We talked about a wide range of topics, including Pandemic Preparedness racket, how vaccines cause food allergies and drive the chronic disease epidemic, the nature of time, and much more.
Yesterday morning, while opening Gmail, I was offered the following vaccines by my local hospital staff:
- Covid
- Influenza
- VRS (Virus respiratoire syncytial)
The government had never done such a thing before this eternal state of pandemic we're in now.
I'm known here for my 'wrong thinking' and for wholeheartedly adhering to anti-vax misinformation theories (no, I just try to stay alive as long as I can), so my Social worker in the senior citizens' program sent me this email: "I think I already know your answer, but I have to ask if you would like vaccines administered at home."
We're at a stage where the people paid to look after our well-being hound us with dangerous intentions. Social workers act like the desperate 'kapos' of the former German camps of WWII. That's unfortunate but real.
Heh, heh... Your worker asked: "I think I already know your answer, but I have to ask if you would like vaccines administered at home." Answer: Hell yes! I'll send a nurse over as soon as you get home. Voila! She's done pestering people for a living...
You have a great opportunity to troll and have fun with fascists while they don't yet have power over you to force into whatever they want you to take/do.
At least a vaccine is more subtle than herding us into the showers and gassing us with Zyklon-B. Thing is, it's the same proprietors running the game again.
Fascinating discussion. So much of it makes so much sense. I am currently putting a page together for hypermobility when this podcast came back to me. So much of hypermobility is discussed as hereditary but is it possible that the large increase in this syndrome is not as I suspect because these clients suffer with pain but actually another side effect of vaccination. I don’t know but would assume connective tissue could be affected by the same pathway as other areas of the body? Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Yes. Search for A Midwestern Doctor substack. S/he writes about this as a consequence of childhood vaxs. I can't remember which article but they're all good.
I only remember it b/c my sister has this and pregnancy was awful for her. She danced growing up and eventually had to have both her big toes operated on. She also had two bouts of breast cancer (which I find suspect based on the latest Dr. Yoho interview). She's 41... her generation seems especially brainwashed to believe it's their genetics and to expect to get cancer! Ugh.
I would be very interested to know the answer to that too! I have been investigating connective tissue disorders that I believe my family suffer from. Too many issues point to this including autism and allergies and of course no help or informed advice has been obtained from largely ignorant consultants whom we eventually got referred to. As they say, it is a very grey area but with ridiculously limited diagnostic parameters and limited genetic testing as not much research has been done in this field. They simply do not seem to be interested in this area despite reporting that it’s now 1:100 that suffer from some form of connective tissue disorder whereas some years ago it was thought to be 1:1000. I know others whom I suspect have apparent issues too. At this stage I wouldn’t rule anything out with their diabolical pharmakeia..
Your continuing exploration and explanations of vaccines inducing manifestations of anaphylaxis are really impactful.
Speaking to the: not having known better - I'm continually thankful that I was made aware of the glaring problems with vaccine science (and the almost lack of science around the safety) before the 2020 plandemonium - it put me in a position of knowledge in order to protect a loved one who has a chronic autoimmune condition and warn him regarding the shots. They always play this game of telling the majority that they need to get jabbed for those who "can't", then if you look at what guidance is given for the immunosuppressed, it's some BS like "take an extra dose in order to mount enough immune response". It's all so disgusting.
I overheard two elderly ladies in a thrift store yesterday talking about one of their acquaintances who had "caught" Covid. One lady asked " Where did she catch it? " The other replied " On the senior citizens bus ".
I've had a bit of a rest from substack recently - it got a bit overwhelming with all the different viewpoints expressed - who do you believe? - plus with the awake crowd at times turning on each other (a great shame - I share Delingpole's view on that). But that talk really helped me, Sasha for many reasons. A lot fell into place. Thank you!
I listened to your conversation with James on the Delingpod with great interest, especially on the research done by the French doctor on inducing anaphylactic shock. I spent, aged 10, 3 months comatose in the infectious diseases hospital in Nairobi after the oral Polio inoculation. That was in the late 50s, a period during which DDT was used extensively against mosquitos, so my condition may even have been due to the latter. In all events I’ve stayed clear from all interventions since.
Around early 2020, I told anyone who would listen or read that Covid19 is a PsyOp / Bioweapon, & later, that the vaccines were the part 2 of the Bioweapon. Many of these contacts are unreachable or never reply now. Maybe many of them are dead or somehow incapacitated / disabled, or don't want to admit their mistakes. Sad.
