Transcript
Speaker: Welcome everyone to another episode of the Beyond Terrain Podcast. I am your host, Liev Dalton. If you're new around here, consider subscribing or following the show. And if you like what we do, consider liking, commenting your thoughts on the episode, leaving us a rating or a review. Sharing is always the best way to support us. I'm thrilled to finally announce that the Beyond Terrain community is live. It has been a long time coming. And this is more than just a platform. You know, this is a representative of a lifestyle shift. Beyond Terrain is a movement It's part of a bigger paradigm shift, the terrain paradigm. And this is a place to unlearn, connect with others, learn from others, and reconnect in a meaningful way.
Speaker: Rooted in nature, guided by logic, and driven by truth. It is free to join the community, so there's no reason to not sign up. You'll gain access to introductory classrooms on the causes of disease, as well as masterclasses and the fundamentals of the terrain paradigm. If you want to go deeper, becoming a full member gives you access to many more things, including deep dives. First, we have dove into parasites and covered absolutely everything about them. Methods used in science, their ecologies, human experiments, etc. Future deep dives will include cell biology, genetics, mold, bacteria, etc. We have absolutely no limit. We also discuss things like movement, lifestyle, reflections, we do live Q&As and discussion calls. of course, as a member, you'll gain access to future discussions, live calls, masterclasses, workshops, etc. You will also have the opportunity to win terrain-approved prizes. This could be organic, natural clothing, it could be booked
Speaker: Our founding member offer only contains 100 spots and these will go very quick. You'll be able to lock in that low price, gain access to a complimentary onboarding call, and what you'll really gain access to is shaping the community. This is a growing, living, breathing community in which you'll be able to support me and my work while getting lots of value in return. So go check it out.
Speaker: But without further ado, let's get into today's episode. Always, always connected. To bring it back, talking maybe now about genetic code. the genetic code, you know, now we have all these methods, metagenomic methods, Illumina, nanopore, you know, sequencing whole genomes. And we know, you know, and you know, all of these genes pretty foundationally, we're talking about the human genome project.
Speaker: um Maybe I can let you start the discussion off. I have a couple of things that I might be able to add, but I'll let you have the floor.
Speaker: So, yeah, so, the human genome project, I do want to bring up a few things, so the human genome project is this fancy stuff that was started,
Speaker: um completed in 2003, so it was started in 1990, something like that. So it was a, I think it was a 13 year ah project.
Speaker: So what they claim, this is from their website, um the the Human Genome Project is one of the greatest scientific feats in history. um And it was completed, yes, launched in October, 1990, and it was completed, here it says completed in April, 2003.
Speaker: But why um why, oh, why do we have every few years we get a different reference genome?
Speaker: So what I just want to show you here, so again, you can read this, like stop the video, whatever, and read through it. I'm really trying to point out this.
Speaker: So we use so-called genome browsers, right? So when you are sequencing something new, when you're sequencing your gene and you want to see if there are some mutations in your gene, you at the end have to align your sequencing results to the to the genome, right? To the genome that they determined is the model genome, whatever, whatever.
Speaker: And this model genome has ah version from 2003. a version from 2004, 6, 9, 13 and now the latest from 2022.
Speaker: So you guys are claiming that's final, I mean that's completed, but then you are changing the version every so many years. And what happens when you change the version? um Your gene, all of a sudden, let's say,
Speaker: in version 2009, in this HG19 version, your BRCA1, let's say I'm working with breast cancer and BRCA1 is one of those genes that they say when you have a mutation in BRCA1 gene, ah chances are very, very, very, very high that you will develop breast cancer.
Speaker: Okay. So, in this version ah In this version in AG19, this gene is on chromosome. I don't even remember what chromosome it's on.
Speaker: It's on chromosome, certain number of chromosome and in a certain position. With the new version, the chromosome number will still be the same. So it's not a jumping chromosome. So we are we are at least sticking it's on certain chromosome.
Speaker: but it's it can be a completely different position because stuff moves things were inserted what was inserted we don't even know what was done why things move because again me as a human geneticist i'm only using it to see where the mutations in my patients are in this brca1 gene i don't really care about what happened why 19 became 38. I don't really care about any of that, right? Because I just need to know my stuff. And that's why this um being kept in these little silos is just so amazing.
