated person, invited to Vienna to give talks and complain how horrible life in Manhattan his which he has to endure in his modest 13th floor apartment overviewing all of Central Park.

    Where have we seen that kind of dysangelic talkshow activiry before? Precisely with the atomic bomb! Just like Oppenheimer, Teller, C.F. von Weizsäcker and other alleged physicists, who spend their time talking or writing about the enormous danger of their propagandy bogeyman, the inexistant atomic bomb.

    Mistreatment of the nucleus, on two accounts. That nicely round up the picture, doesn’t it.

    Like

    1. Linus Pauling was Watson and Crick’s rival in the race for sussing out the dna model before he was betrayed by his son on a visit to Cambridge per the narrative. He would go on to win the Nobel for his anti-nukes hustle.

      Like

      1. Didn’t konw about Pauling (or Brenner, for that matter) although he is a real heavy-weight. According to German Wikipedia dozens of prizes, 47 honorary doctorares (including Oxford & Cambridge), Soviet / Royal British / German and other academy memberships.

        Quantum chemistry, quantum mechanics, X-ray crystallography (instrumental in speculating about the double helix), inventor of the helical structure of haemoglobine (and proteines in general), electronegativity and the chemical bond (makes me think of AT & CG loose coupling), also antibodies, and presursor of the IPPNW anti-nuke scam.

        Any one book on the history of science you’d recommend in particular?

        Like

        1. I don’t read books anymore. Learn about places like the cavendish, Berkeley, and folks like Daniel coit gilman. Schrodinger, the psi symbol guy, gave us the wave function and Linus brought the wave function to valence structure. It’s the same characters and institutions interconnected everywhere you look. Ole syd also likes to tell the story of gamow and the rna tie club. Look into the Hungarian martians.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Very compelling analysis, but I’m not quite sure where it goes… Yes, there is still today worry about GMOs and such, but OTOH 70% or more of the developed world has injected “experimental mRNA gene therapy” into their bodies. I guess Chargaff didn’t freak people out enough to stop that…

      Like

  16. The more you think about DNA as “information storage”, the more absurd it becomes.

    Whenever you have a lot of data, you need a lot of order – otherwise you end up in chaos, also known as noise, which is inherently useless. Imagine a library with all the books piled up willy-nilly, or a book with all the pages arranged in a non-sequitur fashion. The only way to go in such a case is sequential processing of the whole lot, for example, in the case of a traditional SQL database a full table scan, which is a performance nightmare, which is why you have sorting and binary search trees, specialized algorithms, huge indices, partitioning, etc to enable random access. Information technology is not as trivial as implied by the “DNA code” metaphor.

    And of course, the processor needs to know what it is looking for in the first place, else how to tell when to stop as you’ve found what you’re looking for?

    I’m curious how ribosomes are expected to process the tera codons of information which (a) have no specified predetermined order /(file format), (b) no registers or indices, (c) no jump markers, (d) no partitioning, (e) no fixed offsets, and probably none of the other features of data storage and retrieval technology that I might think of. Such a processing would require either a lot of speed or a lot of time. Why would such a non-performing scheme be the result of millions of years of evolution (leaving evolution unquestioned here)?

    And let’s not even consider the delicacy and frailty of the DNA double helix structure. What if it breaks or is ripped apart? Then it’s clearly game over. How is processing imagined mechanically?

    Also, when processing, you must never lose track of where you are at any given moment, right? Because a particular sequence could have a very different meaning depending on its position in the string or strand.

    There are so many glaring problems of epic proportions with this DNA model that I cannot believe it hasn’t been discussed at length before.

    Like

    1. I keep listening to this absolutely fascinating Sydney Brenner video SMJ linked above on this page. At about 2:37, he starts to describe the self-replicating automaton, that has three components. And he refers to the component holding the information simply as “the tape”.

      The tape! 🙂

      Well yes, of course. We’re talking about the 1940ies and 1950ies. I myself referred to the punched paper tape in my first comment, and a little later they’d have magnetic tape, but still a bloody tape, which is by its very nature sequential, and slow, without any random access, with seek and rewind and mechanical operation. And this is the tape that Syd Brenner is referring to.

      But back in the day it was state-of-the-art technology.

      Can you guys see how incredibly funny this is? Genetics is built – and stuck, for good 🙂 – on a hopelessly outdated technological paradigm that today looks udderly ridiculous. What a laugh! 🙂

      mt command – magnetic tape device
      https://www.computerhope.com/unix/umt.htm

      Like

  17. Von Neummann […] asked [in 1949] what is the threshold of complexity that must be crossed for machines to be able to evolve. His answer was to design an abstract machine which, when run, would replicate itself. [An idea that was at least 300 years old, see René Descartes, 1596-1650.] Notably, his design implies that open-ended evolution requires *inherited information* to be *copied* [my emphasis] and passed to offspring separately from the self-replicating machine, an insight [really?] that preceded the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule [ 🙂 ] by Watson and Crick and how it is separately translated and replicated in the cell. [You can bet your life on it.]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

    So, von Neumann simply updated the jolly old automaton theory by adding the idea of “the tape”, i.e. punched paper tape or magnetic tape, doesn’t matter which one as they are conceptually identical, both requiring feeding and winding and seeking (if of any meaningful length).

    So next time you hear someone refer to DNA as “the Book of Life”, you should think “fuck, no!” – at least they should have the bare minimum of honesty to call it “the Tape of Life”.

    The idea of a self-replicating automaton has written FAILURE all over it from its very inception as nicely expressed by the anecdote of Descartes and Queen Christina of Sweden:

    An early reference [to the idea of a self-replicating automaton] is an anecdote regarding the philosopher René Descartes, who suggested to Queen Christina of Sweden that the human body could be regarded as a machine; she responded by pointing to a clock and ordering “see to it that it reproduces offspring.”

    There is a deep irony here in that this flawed materialist theory, after 300 years of failing to produce any practical application or tangible result whatsoever, was horseshoed onto biology to describe the Secret of Life, which has been working reliably for God only knows how long.

    Like

    1. In the Wikipedia article I referenced above, there are more recent and more phantastic elaborations of the automaton theory under the heading Advanced Automation for Space Missions. An automized and self-replicating lunar factory is imagined, involving solar furnaces, plaster molds, and – of course – electronics:

      A more speculative, more complex microchip fabricator was specified to produce the computer and electronic systems, but the designers also said that it might prove practical to ship the chips from Earth as if they were “vitamins.”

      They’re just making stuff up as they go along.