Well that's a disappointment and surprising that Rupert Sheldon believes vaccines are good. I would have thought he could/would use his inner knowing of good and evil. Truth shines like a light.
Sasha - Crick and Watson's paper was seminal not because it showed an X-ray image of a DNA salt crystal. It was seminal because it proposed potential mechanisms of DNA replication.
There were three proposed models for replication:
1. Semi-conservative - each strand of DNA serves as a template for a complementary strand and you get two new cells, each with one old strand and one new strand.
2. Conservative - the double stranded DNA serves as a template for creating a new double stranded molecule. You get two new cells, one with totally old DNA and one with totally new.
3. Dispersive - the original DNA breaks into fragments and then replicates, somehow or other creating two identical sets of daughter DNA. In that case, there might well be different amounts of old and new DNA in the two daughter cells.
The Nobel Prize came as a result of the seminal Meselson and Stahl experiment to distinguish between these possibilities. By growing bacteria on 15N ammonium chloride as the sole nitrogen source, you get a pure population of 'heavier DNA'. At that point, you change growth onto normal 14N ammonium chloride - which will cause DNA to become lighter.
These two forms of DNA can be distinguished using caesium chloride ultracentrifugation.
And that is how Meselson and Stahl showed that DNA replication was semi-conservative.
I think you also need to look more deeply at the crystollographic work of Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize with Crick and Watson and Franklin would have, had she not died prematurely (Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded posthumously).
You should also think about all the technologies developed which depend on the double helix structure of DNA, or more pertinently, a double stranded sequence of complementary bases hydrogen-bonding together.
DNA sequencing works based on annealing of specific oligonucleotides to specific complementary sequences. It simply wouldn't work otherwise.
Restriction enzymes work by cutting double stranded DNA in overhanging ways - some 5' overhanging, some 3' overhanging and a few cut a blunt end.
Cloning works because you can predict how to cut DNA and how to stick it together again.
PCR works because heating up DNA turns it from a double stranded molecule to two single stranded molecules, allowing the specific primers to anneal.
Whether or not DNA's precise Xray structure is this or that, all the technology developed the past 60 years depends on DNA replication being semi-conservative.
Sasha I looked at the link you provide and it is not a very impressive paper. I think that rather than rashly embracing fringe medical theories and isolating yourself in this way, it might be better to stick to your field of expertise in the analysis and interpretation of data..
Please build a broad consensus to get wider acceptance for and understanding of your important work with Katherine. It is vital that your findings are known, they are fundamental to understanding how the coup was implemented.
Some of the ideas you put forward require a new scientific paradigm. I am not against this, but these hypothetical pure science theories would require years of work to be understood, validated and gain acceptance..
Some people without solid grounding in the field genuinely have trouble conceiving the amount of data and results that become impossible if their alternative hypothesis is applied.
With others, I have a hard time believing they don't know better.
Thanks for your response. I am concerned that Sasha, (whom I admire) can make these rash and sweeping statements as they diminish her credibility.
Vaccine harms have been known for years. There is much good research on this, which would be helpful to refer to for providing an historical perspective on how good medicine was gradually corrupted.
I do not concur that this was a plan from the outset...this is historically improbable as medical risk/benefit analysis changes over time as disease patterns and medical technology develop.
Many scientific voices were later raised over the years to alert to harms as they emerged. The overuse of vaccination, - from two or three vaccines against genuinely dangerous disease, to multiple jabs for minor illness, and jabs that are known to be ineffective (flu).
Also the corruption of medical rules - not injecting babies or pregnant women, not using vaccines if the recipient is ill. All these known safety measures were later eliminated.
Opportunistic political power was what perverted medicine and blocked action on this at a later stage..
I am also concerned that many medics still appear totally unaware of the political/legal dimensions of this scam uncovered by K. Watt and can still say "pharma bad" Making extreme and unfounded medical statements can only diminish credibility and delay acceptance of Sasha's and Katherine's real contribution to understanding this coup..
I think evil people (our enemy) have had a genocidal plan that only became viable after a lot of good people did the research and created the tools that had dual-use as therapeutics and weapons.
I have said elsewhere that science has to be valid and true for it to be able to be misused. If the relevant science were not correct, it could not be misapplied. The perpetrators cannot create, they can only pervert.