Speaker: because I'm just caring about my little BRCA1 gene and its mutations. The other guy is just caring about whatever, something else. We kind of talk to each other very often. We don't understand each other what we are saying because it's two completely different fields.
Speaker: But I mean, we don't really go outside of our um area of expertise. Like this is how this is BRCA1 gene. So let's say here chromosome 17.
Speaker: There you go. It's on chromosome 17. This is HG38. this is age g thirty eight it's in this area 43 million ah base pair, 43 million 50,000 to 43 million 120,000 with all the exons and then introns, introns are the non-coding regions. I mean, we won't go into that unless, you know, few minutes down the road, we might run into this, but just saying. So so this is just so, I mean, it's so interesting,
Speaker: what's going on so Ensemble is another browser. Where they're so celebrating their Ensemble 114 has been released, so again this is. Release of the new genome 114 and ah maybe they don't have everything from one to 114, but they have all of these different genomes since the human genome has been completed, they are still coming up with new assemblies so.
Speaker: One thing that I want to point out that I just really came across recently, the Human Genome Project is simply a bad idea. So on the Human Genome Project website, I was actually able to find this thing where there were scientists. So the same as there were scientists screaming, ah don't do the COVID lockdowns, don't believe this, don't believe that, it's all you know nonsense.
Speaker: There were people back in the 90s that were saying that this whole project is simply a bad idea. So again, not for you to like read any of it, but ah there are several letters that were written to Dr. Raub, who was acting director of and NIH back in the day.
Speaker: um So they were pretty much laying out why it shouldn't be like this human genome project shouldn't proceed. So that's something that's never discussed.
Speaker: So it's so interesting. We are just shown this very successful thing, human genome project, how important it is and how it was finished, but nobody talks about that. There have always been people that were questioning um why this will be used or now we actually know why this is being used.
Speaker: I'm still on the lookout for somebody that would be honest enough because I don't need somebody that was involved in the project and would just go and parrot, you know, whatever.
Speaker: But that would be honest enough and to have a discussion, I really want to understand how um the genome was assembled because we know that different labs were responsible for different chromosomes.
Speaker: So a certain lab was sequencing chromosome number one, another one, number two, and how this was being assembled. I would really like to know how this works. because it all was able to proceed why in 1990s because of computers there you go i mean because if they were supposed to be doing it on paper you know like just putting a piece of paper and doing all these alignments they would never do it but it was done through the use of computers and what happens in the computer is somebody put in there a model
Speaker: Somebody programmed it in a certain way. Again, not a mean scientist, not at all a mean scientist, just somebody that was like, oh yeah, this is how we should go about it. And then what we got out is something that's highly questionable.
Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, um and it comes back to kind of the base pair problem, right? Because the genetic sequence is just bases one after the other. It's, you know, a G, c C, T, G, A, right? it's So it's this back to the base pair. So then when you look at the fundamental methods like Sanger sequencing, which is apparently the gold standard,
Speaker: You know, it was literally done where one base pair would be added and then it would have this fluorescent dye and then you add the next one and then a fluorescent dye. Right. You're still so deep in the test tube when it comes to really the foundational basics of the supposedly gold standard methodology. Right.
Speaker: Still all begging the question of DNA isolation and the validity of these you know bases in the first place. um Kind some interesting things that came from the project, like you mentioned, different labs, different chromosomes, you know, half the genome was computationally inferred, right? So it was filled in based on these consensus sequences.
Speaker: um Here come the air quotes again, you know. Yeah. None of this obviously was directly observed. Obviously, it's indirect and it's more so than indirect. We're almost like double indirect now because we're in the computer.
Speaker: So indirect is in the lab in the test tube. Double indirect is the computer basing off the lab basing off of supposedly real life. um Again, you'd think Human Genome Project. They took one person, they isolated the genome, his DNA, and then determined his entire genetic sequence. One person.
Speaker: Not the case. Again, misconception. I don't know if I was stupid when I learned about this. I was maybe a little bit, but I thought that I thought they took one person and isolated their genome, you know, and it was just one person from their genome. And i kind of questioned that I was like, well, what's their genome have to do with my genome. But that was a different question at the time.