      Vitamins seem to have been massively en vogue in those years. I read in the German Wikipedia article on Linus Pauling that vitamins were one of his subjects of predilection. For basically every health question, he would reply: “Vitamins, vitamins!”

      Like

      1. Re “I read in the German Wikipedia article on Linus Pauling that vitamins were one of his subjects of predilection. For basically every health question, he would reply: “Vitamins, vitamins!””

        Linus Pauling was right with his vitamin work. However, everyone should keep the following in mind, especially now with the Covid Scamdemic going on:

        … there are many bogus voices around who strive to distract the public from the value of vitamin C therapy and the fact that Pauling’s VALID work with vitamin C supplementation has been “falsified” by data distortions and lies, and he as a person (a double Nobel laureate) has been slandered as some deluded idiot by the criminal medical establishment and its countless quackwatch shills, lackeys, ignoramuses, and trolls for decades and it continues today (as YOU prove), and

        … that the same corrupt criminal people (and their uninformed followers) are behind the organized suppression, lies, and half-truths spread about the value of vitamin C therapy against covid-19 — read for instance https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html

        But you can’t discredit the facts with lies. That only exposes and discredits the liars (see link above).

        Self-righteous propagandists and blissful ignoramuses, aka stupid people, typically do not know that they must look deeper for the truth and have no clue about the nature of the official medical establishment and the world we live (eg recognizing that Wikipedia is a corrupt criminal tool of the sick power-holders serving their interests) in so they keep spreading DISPROVED tales and lies ….

        Like

        1. he [Pauling] as a person (a double Nobel laureate) has been slandered as some deluded idiot by the criminal medical establishment and its countless quackwatch shills, lackeys, ignoramuses, and trolls for decades and it continues today (as YOU prove)

          Not sure what you’re basing this on with regard to me. I don’t hold any particular opinion regarding vitamins one way or the other. If anything I would share the mainstream view that vitamins are good for you. But in fact, I don’t even know what they are.

          I didn’t slander Pauling, nor does it appear to me that the German Wikipedia did. It just struck me as curious that they likened microchips to vitamins in what is essentially a logistical problem, and as I had just read about Pauling and his vitamin evangelism, I made the connection. That’s all.

          Like

    2. Delbrück called the mind from matter problem the “Cartesian cut”…

      “Max Delbrück was a physicist turned biophysicist as a result of Niels Bohr’s lectures on complementarity and “Light and Life.” Bohr suggested a complementary relation between the physical and physiological analogous to that between the wave and particle views in quantum mechanics.
      Although he never found the equivalent of an uncertainty principle in biology, Delbrück’s research into bacteriophages (viruses) in the 1930’s and early 1940’s won him the Nobel prize for discovering that bacteria become resistant to viruses as a result of genetic mutations.

      This emphasis on mutations led Erwin Schrödinger to devote a large part of his 1945 essay “What Is Life?” to Delbrück’s work, which made him famous very quickly. Schrödinger guessed that the genetic hereditary material might be an “aperiodic crystal” and this inspired James Watson and Francis Crick to discover the double helix architecture of DNA.

      The 1986 book, Mind from Matter?, was edited posthumously from audio tapes of Delbrück’s CalTech biology course, given in the mid 1970’s. The course included twenty lectures that he called “evolutionary epistemology.” It is unlikely that Delbrück knew of the similarly titled work of Donald Campbell or Karl Popper (or vice versa).

      We begin our epistemological inquiry from the viewpoint of naive realism and consider our problem of truth and reality in the light of evolution.
      So we ask three naive questions:

      How can we construct a theory of a universe without life, and therefore without mind, and then expect life and mind to evolve, somehow, from this lifeless and mindless beginning?
      How can we conceive of the evolution of organisms with mind strictly as an adaptive response to selective pressures favoring specimens able to cope with life in the cave, and then expect that this mind is capable of elaborating the most profound insights into mathematics, cosmology, matter, and the general organization of life and mind itself?
      Indeed, does it even make sense to posit that the capacity to know truth can arise from dead matter?

      (Mind from Matter?, p.22)”
      https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/delbruck/

      Like

      1. There are interesting concepts in this, such as stochastic / deterministic / adaptive respone, or phototropic and negative geotropic reactions as primitive forms of perception.It ia also claimed the genetic code and its constituents are universal, maybe not initially by Delbrück:

        The protein and nucleic acid constituents are universal, as is the genetic code, which determines how information stored as nucleotide sequences in long nucleic acid molecules is translated into the amino acid sequences of proteins.

        Cartesian cut. What it seems to mean is that the mind has evolved so much (from matter) that it has become its own foundation (cogito ergo sum) and cut itself loose from Nature.

        Like

    3. In the same Wikipedia article, under the heading Bootstrapping Self-Replicating Factories in Space:

      In 2014, Thomas Kalil of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy published on the White House blog an interview with Metzger on bootstrapping solar system civilization through self-replicating space industry. Kalil requested the public submit ideas for how “the Administration, the private sector, philanthropists, the research community, and storytellers can further these goals.”

      The funding, the science, and the stories.

      See the excellent four minute Heinz von Foerster video linked to by SMJ above, where he talks about the competition of the poets.

      Like

  18. HOPE SPRINGS, on February 7, 2022 at 2:36 am

    Thanks a lot for your exhaustive reply!

    I’m thinking you are placing too much importance on the ribosome. The ribosome is really just a translating machine. (Maybe think of it as a 3-D printer?)

    The ribosome, in that theory, is the crucial part where all the action takes place. The 3D printer is a good example, though. It builds something from a specification in a highly constrained environment. Of course, it has a lot of software and computation behind it, requiring a lot of processing power and memory on the hardware that translates the high-level description of the object to build into a sequence of simple positioning and pasting instructions for the printer. (Actually, I don’t know how a 3D printer works, but this is how I imagine it is implemented. Can’t think of another way.)

    Though I think they [the ribosomes] vary from organism to organism, and cell type to cell type, I think they would be fundamentally quite similar as they perform a very basic function of cellular life.

    Why is this not known with more precision? Or in other words: If the operation of this crucial component is unknown, how do you justify building such an elaborate theory?

    The answer could be in the two Sydney Brenner and Heinz von Förster videos linked to by SMJ. They simply make stuff up on very flimsy evidence, if any at all. It seems to be their modus operandi. A question cannot (or at least not yet) be answered, hence it becomes a competition of poets to establish a persuasive narrative, where persuasion can be based on the beauty of the theory, or on its rich ornamental detail, or on its mass appeal, or on its likeness to other theories that have already been established.