If you think about it, most medical science - as it leads to an understanding of bodily processes, - also leads to understanding of how to thwart the action of these healthy processes and use them to harm.
I finally got around to reading Sasha's link there, and i'd need to open a substack to post a full refutation, but i'll take this as a summary:
Claim: "Genes, a sequence of these nucleotides, is also an imaginary creation. They do not exist. Wherever they are shown to be inserted/modified, is all an exercise in circular referencing. For example, in GMO crops, which I have talked about earlier—successive breeding (for desirable characteristics like sweeter fruit, smaller seeds) is passed off as genetic tinkering. Darwin wrote a lot about artificial selection by man—by breeding. Nothing can be done without going through the laborious process; the idea that you can modify a gene in a lab and make the crop better is a bogus claim. Monsanto (now Bayer) is more interested in selling seeds and patented weed killers by this sleight of hand. Every natural process can be passed off as gene tinkering—flour turns into pancake with gene tinkering (instead of heat), now give them $$$ to make pancakes."
Refutation: Genes Exist, and it's Damn Obvious, and you should be ashamed
1. Molecular Biology and Genetics:
Genes are well-defined sequences of DNA that code for specific proteins or functional RNA molecules. The existence of genes has been confirmed through numerous experimental and observational methods. For example, the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, mapped and sequenced the entire human genome, identifying over 20,000 protein-coding genes. This project was a collaborative effort involving multiple independent research groups, and the results have been consistently replicated and verified. That means they could not have been sequencing noise with their process - so what is the source of the patterns that are being independently verified?
2. Functional Verification:
Genes are not just theoretical constructs; they have been functionally verified through experiments where specific genes are knocked out or overexpressed in model organisms. For instance, CRISPR-Cas9 technology allows for precise editing of genes in living cells. The observable effects of these edits provide direct evidence of gene function. Researchers have independently replicated these experiments, confirming the same outcomes. For example, knocking out a specific gene in mice often results in predictable phenotypic changes, which are consistently observed by different research teams.
3. Genetic Engineering in Agriculture:
The claim that GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) crops are simply the result of successive breeding is incorrect. Genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. For example, the insertion of the Bt gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into crops like corn and cotton has been shown to confer resistance to certain pests. This is a clear example of gene modification that goes beyond traditional breeding methods.
4. Artificial Selection vs. Genetic Engineering:
While artificial selection (breeding) has been used for centuries to select for desirable traits, it operates on the genetic variation that already exists within a population. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, introduces new genetic material or modifies existing genes in a precise and controlled manner. This allows for the creation of traits that would be impossible to achieve through traditional breeding alone. For instance, the development of crops of E.coli that have been modified to produce a particular, human-specified code of modRNA (for use in COVID injectables) is a clear example of what genetic engineering can achieve that traditional breeding cannot.
5. Verification by Replication:
One of the fundamental principles of the scientific method is verification by replication. Scientific findings are considered valid only when they can be independently replicated by other researchers. In the case of genetic engineering, numerous independent studies have replicated the results of gene editing and modification. For example, the effectiveness of CRISPR-Cas9 in editing genes has been demonstrated by multiple research groups worldwide, using different organisms and experimental setups. The consistency of these results across different studies provides strong evidence for the existence and function of genes.
6. Alternative Hypotheses:
For an alternative hypothesis to be considered valid, it must explain the same phenomena as the current scientific understanding and also account for the reproducibility of results. The claim that genes are an imaginary creation and that genetic engineering is a form of circular referencing fails to explain why independent researchers, using different methods and in different laboratories, consistently obtain the same sequences and observe the same phenotypic changes. The reproducibility of these results is a key strength of the current scientific understanding of genes and genetic engineering.
7. Natural Processes and Gene Tinkering:
The analogy of flour turning into a pancake is a misrepresentation of genetic engineering. While natural processes like cooking involve physical changes, genetic engineering involves precise modifications at the molecular level. The claim that natural processes can be passed off as gene tinkering is a misunderstanding of the scientific principles involved. The precise and predictable outcomes of genetic engineering, such as the creation of Bt crops or the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to edit genes, cannot be explained by natural processes alone.
In conclusion, the existence of genes is a well-established scientific fact, supported by a vast body of evidence from molecular biology, genetics, and biotechnology. The claim that genes are an imaginary creation and that genetic engineering is merely a form of circular referencing is not supported by the scientific evidence. The consistent and reproducible results obtained by independent researchers provide strong evidence for the existence and function of genes.