Speaker: um But again, it was like not conveyed properly that this actually took from multiple people to say the bulk of it came from one person. But still, they needed other people to bring it all together, right. And You know, though still, even in it's admitted, you know, there was a lot of problems after in 2003, after the first, you know, whole genome was supposedly sequenced.
Speaker: You know, obviously, the first question that pops in my mind is, well, first of all, how do you know? How do you know that that's right? You know, that's my first question. How do you know that's right? And how do you know that this is the reference to you? We're just going to use it as a reference for everything else that we do in genomics without confirming that it's correct. Anyway, that's my first question, um which, you know, has never, ever been answered um and debatably cannot be answered based on our methods.
Speaker: um You know, one of the big problems that was admitted, though, is that no one could agree on what a gene was. What is a gene? Right. So supposedly we have this genotype and a phenotype and we're supposed to correlate our genes to our phenotypic traits, which are like our observable traits like blue eyes, blonde hair, you know, fair skin or whatever.
Speaker: and yeah we couldn't agree on what a gene was, you know, um and even then they decided, okay, there's 25,000 genes, you know, or something like that, right? There's 25,000 protein coding genes. And then they decided, you know,
Speaker: We need to, there's, there's junk DNA. That's only 3% of the genes or something like that. And then we have 97% junk DNA. This is obviously evolved over time, right? So there was never this established gene to trait ratio or anything like that. Still, there hasn't been.
Speaker: um But then we came to this idea of junk DNA and now we don't consider it junk anymore. We've invented all of these things, like you mentioned, introns and exons. And this part actually, you know, develops into micro RNA, which silences certain parts of it so that they don't get, you know, transcribed because the genetic code still doesn't adhere to our supposedly amino acid sequences.
Speaker: You need to chop it up and take it apart and add all these different things together to get our enducats into proteomics, which is a whole other probably three hour podcast we'll do at some point eventually. But, you know, there's this big disconnect right here, right in this, you know, these three codons, this A, G, C creates this amino acid.
Speaker: Right. So there was this big disconnect there because this is supposedly the mechanism in which it becomes our traits. So. This huge disconnect. Now we don't have junk DNA because we talk about things like transposons. You mentioned earlier, I think it's amazing you brought this up.
Speaker: DNA that jumps around in our body. It doesn't jump chromosome to chromosome, but it jumps around, you know, when you sequence it and then it moves around and, you know, it's just, they can move around within the genome. That's what they say. That's exactly what they say a transposon is, right?
Speaker: um There's, you know, concepts of pseudogenes that maybe this should have been a protein, but it's not because of mutations. The whole neo-Darwinistic idea relies on this idea of random mutations, which again...
Speaker: How do you prove that a mutation occurred? A single nucleotide polymorphism is a change in one base, a single base.
Speaker: How do you know that that wasn't a mistake in the methods? How do you know that that it just didn't attach properly? Because again, that's admitted to that different base pairs. It's not always a a to T and G to C.
Speaker: It can actually like there's differences. Sometimes it can be A to C, which shouldn't occur, but it does. For some reason, we see it in the DNA code and all these things. So it's like this is, again, another admitted thing or you all of these things. There's a silent mutation and this type of mutation, that type of mutation.
Speaker: What we're getting at here, my whole point is this is all backfill to try to fit the theory that it's DNA, ah RNA, proteins. Right.
Speaker: It's trying to fit that theory and trying to fit the theory that we have this genome in the first place. So we have to invent all of these things like jumping genes. We have to invent, you know, viral DNA just gets integrated into our host DNA. And this is what you call, you know, the certain type of virus that I'm blanking on the name. But, you know, it's, um,
Speaker: It's all of these ideas, it's backfill, right? We're trying to backfill our theory without actually having any of these observations. Because like you're saying, we're continuously updating this code.
Speaker: It's continuously being updated. So what is the real reference? Where is the real reference? Where was the real confirmation in the first place? Are we just updating the code to make it better fit our theories about you know how proteins you know come into play? And it's just, it's all,
Speaker: there's no foundation, you know, there's no foundation. There's no look, let's point to this. This is how we know this. This is how we know that this genetic sequence exists, right? So know you have any comments on that, but that's, that's pretty well all I got for that.
Speaker: Yeah. project One thing that people should be aware of, when I studied back in the nineties, there was still a thing where we where we were talking about the world on RNA. So actually there is that hypothesis that first there was RNA. Now you've said it's the well-established dogma, DNA, RNA protein.