    The DNA encodes the information for building the entire organism in a relatively stable format. There is then a process of copying (transcribing) small sections of the DNA to produce short copies called mRNA. These mRNA are “readable” (translatable) by the little cellular machines called ribosomes.

    There is a mismatch between the mess of DNA (as per the model) and the postulated simplicity of the ribosomes which the DNA-to-mRNA process then tries to bridge. This shifts the intelligence into this process and hides it there. It’s a kind of middleware. How does the process know what parts of the DNA to focus on in each cell? How does it process the tera codons of the alleged DNA double helix? See my points about the inefficiency of such a process. Why would such a clumsy setup be the result of millions of years of evolution (leaving aside the question whether or not evolutionary theory is correct)?

    The particular bits of the DNA sequence that are being read at any one time are very particular to the cell-type and current environmental inputs (while the overall DNA sequence should be basically stable throughout the organism). Epigenetics looks at these changes to the DNA that don’t actually alter the genome sequence, but effect which bits are actually read, and therefore relevant to the cell/organism. There are complex and amazing mechanisms of shutting down sections of DNA that are not needed by a particular cell-type or at a particular time.

    Again, intelligence hidden in a magic process (“shutting down” everything that needs to be discarded for the task at hand), and the urgent question why oh why every cell has the full DNA when it only needs a tiny part of it?

    Too much information running through my brain
    Too much information driving me insane

    So the appropriate messages are copied into short bits called mRNA which then go to ribosomes to be “translated” into strings of amino acids, which then go on to be further processed and folded into unique 3-D shapes (proteins) which are the 3-D building blocks of life.

    This is called a toolchain, for example a compiler suite. It has written SOFTWARE ENGINEERING all over it.

    I’m not sure I understand your question about collecting numbers–the best I can say is that I think the code of life (DNA) is so very complex in the many manifestations that can come from only small changes to the sequence or the epigenetics, etc, that it perhaps is more complex information than our current computers can calculate/replicate?? Maybe?

    My question simply reflects my fundamental doubt about the DNA story. Why would it be information and not just noise? Provided it actually exists as the very long tape that it is purported to be, for which there is no evidence.

    If the code of life “is so very complex in the many manifestations that can come from only small changes to the sequence or the epigenetics, etc”, then the middleware that processes the DNA and extracts or synthesizes small messages out of it to feed to the ribosomes has to reflect that complexity.

    You could try and fool yourself into thinking that, well, it doesn’t have to be complicated because actually, in each cell, what is needed is just the appropriate pattern (or regular expression) to match and find the part of DNA that are of interest for this particular cell. However, that is delusionary, as pattern matching is a complex process in its own right that requires a full-blown engine to read and compile the pattern into a set of step-by-step instructions of what to do.

    Then, again, the question arises of why would it be built so inefficiently, with so much unnecessary expenditure and pointless redundancy?

    Someone who interests me and might interest you is James Shapiro (not the Shakespeare scholar–the biologist) He sees evolution as a sort of self-directed process, rather than Darwinian selection of randomly occurring mutations.

    Ah, Shapiro – another one. 🙂 But thanks, will take a look.

    Like

    1. So I read the German and English Wikipedia articles on the magic ribosome, allegedly “just a translating machine”, but actually the part where much of the magical biosynthesis happens, where proteins are fabricated. How does this “macromolecular machine” work, or rather how are its mechanics described?

      The mRNA, which is derived from the DNA, is read codon by codon (a codon is a nucleotide triplet, think CPU instruction), and each codon is said to be decoded (I imagine just like a CPU instruction is decoded into microcode), but how exactly is not described or hidden in other articles. Anyway, we cannot have proper calculations or bitshifting because, remember, this is supposed to be biology. So a suitable anticodon is provided for each codon that is attached to a specific amino acid. This anticodon amino acid conglomerate is called tRNA (transit RNA) and serves as a kind of adapter, you see, because we need to bridge the gap beetween DNA/RNA on the one hand and proteins and their amino acids on the other.

      As you’d expect, there is a long sequence of codons, remember, “the tape”. And the codons are processed one by one, step by step. And the resulting tRNA amino thingies, they are combined into a new sequence, which is called a polypeptide sequence because you can never have too many elaborate terms to decorate your science with. So polymers are built up from monomers, essentially. From double helix to mRNA & codons to tRNA amino acid adapters to polypeptides to proteins. Voilà.

      Of course I forgot to mention that there are dedicated START & STOP codons, right, special instructions that tell the ribosome, okay, this sequence is long enough now, and do start a new one here. Initiation, elongation, termination, recyclation.

      There’s another thing you need to know about the ribosome and tRNA selection. Because, basically, tRNA (although it is not explicitly stated) seems to be just there in the cytoplasma, floating all over the place. Now a problem arises. There’a a lot of different tRNA elements and the ribosome needs to pick the correct one at any given step, else possibly teratological mutation or cancer might ensue. And as this is kind of chemical and things may tend to bind easily, how do you ensure the correct binding is found?

      Enter conformational proofreading. It’s a whole amazing algorithm and subsystem probably deserving of its very own Nobel prize. (Ribosomes got two Nobels, first one for discovery in ’74, second for structure in ’09.) It’s a molecular recognition system, allowing a molecular recognizer to recognize its target. Don’t bother if that’s tautological. Further details will be worked out in the future, more research needed. For now, it is enough to understand that conformational proofreading works fast and uses no energy. Amazing, isn’t it.

      To further speed up mRNA processing and protein biosynthesis, several ribosomes can be lined up into polysomes because in computing you also parallelize things when it is impractical to increase processing frequency. One of the ways to do this is to increase the instruction length as in a VLIW architecture and then have several execution units. But there are other ways of parallelizing. Anyway, polysomes are parallel processing in some kind of way.

      In case you’re not sufficiently confused with DNA, mRNA & tRNA yet, there is of course rRNA as well, which is the RNA the ribosome itself is made of, which by the way is orderly organized into “subunits”. Ribosomes are in all living things, and they all resemble each other, but they also differ, and so you have prokaryotic, archaeal and eukaryotic ribosomes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank god we have computing power to, first of all, be the model (template) for life and all biological processes, and also to have the final say on whether or not it’s real.

        There is a theory, perhaps dishonestly formulated in the first place, and then there are 0’s and 1’s lined up as the proof of the theory.

        Ribosome on, boys!

        Like

    2. All in all, I still find the ribosome and especially its processing to be a bit underspecified. Science has worked out the APE binding sites (a bit like the control unit on the processor), but I worry a lot about race conditions (note: race as in horse race), whether the conformational proofreading is really up to the task. Clearly, more research is needed.