And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.
[EDIT]
But wait, I didn't begin to get into the things that can not exist if Sasha is right.
Let's look at a bit of what entire science departments are using as their working, functional, field-tested model of what's going on -- we call it:
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: The cell is a highly organized and intricate system, and the nucleus, where DNA is housed, is a microcosm of this complexity.
* Nucleus and DNA Organization:
** The nucleus contains the cell's genetic material, DNA, which is organized into chromosomes. Each chromosome is a long, linear DNA molecule that is tightly coiled and wrapped around proteins called histones to form chromatin.
** The DNA sequence is read in a 5' to 3' direction, and it is transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase. This process is known as transcription.
* Transcription:
* During transcription, specific segments of DNA (genes) are read by the enzyme RNA polymerase, which synthesizes a complementary RNA strand. This process involves the following steps:
** Initiation: RNA polymerase, along with various transcription factors, binds to the promoter region of a gene. The promoter is a specific DNA sequence located upstream of the gene that signals the start of transcription.
** Elongation: RNA polymerase then moves along the template strand of DNA in the 5' to 3' direction, reading the DNA sequence and adding nucleotides to the growing RNA chain. The RNA polymerase follows the base-pairing rules (A pairs with U, and C pairs with G) to synthesize the pre-mRNA.
** Termination: Transcription ends when RNA polymerase reaches a termination signal, which is a specific sequence in the DNA that causes the enzyme to stop and release the newly synthesized pre-mRNA.
** Post-Transcriptional Modifications: The pre-mRNA undergoes several modifications, including splicing, where introns (non-coding sequences) are removed, and exons (coding sequences) are joined together to form mature mRNA. The mature mRNA is then transported out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm.
* Translation:
** In the cytoplasm, the mature mRNA is translated into proteins by ribosomes. Ribosomes are complex molecular machines composed of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and proteins.
** The mRNA is read in codons, which are sequences of three nucleotides that correspond to specific amino acids. Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules, which carry specific amino acids, match these codons and bring the corresponding amino acids to the ribosome.
** The ribosome then links the amino acids together to form a polypeptide chain, which folds into a functional protein.
* Post-Translational Modifications:
** After translation, proteins often undergo post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation, glycosylation, and methylation, which can alter their function, stability, and localization within the cell.
and... aaah that's enough. All of that's experimentally validated. All of it!
Do you understand how many thousands of different experiments -- that have built-up this and much more -- all become immpossibilities if there's no DNA encoding genetic information?
Well Obama was given the Nobel Price for Peace, so I am sure it just proved that: 1. Peace is achieved and 2. Obama is the one that has shown the world how it is done 👍
On a serious note- there is no way you can prove what is going on in a living human, by experimenting on a extracted “sample”(dead and outside of the natural living environment) let alone comparing it to a unicellular organism(bacteria) that has been stressed with some chemicals. Anyhow, you are free to believe whatever you like
Correct. DNA mechanisms are quite dynamic In-vivo and operate in synergy with other cells. My take on it is that intracellular exchange are *not* predictable within isolated conditions. The proposed objectives within many In-vitro experiment are often modeled as computer generated In-silico results. Most of the research wins a No-Bell prize...
It's amazing that humans can think that they know what genetic make ups will be best for all time in future. Saying 'we are superior in this century' is not the same as saying 'we will be superior under future unknown conditions that we cannot yet conceive'.
Hello Mr. Jaggar. I've concluded that humans have a very defective sense of proportion. This holds true for all sense of time, space, and infinity... Ah well...
I'll be 71 in a few days (https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/repeated-mrna-covid-jabs-lead-to?).
Yesterday morning, while opening Gmail, I was offered the following vaccines by my local hospital staff:
- Covid
- Influenza
- VRS (Virus respiratoire syncytial)
The government had never done such a thing before this eternal state of pandemic we're in now.
I'm known here for my 'wrong thinking' and for wholeheartedly adhering to anti-vax misinformation theories (no, I just try to stay alive as long as I can), so my Social worker in the senior citizens' program sent me this email: "I think I already know your answer, but I have to ask if you would like vaccines administered at home."
We're at a stage where the people paid to look after our well-being hound us with dangerous intentions. Social workers act like the desperate 'kapos' of the former German camps of WWII. That's unfortunate but real.
All for your safety
And for the ‘common good’.