Speaker: But back in the day, there was the whole thing, the RNA world, because RNA can do several things, can replicate on its own.
Speaker: um there There are several things that are really weird so they were like okay yeah and we have ribos switches which is ah RNA through some mechanism is controlling its own transcription So, but then all of a sudden, I guess the way I would see it right now is when that theory was no longer needed, it was kind of abandoned. So most people right now are like, what?
Speaker: There was a book, there was a book describing it back in the ninety s So it was relatively popular and then all of a sudden it looks like, I mean, again, the conspiracy theorist in me says it was not useful for anything. So they just went with DNA, RNA protein, which now everybody knows.
Speaker: Yes, what you were pointing out was the disconnect between how many genes and then how many proteins, right? So the number of genes is whatever you said, I always forget was the number of genes.
Speaker: but the number of proteins is much higher, right? So let me just quickly share. So I know this is proteomic discussion, but just because we dumped it in there and I have this slide with the BRCA1 protein. So darker over here, these are exons, right? so The full BRCA1 gene is going actually from this end.
Speaker: You see the arrows pointing to the left. So it's going from, so this is exon one and exon two and exon three and so on and so forth. So you assemble all these exons through splicing out of the intron, you get your mRNA and then this gets transcribed to your protein, right? The final protein product.
Speaker: But the thing is they actually say, oh you can have differential splicing, so actually sometimes you can splice, you can remove not just the intern part over here, you maybe remove everything from here.
Speaker: to here, so you attach one and two and then whatever number this is, let's call it 10 and then 11, 12, so this will give you a completely new protein, so this is how you get that incredible number of protein based on only ah limited, let's say, amount of ah genes, so this is the explanation, right, but bo question mark, like how do we prove all of this? We just kind of do, I don't know.
Speaker: Yeah, well, it's all on the computer, right? And yeah, on the topic of RNA, right? So I pulled up a list of all the different types of RNA um because, you know, I couldn't remember them all top my head. But, you know, so another more great questions that I can't even begin to answer at this point in time, but more for my own, you know, ideas moving forward, too.
Speaker: how do we distinguish between which ah RNA is which, you know, how do we isolate the different types of RNAs from each other? You know, it's again, it's questionable, like, how how are we doing? How are we, first of all, isolating RNA from DNA?
Speaker: Is it because there's uracil? Again, I don't have the answers to these at this point. But we know that we're told that we have messenger RNA, right? So this is apparently what brings the The code from the DNA to the ribosome and that's where protein synthesis occurs, right?
Speaker: um We have ribosomal RNA, like you mentioned. This forms the structural and catalytic core of ribosomes, the cellular machinery for protein synthesis.
Speaker: So they developed this whole idea and they have beautiful little graphs of it taking this plus shape and how, you know, it comes in and maneuvers itself and adds on the amino acid from the three codons.
Speaker: And it's very mechanistic. Like if you went to a factory and you saw how they move things like bang, bang, bang, bang. It's like, that's what we're being told is happening in our cells. Right. Again, we have,
Speaker: computer generated images and videos of this at this point, but no actual observable evidence that any of this is going on. um You mentioned that there there are theories now who think that the fundamental creation of life was through ah RNA developing itself.
Speaker: So there were little strands of RNA that randomly occurred. in you know the world at some point maybe you got struck by lightning and created this rna strand and then the rna strand just started building itself and then eventually there was a random amino acid and it brought that in and that then it brought another one and then eventually a protein and then that sped up the whole process because enzymes catalyze reactions and then eventually just slowly more and more and then eventually we had a cell and you know lynn margulis talks about how a cell ate a bacteria, or one bacteria ate another one. And now we have a mitochondria, which sped everything up again. And, um, Lynn Margulis was actually a virus denier, which I find kind of interesting.
Speaker: Um, but, uh, Yeah, and even back in the day she was, which I think is kind of interesting to say the least. But she was on Carey Mullis' side and Dewsburg's side, which is a whole other discussion. But we also have transfer ah RNAs, and these are the mechanism of how amino acids come into the ribosome and actually get placed on you know the protein itself.
Speaker: MicroRNAs, these are supposed to regulate gene expression. you know They bind to mRNA and inhibit the translation into you know, m mRNA or they target the m mRNA and then they, you know, tell the cell to break it down.