      I think there’s quite a lot to learn about the allegedly simple “translating machine”, and I don’t find it hard to understand now that I got used to the jargon and see the technological model behind it, but I do find it very hard to believe that this is actually real.

      Like

        1. So 1 mm of DNA folded a thousand times into a bacterium of 1 µm diameter (note milli and micro). And from that DNA, snakes of RNA are detached and then attach to the nifty ribosomes where the important proteins get built. I think I’d have to refute that idea on purely stereometrical reasons.

          In another Brenner video he says that in the beginning it was imagined the gene was the shape of a ball. That assumption, at least, is not of the same geometrical difficulty.

          Like

  19. Lumi- Do you not grant them any tangible results whatsoever? It’s all “poetics” in your view?

    I tend to think there is a practical workaday level to the field, with at least some degree of results (eg the example Hope Springs gave us from his experience) – but I’m unsure of whether they have the correct underlying model/ theory/ paradigm.

    The Heinz von Foerster clip kind of blasts my idea (based on that Critical Check paper) that science might be a kind of controlled leak operation, with “advances” carefully introduced according to a script and timeline.

    I have often thought much theoretical science is exactly what Foerster describes – “poetics” is a nice way to say it, BS would be another. Amazing to see an “insider” let slip the hustle, as SMJ says.

    Not that the two views are entirely mutually exclusive. There could be battling poets and a pre-determined victor.

    Brenner and Foerster seem to disagree a bit – Foerster says it’s all poetics, and there will be no end of poetics. Brenner claims that the general theory of DNA crossed paths at some point in the 50s with the banal applied lab research. And the latter began driving advances, rather than theory (and became like other fields, he says.)

    Like

    1. Well, I would like to see those tangible results, but I don’t. I don’t buy the GMO claims, as I stated above. I think they’re simply seeds made resilient to toxic chemicals sold along with them. Smoke blown around conventional stuff, as you nicely phrased it.

      Hope Springs nicely descibed the general mechanics, but stayed a little bit vague with regard to the concrete study on those bird liver cells. (I also think Hope is female.)

      Are you sure that you got that Scripted Science idea (an interesting one in its own right) from that very good Critical Check paper? Because I didn’t find any such statements in there, neither any claims about “spook marker” dates such as 11/11/55. Maybe you amalgamated two or more articles? It has happened to me several times … 🙂 If you do find that Scripted Science article you could post the URL as well as it sounds interesting.

      I am still enthusiastic about both the Heinz von Förster and the Sydney Brenner video. They are real EYE-OPENERS, at least for me. There are more Brenner talks on Youtube and it’ll provide for hours of educational entertainment. That guy is quite talkative.

      As for Förster’s remark on particles, you might already know this one: – 🙂

      http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170404-the-physics-that-tells-us-what-the-universe-is-made-of

      I didn’t understand Förster the way you did, with regard to “all poetics”. He said there are answerable questions, and unanswerable ones, such as the origin of the universe, and that’s where the poetic licence and the poetry contest come into play.

      Like

      1. Re: the Critical Check paper
        Yes, that’s what got me thinking along “Scripted Science” lines. I just extrapolated from his work, asking “If this is the case – major new discoveries/ theories introduced in a sort of ‘top down’ manner, without much pushback or ‘critical check’ from the scientific community at large – what could account for it?”

        Of course I’m also drawing on a general view of “how science really works” based on pre-existing ideas about media fakery, social engineering, lifetime actors, etc. “Science” is sort of a special case compared to fakery in news or entertainment, because it makes special claims to being a community of rigorous truth seekers, has impressive veils of jargon and specialization, and of course must “deliver results” to really impress anyone (aside from the purely theoretical areas where they can make big claims without being expected to produce applied technology from it, I guess.)

        Re: Foerster and “all poetics”
        Maybe just poor phrasing on my part. Yes, he spoke about answerable and unanswerable questions – I was disregarding the former and focusing on the latter. He seemed to speak in sweeping terms about it being “all poetics,” whereas Brenner says that the lab work and mundane research (in genetics) at some point started to deliver results, and drive the theoretical (the “unanswerable”) side of the field.

        This would square with Thomas Kuhn’s view of science, that paradigms may be imperfect but nevertheless “productive.” Workaday scientists can take them for granted, and use them to drive their research agenda, provoke questions, collect data under that background framework – for many decades – adding to the store of knowledge, stumbling on new details, making discoveries – until (if) the contradictions build up too high.

        This is a persuasive and plausible view, appealing to intuition and yet sophisticated enough to account for Kuhn’s famous “paradigm shifts.” At least he isn’t pretending that the poetic theories are absolute truths never to be questioned. Now, whether it’s the whole story, I’m not so sure, as I’ve said. Kuhn himself (and his famous book) may be a misdirection/ limited hangout of some kind.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I also didn’t quite understand Brenner the way you did. At 5:37, he starts talking about the field of computation, an “amazingly paradoxixal field”, which develops deductively, or top-town, when all other fields develop inductively, or bottom-up from experimental confusion through theoretical self-delusion to the great generality.

      So, says Brenner, computation and von Neumann went from concept down to implementation, while Crick & Watson went from clueless observational detail up to finally grasping what it is all about. So they crossed paths, so to speak, without meeting, like on escalators in a shopping mall.

      Of course, I disagree on all accounts. Firstly, in computation, there were early implementations (Konrad Zuse for example), but that is not the issue here.

      Secondly, the thing Brenner reveals by bringing von Neumann and computation into the story of the “discovery of the DNA” is that the old automaton theory in its updated version by von Neumann was the crucial inspiration that allowed the DNA researchers or poets to organize the flimsy evidence they had into a coherent narrative – von Förster’s poetry.

      And thirdly, in a way, they did somehow meet and ideas were transferred, and Brenner even seems to imply that he was instrumental in making that connection between computation and genetics because he happened to read that von Neumann article in a book that he was interested in because it contained articles by psychologists Köhler and Lewin.

      And if you look at it that way it all makes perfect sense.

      The bit that might be most confusing is when he talks about von Neumann vs Schrödinger. I’m going to explain it.

      Schrödinger says the chromosomes contain the information to specify the future organism and the means to execute it and that’s not true.

      Right. The conceptual problem here is that information and execution are mixed, not properly separated. The chromosomes are imagined as a storage of both information and machinery (“means to execute”) at the same time.