Heh, heh... Your worker asked: "I think I already know your answer, but I have to ask if you would like vaccines administered at home." Answer: Hell yes! I'll send a nurse over as soon as you get home. Voila! She's done pestering people for a living...
You have a great opportunity to troll and have fun with fascists while they don't yet have power over you to force into whatever they want you to take/do.
You can't "Talk about the weather" without talking conspiracy, either!!
See: Tennessee Senate passes bill to ban chemtrail spraying while corporate media pretends geoengineering doesn’t exist >>> 03/24/2024 >>> https://geoengineering.news/2024-03-24-tennessee-senate-passes-bill-ban-chemtrail-spraying.html
Oops! They forgot to include an Enforcement provision in the code... I guess hurricanes kinda happen in the right places... Sometimes...
The $750 payout is really rubbing it in, Lahaina was $700 . It's a trademark
Superb introduction regarding the use of anaphylactic poisoning as a 'vaccination' process. Thank you Sasha, Very well done.
The medical profession is knee deep in bullshit they espouse as physical knowledge. Hangings would be too kind...
At least a vaccine is more subtle than herding us into the showers and gassing us with Zyklon-B. Thing is, it's the same proprietors running the game again.
It's always a public health crisis.
https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/propaganda-poster-jews-are-lice-they-cause-typhus
mmm... and ahem 6 million dead eh?
Sasha,
Fascinating discussion. So much of it makes so much sense. I am currently putting a page together for hypermobility when this podcast came back to me. So much of hypermobility is discussed as hereditary but is it possible that the large increase in this syndrome is not as I suspect because these clients suffer with pain but actually another side effect of vaccination. I don’t know but would assume connective tissue could be affected by the same pathway as other areas of the body? Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Yes. Search for A Midwestern Doctor substack. S/he writes about this as a consequence of childhood vaxs. I can't remember which article but they're all good.
Interesting. Follow them too but missed that one. Thank you.
I only remember it b/c my sister has this and pregnancy was awful for her. She danced growing up and eventually had to have both her big toes operated on. She also had two bouts of breast cancer (which I find suspect based on the latest Dr. Yoho interview). She's 41... her generation seems especially brainwashed to believe it's their genetics and to expect to get cancer! Ugh.
Here you go: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-hidden-link-between-hypermobility
I would be very interested to know the answer to that too! I have been investigating connective tissue disorders that I believe my family suffer from. Too many issues point to this including autism and allergies and of course no help or informed advice has been obtained from largely ignorant consultants whom we eventually got referred to. As they say, it is a very grey area but with ridiculously limited diagnostic parameters and limited genetic testing as not much research has been done in this field. They simply do not seem to be interested in this area despite reporting that it’s now 1:100 that suffer from some form of connective tissue disorder whereas some years ago it was thought to be 1:1000. I know others whom I suspect have apparent issues too. At this stage I wouldn’t rule anything out with their diabolical pharmakeia..
Your continuing exploration and explanations of vaccines inducing manifestations of anaphylaxis are really impactful.
Speaking to the: not having known better - I'm continually thankful that I was made aware of the glaring problems with vaccine science (and the almost lack of science around the safety) before the 2020 plandemonium - it put me in a position of knowledge in order to protect a loved one who has a chronic autoimmune condition and warn him regarding the shots. They always play this game of telling the majority that they need to get jabbed for those who "can't", then if you look at what guidance is given for the immunosuppressed, it's some BS like "take an extra dose in order to mount enough immune response". It's all so disgusting.
I overheard two elderly ladies in a thrift store yesterday talking about one of their acquaintances who had "caught" Covid. One lady asked " Where did she catch it? " The other replied " On the senior citizens bus ".
So now we know how this virus is spreading:).
I really like your hunting scene in watercolor; a good tie-in image, for your 2nd conversation with James. You bring out the best in James, too.
Devils, demons, other-wordly goblins, succubus, incubus, alien reptilians, etc... (semantics) masquerading as humans. Soulless, black-eyed mutants.
I've had a bit of a rest from substack recently - it got a bit overwhelming with all the different viewpoints expressed - who do you believe? - plus with the awake crowd at times turning on each other (a great shame - I share Delingpole's view on that). But that talk really helped me, Sasha for many reasons. A lot fell into place. Thank you!