Speaker: All of these things that I'm talking about here have no empirical validation. They're stories that we're telling to try to make the computer generated sequences and computer softwares make sense.
Speaker: You know, that's what it's just trying to do. So we have real life, the test tube, the computer, and based on the computer and our whole idea of how, you know, factories work, we devise these theories with how m mRNA is supposedly interacts with and creates proteins, right? It's like all very, and that's not even all the types of um rna There's non-coding RNA, there's small nuclear RNA, circular RNA, double-stranded RNA.
Speaker: That's a hilarious one. So it's double. I thought RNA was only supposed to be single-stranded. That's what made it RNA. But no, they found double-stranded RNA in viruses, supposedly, which again, isolation.
Speaker: Beautiful. Anyways, that's probably just, again, more and more questions, right? It's like, I can't, you know, give too much insight on this, except for none of this is validated by any sort of experiment.
Speaker: You know, we still are begging the question of, you know, 10 different methods that all start with the isolation of DNA, just being an acidified, burned, you know,
Speaker: little powdery white substance. You know, it's it's really amazing how we how we get ah we got to here. It just blows me away.
Speaker: Yeah. um not Not much that I want to add to this. So it's all great comments. I mean, it's it's amazing what we're doing, the stories we're telling and the general public believes them because, I mean, first we believe them ourselves.
Speaker: That's the start. As scientists, we believe them ourselves and then general public believes them and then what comes from it is all sorts of medical um problems.
Speaker: the way they treat things and stuff. So yeah, it's amazing. yeah um I guess, you know, to kind of point into the direction of, you know, real world applications, right? This is often something that's discussed as being, you know, evidence for the genome and for DNA, right? That we have yeah these real world applications, genetic modification, you know, genetic, uh,
Speaker: treatments of disease, you know, or how do we determine a genetic disease? You're susceptible to the breast cancer because you have that BRIC gene.
Speaker: um Paternity tests, you know, heredity tests. The interesting, you know, just to make a few comments on, you know, paternity tests and forensics, how they determine,
Speaker: whether or not it's a positive test is not actually through looking at two genetic codes side by side. So they use gel electrophoresis,
Speaker: um which again, relies on first the isolation of DNA. so you have to isolate the DNA, then you have to amplify it with PCR. Then you have to, you know, condense it and, you know, isolate it back out and make sure that you only have the, you know, supposed sequence. But now you have a lot of them.
Speaker: And then you put them in this electrophoresis machine, which separates all of these different, you know, pieces of your genetic code based on sizes, right?
Speaker: through the electrical charge because you know it's negatively charged and it's supposed to go down the gradient based on size which again is not like an absurd idea right it's based on physics and the principles of physics but it rests upon all of these different types of um you know questionable methods and assumptions so um The most interesting thing to me about forensics and paternal tests is it's seemingly high accuracy.
Speaker: That to me, i don't have an answer at this point for why, but it certainly seems to be the case that there's a certain amount of accuracy when it comes to forensics and paternal tests.
Speaker: Is it, you know, It's not based on post hoc, you know, ah explanations either, because I thought that, you know, how do they know who actually did the crime or how how do they know who was actually the father? But there were tests done on, you know, confirmed people who were related to try to do these tests. And, you know,
Speaker: there There is some interesting idea here that there is some truth to these tests themselves, right? um Does it prove DNA to exist?