      Von Neumann came up with an arguably more elegant idea:

      ( From the description box of the video, there is a link to a page that has the full transcript in the column on the right-hand side, from which I’m copying quotes: https://www.webofstories.com/play/sydney.brenner/45 )

      The chromosomes contain the information to specify the future organisation and a *description* [note emphasis] of the means to implement, but not the means themselves, and that logical difference is made so crystal clear by von Neumann and that to me, was in fact…

      So, this is simply superior theoretical elegance, and it appealed to Brenner’s logical mind, as it does to mine. (And in a computer, it has to be organized this way because you cannot store hardware in memory (as per Schrödinger’s proposal), only information, whether seen as data or code. (And one man’s code is another man’s data. 🙂 ))

      And the machinery, the “means to execute”, is factored out into the ribosomes, which take on the processor role, just as the chromosomes take on the storage or memory role, roughly speaking.

      Whether anything of this has anything to to with reality is completely besides the point – see von Förster video.

      The first time now of course, I wasn’t smart enough to really see that this is what DNA is all about, and of course it is one of the ironies of this entire field that were you to write a history of ideas in the whole of DNA, simply from the documented information as it exists in the literature, that is a kind of Hegelian history of ideas, you would certainly say that Watson and Crick depended on von Neumann, because von Neumann essentially tells you how it’s done and then you just… DNA is just one of the implementations of this. ​But of course, none knew anything about the other, and so it’s a… it’s a great paradox to me that in fact this connection was not seen.

      No, no one knew anything, of course not, just Hegel’s Weltgeist (maybe with a little help from Brenner) would see to it to make the idea travel from von Neumann to Crick & Watson.

      Like

      1. If you think I’m misstating Brenner you’re probably right, I found his train of thought very hard to follow. Though intriguing certainly. He was just leaping around a bit, in fields I’m not that familiar with.

        I had thought he meant genetics was the unusual field that developed deductively, from theory first, no? That seemed to fit with what the Critical Check guy laid out, that there was this development of very fanciful double helixes and things, based on quite flimsy evidence, yet no one really questioned it. Or even back to the early “nuclean” discovery, where these sort of absurd (IMO) crude procedures yield traces of this or that, and much is postulated from it. Postulations which somehow hold up through decades of scientific advance, and still fit in with Watson and Crick’s grand theory.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I agree, Brenner’s train of thought is hard to follow if you’re not at least a bit familiar with computing history. I also think that his train of thought is a misrepresentation of what actually happened (see “I disagree on all acccounts” in my previous comment).

          I had thought he meant genetics was the unusual field that developed deductively, from theory first, no?

          I thought so at first, too, because, in my opinion (more on it below), genetics did in fact develop top-down – but then the metaphor of crossing paths (on the way up or down respectively) at the end of the following paragraph wouldn’t make sense:

          But I think that that in a way is part of our kind of revolution in thinking, namely the whole of the theory of computation, which I think biologists have yet to assimilate and yet is there and it’s a… it’s an amazingly paradoxical field. You know, most fields start by struggling through from, from experimental confusion through early theoretical, you know, self-delusion, finally to the great generality and this field [i.e. computing] starts the other way round. It starts with a total abstract generality, namely it starts with, with Gödel’s hypothesis or the Turing machine [clearly computing], and then it takes, you know, 50 years to descend into… into banality, you see. [Not sure what he means by *banality*, maybe the IT explosion in the 80ies and 90ies – flawed characterization, in my opinion; his entire narrative seems contrived to me.] So it’s the field that goes the other way and that is again remarkable, you know, and they cross each other at about 1953, you know: von Neumann on the way down, Watson and Crick on the way up. It was never put together.

          So that, I think, makes it quite clear: computation goes top-down. genetics goes bottom-up, as he’s relating it – but quite clear only provided you’ve gotten to that point without being utterly confused by Syd’s train of thought, which is a counterfactual narrative, in my opinion (again, see “I disagree on all accounts” in my previous comment).

          I read the English Wikipedia article on Francis Crick yesterday. In my opinion, he and Watson went in with assumptions, and then were in a hurry to crank out a model (a “discovery” made on cardboard cut-out models of nucleotide molecules) because they feared Linus Pauling might beat them to it.

          So Brenner would maybe say this is the stage of “early theoretical, you know, self-delusion” or even earlier “experimental confusion”, and they would only build the whole thing together later (using more concepts from the field of computing).

          But I would say they had a theory to start with and arranged some little understood results (all of which had been achieved by others such as Franklin and Chargaff) around their theory, and then made their “double helix discovery” on cardboard cut-out models, and this is a bottom-up approach in appearance only. They simply had to come up with some low-level molecular “discovery” because that is the way science was and is supposed to proceed, inductively bottom-up, not deductively top-down.

          And you and the Critical Check girl (not guy – I contacted her) would probably agree with me as you referred to the double helix as a fanciful construct, and even earlier it was postulations built on flimsy evidence obtained by crude procedures.

          The “grand theory” we have today (with codons, mRNA, tRNA, etc) was fleshed out later indeed, but there are a lot of assumptions and postulations there from the start, and the cardboard cut-out discovery may be seen retrospectively as the moment when they went overboard with them, driven by fear of Linus Pauling pre-empting them.

          And by the way, von Neumann is not the important guy in the history of computing that Brenner and many other sources portray him as, and there is no evidence he went down into detail to actually accomplish anything. He seems to have stayed on a high-level theoretical plateau, using work done by others.

          In the English Wikipedia article, there is the story of how he got to write his paper on computer architecture. It referred to a model called EDVAC designed by John Presper Eckert and John William Mauchly, but without giving them due credit. Eckert & Mauchly were the guys who actually worked out how the machine would operate and had patent claims running, which were nullified by von Neumann publishing a paper about it, without crediting them.

          The German Wikipedia article on von Neumann adds the detail of how he got to know about Eckert’s & Mauchly’s work by happening into a certain Herman Goldstine on a railway platform, who functioned as a liaison officer for the U.S. Army at the Moore School, where Eckert & Mauchly worked. So much for the “von Neumann architecture” – it wasn’t even his own idea.

          Like

          1. Very interesting, thanks. My questions for future research are – where exactly is the line between “poetics” and “concrete evidence” in genetics? (Regardless of whether that concrete evidence/ observation is being interpreted under the correct paradigm, eg virus vs terrain, or not.)

            And, are these players like Watson and Crick just as they’re presented, or are they fronts and actors on the world stage, used to manage the rollout of scientific advance, direct it and make sure its timeline and direction are managed?