I listened to your conversation with James on the Delingpod with great interest, especially on the research done by the French doctor on inducing anaphylactic shock. I spent, aged 10, 3 months comatose in the infectious diseases hospital in Nairobi after the oral Polio inoculation. That was in the late 50s, a period during which DDT was used extensively against mosquitos, so my condition may even have been due to the latter. In all events I’ve stayed clear from all interventions since.
Wow! Great painting Sasha!
Around early 2020, I told anyone who would listen or read that Covid19 is a PsyOp / Bioweapon, & later, that the vaccines were the part 2 of the Bioweapon. Many of these contacts are unreachable or never reply now. Maybe many of them are dead or somehow incapacitated / disabled, or don't want to admit their mistakes. Sad.
Well that's a disappointment and surprising that Rupert Sheldon believes vaccines are good. I would have thought he could/would use his inner knowing of good and evil. Truth shines like a light.
Sasha - Crick and Watson's paper was seminal not because it showed an X-ray image of a DNA salt crystal. It was seminal because it proposed potential mechanisms of DNA replication.
There were three proposed models for replication:
1. Semi-conservative - each strand of DNA serves as a template for a complementary strand and you get two new cells, each with one old strand and one new strand.
2. Conservative - the double stranded DNA serves as a template for creating a new double stranded molecule. You get two new cells, one with totally old DNA and one with totally new.
3. Dispersive - the original DNA breaks into fragments and then replicates, somehow or other creating two identical sets of daughter DNA. In that case, there might well be different amounts of old and new DNA in the two daughter cells.
The Nobel Prize came as a result of the seminal Meselson and Stahl experiment to distinguish between these possibilities. By growing bacteria on 15N ammonium chloride as the sole nitrogen source, you get a pure population of 'heavier DNA'. At that point, you change growth onto normal 14N ammonium chloride - which will cause DNA to become lighter.
These two forms of DNA can be distinguished using caesium chloride ultracentrifugation.
And that is how Meselson and Stahl showed that DNA replication was semi-conservative.
I think you also need to look more deeply at the crystollographic work of Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize with Crick and Watson and Franklin would have, had she not died prematurely (Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded posthumously).
You should also think about all the technologies developed which depend on the double helix structure of DNA, or more pertinently, a double stranded sequence of complementary bases hydrogen-bonding together.
DNA sequencing works based on annealing of specific oligonucleotides to specific complementary sequences. It simply wouldn't work otherwise.
Restriction enzymes work by cutting double stranded DNA in overhanging ways - some 5' overhanging, some 3' overhanging and a few cut a blunt end.
Cloning works because you can predict how to cut DNA and how to stick it together again.
PCR works because heating up DNA turns it from a double stranded molecule to two single stranded molecules, allowing the specific primers to anneal.
Whether or not DNA's precise Xray structure is this or that, all the technology developed the past 60 years depends on DNA replication being semi-conservative.
I don't have time to write detailed responses here, but I suggest you review this page https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
and also I highly recommend Sheldrake's "Science set free" book, the chapters on DNA and genetic "science".
Sasha I looked at the link you provide and it is not a very impressive paper. I think that rather than rashly embracing fringe medical theories and isolating yourself in this way, it might be better to stick to your field of expertise in the analysis and interpretation of data..
Please build a broad consensus to get wider acceptance for and understanding of your important work with Katherine. It is vital that your findings are known, they are fundamental to understanding how the coup was implemented.
Some of the ideas you put forward require a new scientific paradigm. I am not against this, but these hypothetical pure science theories would require years of work to be understood, validated and gain acceptance..
Some people without solid grounding in the field genuinely have trouble conceiving the amount of data and results that become impossible if their alternative hypothesis is applied.
With others, I have a hard time believing they don't know better.
Thanks for your response. I am concerned that Sasha, (whom I admire) can make these rash and sweeping statements as they diminish her credibility.
Vaccine harms have been known for years. There is much good research on this, which would be helpful to refer to for providing an historical perspective on how good medicine was gradually corrupted.
I do not concur that this was a plan from the outset...this is historically improbable as medical risk/benefit analysis changes over time as disease patterns and medical technology develop.
Many scientific voices were later raised over the years to alert to harms as they emerged. The overuse of vaccination, - from two or three vaccines against genuinely dangerous disease, to multiple jabs for minor illness, and jabs that are known to be ineffective (flu).
Also the corruption of medical rules - not injecting babies or pregnant women, not using vaccines if the recipient is ill. All these known safety measures were later eliminated.