            But perhaps we’ll pick it up in other threads, as this one will be off the front page soon…

            Like

            1. Let’s see what could produce concrete or is alleged to have produced concrete evidence for DNA, its structure, its function:

              cardboard cut-out models of molecules (James Watson)
              X-ray crystallography (Rosalind Franklin) + mathematic interpretation
              electron microscopy (2012)
              stuff that I’m missing

              https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22545-dna-imaged-with-electron-microscope-for-the-first-time/

              There is a distinction made between helices and “cords” (“six molecules wrapped around an seventh acting as a core”), but I don’t quite understand what it is supposed to mean. Anyway, there’s a promise that in the future (now?) individual helices and molecules will be shown in photography.

              The question is what that would mean. We have photographs of so many things that aren’t real.

              I hardly ever look at the front page of this blog but receive email notifications on new articles and on comments on pages I’m interested in. And I sometimes look at the “recent comments” section

              Like

              1. Well there is DNA proper, which I guess is among the smallest of the small, and so I could well believe it’s a lot of “poetics.” But speaking more broadly, in terms of cells, viruses, and all the many micro-organisms, structures, etc. — IMO the lab scientists are probably dealing with a lot of concrete phenomena that they have cataloged, observed, named, and so on. Again, not to say they have the right paradigm necessarily, just that their jargon might have some correlation to some observed reality.

                For example when their PCR tests turn up different trends at different times, in different populations, I’m not inclined to say it’s completely “poetic” or made up. More likely just grossly misinterpreted.

                Like

                1. I don’t disagree, there are concrete phenomena to look at. Same goes for Jupiter’s & Saturn’s moons & rings. But in all these cases, I’m not sure whether the very detailed narratives and visualizations are actually substantiated. There is a grey zone where science reaches its limits and fiction starts. It’s not easy for the layperson to tell where exactly to draw the line.

                  But in the case of DNA, they were set on their information technology model early on and derived all further “findings” from there. This model has never been questioned, but it should be.

                  (PCR is not such a good example, in my opinion, as the parameters can be turned and twisted at will, so the outcome in terms of pos/neg can be easily influenced.)

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. “The fact that Shannon did his Ph.D. in population genetics– his Ph.D. was titled “An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics“– is unknown to most information theorists and population geneticists. It is his masters thesis that is famous (for good reason– it can be said to have started the digital revolution), and his paper in 1948 that founded information theory. But his Ph.D. thesis was impressive in its own right: its contents formed the beginning of my talk to the information theorists, and I summarize the interesting story below.
                    I learned about the details surrounding Shannon’s foray into biology from a wonderful final project paper written for the class The Structure of Engineering Revolutions in the Fall of 2001: Eugene Chiu, Jocelyn Lin, Brok Mcferron, Noshirwan Petigara, Satwiksai Seshasai, Mathematical Theory of Claude Shannon. In 1939, Shannon’s advisor, Vannevar Bush, sent him to study genetics with Barbara Burks at the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor. That’s right, the Eugenics office was located at Cold Spring Harbor from 1910 until 1939, when it was closed down as a result of Nazi eugenics. Fortunately, Shannon was not very interested in the practical aspects of eugenics, and more focused on the theoretical aspects of genetics.
                    His work in genetics was a result of direction from Vannevar Bush, who knew about genetics via his presidency of the Carnegie Institution of Washington that ran the Cold Spring Harbor research center. Apparently Bush remarked to a colleague that “It occurred to me that, just as a special algebra had worked well in his hands on the theory of relays, another special algebra might conceivably handle some of the aspects of Mendelian heredity”.”

                    https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/claude-shannon-population-geneticist/

                    “During his career, Bush patented a string of his own inventions. He is known particularly for his engineering work on analog computers, and for the memex.[2] Starting in 1927, Bush constructed a differential analyzer, an analog computer with some digital components that could solve differential equations with as many as 18 independent variables. An offshoot of the work at MIT by Bush and others was the beginning of digital circuit design theory. The memex, which he began developing in the 1930s (heavily influenced by Emanuel Goldberg’s “Statistical Machine” from 1928) was a hypothetical adjustable microfilm viewer with a structure analogous to that of hypertext. The memex and Bush’s 1945 essay “As We May Think” influenced generations of computer scientists, who drew inspiration from his vision of the future.”

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. These are thought-provoking links and connections. I didn’t know about Vannevar Bush and Claude Shannon. (I didn’t study the field, just got into it on the job in a practical way, without theory.)

                      Computational biology, genome informatics, population genetics, eugenic research. To me, that’s a counter-intuitive approach to Life. I sense a kind of obsession here to control things, as you’d control a machine.

                      Anyway, as for the history of science, we see a link established between informatics and genetics in 1939, by the spiritus rector of American strategic science, Vannevar Bush, also linked to big money via the Carnegie foundation.

                      Like

            2. Some people claim that everything is scripted and nothing is by chance, but I don’t believe that. Quite a lot seems to be scripted retrospectively, though, when the narrative is polished and streamlined for mainstream consumption. But to assume that things are scripted as they happen, such as Crick & Watson’s cardboard discovery, is too much for me. Also, how would you ever be able to prove it? It’s fun to assume, though.

              Like

              1. Their “cardboard discovery,” ha… I’ll have to read more on the official story, was not aware of that detail.

                Scripted retrospectively is very compelling. I’m just open to entertaining the idea it might be very preplanned and scripted in advance, as a hypothesis to test. I’m not set on it by any means.

                What about “secret science” though, research being carried out by DARPA (and others we may not have heard of)? And then, say you were 20 or 30 years ahead of published science, why not use fronts to introduce it, to the extent they choose to do so… Then you control the whole narrative, don’t leave it to chance. Not sure if you read Miles – he’s had some papers speculating (pretty wildly, admittedly) about the tech that might be available behind closed doors.

                Like

                1. I’ve read about five papers written by “Miles” – Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, the bombing of Dresden (anniversary 13 – 15 February). I liked the one on Jobs, but the one on Dresden was ridiculous. I haven’t read any of his science papers.

                  There is this wide-spread claim that “the military” or “the CIA” have stuff that is “decades in advance”. There is no evidence for it. They certainly do have their specialized and very expensive equipment, but that doesn’t make me believe in “secret science”. The stuff they have, they also want to use, and they do. Much of it may well be secret, but that is quite normal for military technology.

                  Like

                  1. The papers vary somewhat in quality and level of insight. Arguably over the past few years there was a downturn as he got deeply into genealogy, and the papers became a bit cluttered with it. But I think his recent work has been a return to form, with some real gems in among them. I recommend giving him a deeper look, as that sample doesn’t sound like the strongest. What sort of issues did you have with the Dresden paper though?

                    Like

                    1. The Dresden paper was extremely superficial, with no evidence the author understood German, and stopped just two inches short of saying the raid didn’t happen. Maybe I exaggerate a bit, but that was the tendency. So I concluded the guy (or the label) was a waste of time. – Has he written papers on the Atomic Bomb? Auschwitz? the Titanic? Pearl Harbour & the USS Arizona? the USS Liberty?

                      Like

                    2. Agreed on the Dresden paper, and also his Hitler genealogy paper that just came out at the moment I was documenting my (deeper than Miles) Nazionism research, but agreement on Mathis in general.

                      He stays within his world and for someone having lived for years in Belgium, he should at least understand some French (as a painter, c’est suffit), some German and possibly some Dutch.

                      He has referred to a few Dutch terms and names throughout his publications, but from that I unfortunately didn’t get the impression he dominated my maternal tongue at a decent level.

                      And there his air of arrogance speaks against him and he should be more humble especially with us, Europeans, who in general dominate or are even fluent in various languages.

                      The linguiversity is a strength, just as not having it is a handicap.

                      Luckily at Eye am Eye Radio you can enjoy quite some of it, up to Swedish…

                      XS, you asked for the link before.
                      And resistance is a philosophy,not a “movement” or anything the Animal Farmers can get their hands on.

                      Gaia (with capital, so not me) is bigger than Satan.

                      Cause Satan is man-made.

                      Like

  20. The Critical Check girl sent me a video laying out a ​well-reasoned geometrical critique of electron microscopy and the conclusions drawn from it. It’s about cell theory, so in order to understand what is talked about you you have to have the vocabulary at hand. There are info graphics on the respective Wikipedia articles that will give you the full picture (as per the narrative).

    Harold Hillman Part 1/3: The Fine Structure of the Living Cell – University of Surrey, 1977 – 27 minutes

    Like

  21. I told my brother about my doubts concerning molecular biology and the DNA/RNA/protein business. He holds a PhD in physics and keeps his mind clean by applying regular if moderate doses of brainwashing by mainstream media, and cautiously limiting the exercice of his mental capacity to his employer’s needs.

    Unsurprisingly, without knowing anything about molecular biology, he was instantly able to refute my theory. The reason he gave was interesting, so I’m posting it here.

    If you were right, he said, that would mean that there are tens of thousands of people in academia and industry, working on false premises, flawed theories, filling their days with meaningless routine of essentially nonsensical tasks. So therefore your theory cannot be true.

    I found that to be highly convincing, but even more amusing. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alternatively, they could be working under a flawed paradigm, but performing localized/ specialized tasks that don’t really depend on it, and may have some utility of various kinds (while, granted, the nature of much scientific work even under a correct paradigm would be of limited interest or utility.)

      I remember reading some climate science paper once, maybe about ice core samples or something. It was an extremely narrow analysis in any case, very specialized. It yielded “data,” of course, real observed phenomena (assuming they were diligent and in good faith.) It had very tenuous connections or concrete bearing on the larger paradigm, in my view, but they nevertheless tacked on (what seemed to me) a little pro forma paragraph at the end, assuming as true “man-made climate change,” and saying how their paper lent it further support, or shed some new light on it. More research needed, of course.

      It strikes me that a lot of these fields could operate like this – the vast majority of workaday scientists are pursuing such specialized, minute areas of research, that they have little to do with “theory” in and of themselves. To be a bit unkind about it, they’re just tiny cogs in the machine, drudges, and it requires a generalist to assert anything useful about theory, paradigms. They themselves have been “disciplined” to just genuflect to the reigning dogma, not try to question it. And their career advances by being a company man – showing how their tiny sliver supports and advances the paradigm chosen at higher levels. Some specialist (most of them) is in no position to speak up and say “Hey, my findings challenge everything.” More likely, they would want to ditch those results and try to find something satisfactory to the program. Or, spin their results to show how, while superficially “bad,” they actually support the narrative.

      But as long as they don’t step on any third rails, those narrow specialized research areas can yield real results – that’s probably “allowed,” and encouraged, and the real drive of the workaday scientists. They really do solve micro-puzzles in the lab, and sometimes those solutions have applied uses (military, drugs (questionable or not), bio-engineering, etc.) What do they care if they have to genuflect to some irrelevant big picture?

      I go back to Francis Bacon again, he had this view of organized science in the future (our present) being just this kind of work by innumerable “drudges” – not lone tinkering geniuses or cranks, but company men, poring over Nature with a fine-toothed comb. Much of it will be trivial or meaningless, but the system as a whole, in its vast data collection and sifting, will be more effective than any haphazard collection of “geniuses.” Hence the vast funding, and the genuine advances that are made. It could even be that that’s the point of it, to TPTB, its practical use – while the general theories and paradigms are more important as propaganda for public consumption (and workaday scientists are “disciplined” not to question it.) Especially in certain fields (biology, climate) with political ramifications.

      Also the “connected” or well born, who go into science and start on third base – they are “read in” and aren’t to be drudges. They’ll set the theories and paradigms, or oversee the useful results the drudges do turn up. Administer it all.

      Like

      1. Great comment! Genuflectiong to the reigning dogma. People want to fit in. Become a respectable cog in the machinery. It is certainly understandable. I remember the desire to fit in. And the perspective of the cog in the machinery. There is nothing inherently bad about it.

        Like

        1. Thanks Lumi! It’s nice to meet someone interested in this topic from a similar angle to mine. I’ve only ever talked to one person who seriously engaged on it, intelligently, but they were very “mainstream” and it was a constant battle to communicate, just to move past first assumptions to anything more interesting.

          Like

  22. “company men–poring over nature with a fine-toothed comb”–That’s what is going on. They are doing real stuff with DNA–it’s real, and it’s amazing. But “science” is a huge information accumulation operation–a massive effort at cataloguing life and how it works and how it may be manipulated.

    Like

    1. So in other words, a metaphor is what’s going on. That would certainly account for the lack of tangible results. – A massive effort at cataloguing life and how it works has been going on for almost 300 years. Swedish natural researcher and true biologist Carl von Linné, after all, was born in 1707. – As for manipulation, we have dog breeders, horse breeders, sheep breeders, apple breeders, tomato breeders, wheat breeders etc – and they all use the jolly old natural way, just adding some human selection.