Opportunistic political power was what perverted medicine and blocked action on this at a later stage..
I am also concerned that many medics still appear totally unaware of the political/legal dimensions of this scam uncovered by K. Watt and can still say "pharma bad" Making extreme and unfounded medical statements can only diminish credibility and delay acceptance of Sasha's and Katherine's real contribution to understanding this coup..
Agree with your comments, but
I think evil people (our enemy) have had a genocidal plan that only became viable after a lot of good people did the research and created the tools that had dual-use as therapeutics and weapons.
Yes!!! Multiple upticks!
I have said elsewhere that science has to be valid and true for it to be able to be misused. If the relevant science were not correct, it could not be misapplied. The perpetrators cannot create, they can only pervert.
If you think about it, most medical science - as it leads to an understanding of bodily processes, - also leads to understanding of how to thwart the action of these healthy processes and use them to harm.
I finally got around to reading Sasha's link there, and i'd need to open a substack to post a full refutation, but i'll take this as a summary:
Claim: "Genes, a sequence of these nucleotides, is also an imaginary creation. They do not exist. Wherever they are shown to be inserted/modified, is all an exercise in circular referencing. For example, in GMO crops, which I have talked about earlier—successive breeding (for desirable characteristics like sweeter fruit, smaller seeds) is passed off as genetic tinkering. Darwin wrote a lot about artificial selection by man—by breeding. Nothing can be done without going through the laborious process; the idea that you can modify a gene in a lab and make the crop better is a bogus claim. Monsanto (now Bayer) is more interested in selling seeds and patented weed killers by this sleight of hand. Every natural process can be passed off as gene tinkering—flour turns into pancake with gene tinkering (instead of heat), now give them $$$ to make pancakes."
Refutation: Genes Exist, and it's Damn Obvious, and you should be ashamed
1. Molecular Biology and Genetics:
Genes are well-defined sequences of DNA that code for specific proteins or functional RNA molecules. The existence of genes has been confirmed through numerous experimental and observational methods. For example, the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, mapped and sequenced the entire human genome, identifying over 20,000 protein-coding genes. This project was a collaborative effort involving multiple independent research groups, and the results have been consistently replicated and verified. That means they could not have been sequencing noise with their process - so what is the source of the patterns that are being independently verified?
2. Functional Verification:
Genes are not just theoretical constructs; they have been functionally verified through experiments where specific genes are knocked out or overexpressed in model organisms. For instance, CRISPR-Cas9 technology allows for precise editing of genes in living cells. The observable effects of these edits provide direct evidence of gene function. Researchers have independently replicated these experiments, confirming the same outcomes. For example, knocking out a specific gene in mice often results in predictable phenotypic changes, which are consistently observed by different research teams.
3. Genetic Engineering in Agriculture:
The claim that GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) crops are simply the result of successive breeding is incorrect. Genetic engineering involves the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. For example, the insertion of the Bt gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into crops like corn and cotton has been shown to confer resistance to certain pests. This is a clear example of gene modification that goes beyond traditional breeding methods.
4. Artificial Selection vs. Genetic Engineering:
While artificial selection (breeding) has been used for centuries to select for desirable traits, it operates on the genetic variation that already exists within a population. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, introduces new genetic material or modifies existing genes in a precise and controlled manner. This allows for the creation of traits that would be impossible to achieve through traditional breeding alone. For instance, the development of crops of E.coli that have been modified to produce a particular, human-specified code of modRNA (for use in COVID injectables) is a clear example of what genetic engineering can achieve that traditional breeding cannot.
5. Verification by Replication:
One of the fundamental principles of the scientific method is verification by replication. Scientific findings are considered valid only when they can be independently replicated by other researchers. In the case of genetic engineering, numerous independent studies have replicated the results of gene editing and modification. For example, the effectiveness of CRISPR-Cas9 in editing genes has been demonstrated by multiple research groups worldwide, using different organisms and experimental setups. The consistency of these results across different studies provides strong evidence for the existence and function of genes.
6. Alternative Hypotheses:
For an alternative hypothesis to be considered valid, it must explain the same phenomena as the current scientific understanding and also account for the reproducibility of results. The claim that genes are an imaginary creation and that genetic engineering is a form of circular referencing fails to explain why independent researchers, using different methods and in different laboratories, consistently obtain the same sequences and observe the same phenotypic changes. The reproducibility of these results is a key strength of the current scientific understanding of genes and genetic engineering.