      Like

    2. Thanks for your feedback Hope Springs, that’s very helpful since you’ve got first hand experience.

      It’s funny, I can appreciate where both you and Lumi are coming from, even though there is some disagreement between the two of you. Maybe just a question of where one draws the line… Where do you draw the line, Hope? :^)

      Like

  23. I’m not really sure where I draw the line. I have seen convincing evidence of fakery in things like Sandy Hook for example. Big emotion-inducing news events seem to me to frequently be fake (or somehow unreal). But then, maybe if I met one of the SH parents in real life and they/their story seemed real, maybe my view would change? I don’t expect that to happen but if it did, I’d have to think that through. I have in real life worked with DNA (and RNA, proteins, cells etc.) and I am quite convinced they are real, and modern biotechnology is real (if maybe sometimes inflated or mis-understood by the non-biologist). I personally have suspicions about the hierarchy of scientific funding (as that is where the real decisions are made about which scientific questions get to be addressed). New understandings and frameworks can come about in science so that things may be re-interpreted, and this leaves room for some manipulation/fakery I would think, but the technical stuff is happening. They can put a gene into a mouse and make it glow green. They can add DNA to bacteria or other cells grown in a dish to make them produce certain proteins. They can look at a sample of your DNA and figure out your likely ancestral origins, find relatives in databanks etc. They can identify missing or misspelled sections of DNA that reliably lead to certain diseases or outcomes. It’s real–it is an amazing code of life. There is still some mystery in DNA, but I really can’t imagine myself coming to believe that the real mystery is that it is all fake. Maybe we are in a hologram or simulation (these seem quite possible/likely) and things are fake in that sense, but the meaningfulness of DNA within the hologram/simulation would still be there…

    Like

    1. There is no more in-your-face ridiculous psyop than Sandy Hook – there are equals but I don’t think you could say there was one more in your face. No father is going to give a 17 minute press conference the day after his 6 year-old daughter died simply to say what a great little gal she was and mention a fund-raising site already set up twice.

      That does not happen in reality.

      This is a great spoof video of a guy, Harrison Hanks, pretending to hire himself out as a crisis actor.

      I had a very disconcerting experience the night before last. My sister always complains that all I do is look at psyop stuff but even when I look at normal stuff it pops up. I was watching a program, Insight, which has people on each week who relate to a particular theme. The program’s theme was long marriages and one of the couples was on because their marriage had survived the alleged loss of their 21 yo daughter … at the London Bridge Hoax of 2017. I’m like, “Noooooo, for God’s sake is nothing sacred?” They weren’t over-the-top like the SH parents but the father did say something that didn’t make sense – they always do or say at least one thing that’s not quite right. He said something about “waiting for the body to be well” before returning to Australia. Obviously, a dead body doesn’t get “well”. Guess what? They had a fund-raising site set up for their darling daughter too.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, the SBS show–I can’t think of a specific episode like the example you’ve given, but I think it is the feeling that there is a subtle agenda to the show (though it seems relatively well-balanced and is quite enjoyable) and strange feelings about certain guests–like, wait I have seen that person on TV before somewhere, or maybe the level of emotion seems strange for the situation (too low / too high, whatever). It could be an overly suspicious mind, but that’s why I described it as strange vibes–I can’t give a really concrete example. Unlike the crazy obvious examples from Sandy Hook as you mentioned above.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. They can put a gene into a mouse and make it glow green.

      And do you claim there is a causal relation between the two? Where can we see the green glowing mouse? I’m quite familiar with mice as they go into my traps when they try to enter the house. I could imagine them glowing green if you paint them with phosphorizing paint, but otherwise? Or is it just a metaphor for the alleged manipulative power over life that man wields through the science of genetics?

      There is still some mystery in DNA

      Ten years ago, according to Sydney Brenner, most of it was a mystery, for as much as they were able to provide a narrative about structure and function, as little they were able to accomplish in terms of practical application. Very few humans had then looked at the human genome. Computers were “looking at it” because it was impractical for humans to do so. The meaning of the alleged code was unclear except for tiny bits of alleged knowledge pertaining to alleged hereditary diseases. So what has changed in the last ten years?

      Like

      1. Regarding the green-glowing mice, search GFP mice. You will find images, papers, etc. I don’t expect you to believe in it based on that because I think you are determined to remain sceptical. Unfortunately, I can’t mail you one!

        Like

        1. Myself, I don’t doubt they’ve managed to make green glowing mice, and the other examples you give. Though I do wonder if it’s possible that there’s a disconnect between the actual way these technologies work, and the “poetic” theories that are said to underlie them. Sort of a gap between the engineering and the theory/ poetics.

          If not… If they allegedly theorized all this in the middle of last century, and engineering has borne out their (at the time) wild-eyed theories, then it lends credence to the idea that they already had the tech/ theory (at some level) behind the scenes, and just decided to control release it with stories and front figures.

          Like

        2. Turns out you cannot buy such mice because, among other things, their life expectancy is very short. The GFP protein said to be responsible for the green glow is also said to be cytotoxic in various ways, in addition to being immunogenic. Without knowing anything about bioluminescence, I do not only doubt the DNA/protein claim, but also the protein/glow claim. They could have achieved the glow in some more straightforward chemical way that would certainly account for the short life expectancy of these unfortunate mice.

          Like

          1. I never said they were for sale! Your info about their short life-spans in not in the least surprising. It doesn’t mean they are fake though. It is really just more support for the idea that it is very unwise to do (or allow to be done) experimental gene therapy on oneself.

            Like

  24. On April 1, 2022, Tom Cowan shared a video “featuring Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck, where they filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform.” https://www.bitchute.com/video/qhyrm8C6nm2N/

    From the original video featuring the five commentators (https://www.bitchute.com/video/bqfEhbhYWYE1/) – and for those who have very little time and/or motivation to watch the discussion in its entirety – I thought the most pertinent statement – relating to fetal bovine serum (FBS) – (beginning around the 17 minute timestamp to the 18:49 timestamp) was the following:

    “So they’re taking . . . the supernatant – the cell culture media . . . and everything that’s in there, but they’re also then looking at internally, the RNA in there . . . When cells die, it’s well known that they actually spit out nucleic acids . . . And based on how they’re culturing these cells . . . it actually says in the Methods . . . they’re starting the cells at 7 percent FBS . . . If you look at where they actually bought the cells from . . . They recommend 10 percent FBS . . . that’s kind of a standard . . . thing for culturing cells. They go ahead and drop it down to 2 percent when they introduce the ‘virus.’ That’s called serum starvation . . . that induces what’s known as apoptosis, which is a form of . . . programmed cell death . . . the result of which is – the cells die . . . and the end stages of that is the formation of what are called apoptotic bodies – which are small particulates . . . the cell literally bleeds apart . . . And during that process you get the release of nucleic acids . . . So it doesn’t surprise me that you would see an increase in something like that in the cell culture media . . . you would have to prove that that actually came from a virus . . .”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s