7. Natural Processes and Gene Tinkering:
The analogy of flour turning into a pancake is a misrepresentation of genetic engineering. While natural processes like cooking involve physical changes, genetic engineering involves precise modifications at the molecular level. The claim that natural processes can be passed off as gene tinkering is a misunderstanding of the scientific principles involved. The precise and predictable outcomes of genetic engineering, such as the creation of Bt crops or the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to edit genes, cannot be explained by natural processes alone.
In conclusion, the existence of genes is a well-established scientific fact, supported by a vast body of evidence from molecular biology, genetics, and biotechnology. The claim that genes are an imaginary creation and that genetic engineering is merely a form of circular referencing is not supported by the scientific evidence. The consistent and reproducible results obtained by independent researchers provide strong evidence for the existence and function of genes.
And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.
[EDIT]
But wait, I didn't begin to get into the things that can not exist if Sasha is right.
Let's look at a bit of what entire science departments are using as their working, functional, field-tested model of what's going on -- we call it:
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: The cell is a highly organized and intricate system, and the nucleus, where DNA is housed, is a microcosm of this complexity.
* Nucleus and DNA Organization:
** The nucleus contains the cell's genetic material, DNA, which is organized into chromosomes. Each chromosome is a long, linear DNA molecule that is tightly coiled and wrapped around proteins called histones to form chromatin.
** The DNA sequence is read in a 5' to 3' direction, and it is transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase. This process is known as transcription.
* Transcription:
* During transcription, specific segments of DNA (genes) are read by the enzyme RNA polymerase, which synthesizes a complementary RNA strand. This process involves the following steps:
** Initiation: RNA polymerase, along with various transcription factors, binds to the promoter region of a gene. The promoter is a specific DNA sequence located upstream of the gene that signals the start of transcription.
** Elongation: RNA polymerase then moves along the template strand of DNA in the 5' to 3' direction, reading the DNA sequence and adding nucleotides to the growing RNA chain. The RNA polymerase follows the base-pairing rules (A pairs with U, and C pairs with G) to synthesize the pre-mRNA.
** Termination: Transcription ends when RNA polymerase reaches a termination signal, which is a specific sequence in the DNA that causes the enzyme to stop and release the newly synthesized pre-mRNA.
** Post-Transcriptional Modifications: The pre-mRNA undergoes several modifications, including splicing, where introns (non-coding sequences) are removed, and exons (coding sequences) are joined together to form mature mRNA. The mature mRNA is then transported out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm.
* Translation:
** In the cytoplasm, the mature mRNA is translated into proteins by ribosomes. Ribosomes are complex molecular machines composed of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and proteins.
** The mRNA is read in codons, which are sequences of three nucleotides that correspond to specific amino acids. Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules, which carry specific amino acids, match these codons and bring the corresponding amino acids to the ribosome.
** The ribosome then links the amino acids together to form a polypeptide chain, which folds into a functional protein.
* Post-Translational Modifications:
** After translation, proteins often undergo post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation, glycosylation, and methylation, which can alter their function, stability, and localization within the cell.
and... aaah that's enough. All of that's experimentally validated. All of it!
Do you understand how many thousands of different experiments -- that have built-up this and much more -- all become immpossibilities if there's no DNA encoding genetic information?
It's looney.
Well Obama was given the Nobel Price for Peace, so I am sure it just proved that: 1. Peace is achieved and 2. Obama is the one that has shown the world how it is done 👍
On a serious note- there is no way you can prove what is going on in a living human, by experimenting on a extracted “sample”(dead and outside of the natural living environment) let alone comparing it to a unicellular organism(bacteria) that has been stressed with some chemicals. Anyhow, you are free to believe whatever you like
Correct. DNA mechanisms are quite dynamic In-vivo and operate in synergy with other cells. My take on it is that intracellular exchange are *not* predictable within isolated conditions. The proposed objectives within many In-vitro experiment are often modeled as computer generated In-silico results. Most of the research wins a No-Bell prize...
It's amazing that humans can think that they know what genetic make ups will be best for all time in future. Saying 'we are superior in this century' is not the same as saying 'we will be superior under future unknown conditions that we cannot yet conceive'.
Hello Mr. Jaggar. I've concluded that humans have a very defective sense of proportion. This holds true for all sense of time, space, and infinity... Ah well...