Speaker: Not... Really, not in and any way actually. um But it means that maybe these tests are correct. So like the paternity test, ah they run on, you know, STR, short tandem repeats, right? So it compares the sizes. And if you have a certain um number of sizes in the same area of the gene, um then it's a positive test. And it's not positive, negative. It's like a spectrum. So you could be like,
Speaker: you know, you can be 38% similar or 98% similar. And then based on that, they determine whether or not it's a mother, son or a father, son or an aunt or an uncle or a sister or a grandparent based on what percentage of these, you know, ah s STRs are the same weight and at the same spot in the genome. um Again, still based on all of these, you know, that's the way that they explain it. But for some reason, these tests seem to have high,
Speaker: accuracy which again plagues me um i don't i don't have the answer for it but i think that we'll continue to explore that there anything you want to add here i want to add there is that good friend of mine who sent me that uh tamara's article he actually at one point shared an article that i didn't pull down i didn't save so i need to ask him where it looks like also these paternity tests are not as accurate as they're being portrayed in most. like
Speaker: Somehow he found some paper. So let me see if I can find that still. Yes, it's as mind boggling to you as it's to me that there is even ever some matching. So it's kind of hard to explain, but definitely, as you said,
Speaker: even if it's matching this is no proof that the dna is double helix that's not proof of that there is just it's matching why we don't know so um yeah and i mean like we're talking about the physical like you mentioned earlier we're talking about the physical here so there it does it It's not absurd to me that there are physical properties inside of us that can determine whether or not we're related or not. right That doesn't escape me as absurd. you know That I don't think is crazy. But and and to draw on a little bit of an analogy here to bring back up serology and antibodies,
Speaker: You know, people point to blood tests as to being, you know, you know, that's proof of antibodies, the antibody antigen relationship that you can have a positive blood test, you know, or you can test positive for this, um you know, blood type.
Speaker: And it's based on, you know, the antigens that are being portrayed by the red blood cells. But when you look at the difference between a blood test and an antibody test used in diagnostics or in determining, you know, the molecular pathways, blood tests are based on like coagulations and more observable methods, right? So you're like mixing, ah originally you were mixing blood together and they were able to reduce this now down to supposedly antibodies. Right.
Speaker: um Which again, there's some specificity to blood tests and the type of blood that one has, right? But it doesn't prove the whole antibody specificity theory correct. It just means that we have a test that we've developed that has high accuracy for blood type.
Speaker: But again, there are cases where people's blood type change, right? So it's like these these cases are like they throw the whole thing out the window, you know? It's like, so we have to rethink, you know, our absolutes.
Speaker: So is it always going to be perfectly correct, you know? it's ah It's just questionable. These things are questionable, but it doesn't prove the foundation. Like you can't start all the way up here and just say that the foundation's right because this is right.
Speaker: You know, that's how you engage in a circular reasoning, right? So I think that was a kind of just an important thing that I wanted throw out there because I know the listeners are fantastic too and they have so much insight so I want to hear from you guys as well.
Speaker: Any thoughts you have on this or any insight on papers or whatever. um But yeah, there's a big difference there. And there's a big difference there and heredity, right? Like our heredity test, like 23andMe all of those companies, right? They tell you you're 25% British and 25% Irish and whatever.
Speaker: um You know, it's really interesting is that there was this guy on YouTube made a video. He did like 10 different tests and they came back every single one of them with different percentages of, you know, what he was.
Speaker: So was completely inconsistent. You also hear stories of someone submitting their DNA to try to figure out what kind of dog they are. And it still comes out as them being a schnauzer or whatever. Right. I think Cowan spoke of this a little bit in our episode together. um But it's like dogs,
Speaker: things that make absolutely no sense. And this is derived based on the single nucleotide polymorphisms, not the molecular weight of these precipitates coming out of DNA samples.
Speaker: So again, a categorically different thing. No one goes to jail based on those types of tests, based on single nucleotide polymorphism tests. Those are always based on the paternal type, short tandem repeat tests.
Speaker: tests. So categorically different tests need to be spoken of differently. um You know, and still lacks of consistency, right? Complete lacks of consistency. And they say, you know, you can sequence your whole genome and get the raw data from a nanopore alumina, you know, sequence where they supposedly run your whole DNA strand through a pore and it reads it out, bang, bang, bang, bang bang and gives you a computer generated sequence.
Speaker: They even admit that these are, you know, terribly inaccurate um compared to our reference genomes, which we know are unconfirmed in the first place, right? So this doesn't add validity to the argument.
Speaker: It just adds validity to the tests themselves. You know, again, it's still like we can do these paternal tests like you mentioned, How do you know that they're always going to be accurate if it's not in a super controlled setting where you already know the outcome?
Speaker: How does knowing the outcome alter the methods used? I mean, Thomas Kuhn spoke of this, right? If you know you had the outcome that you want, it's pretty easy to prove that true. So when you're doing paternal tests, testing on families that you know are all related,
Speaker: It's a lot easier to get the answers that you want based on those tests. And then you take it out into the real world and you try to prove someone is guilty of a crime because their DNA was found at the site.
Speaker: Right. How do you actually know? How do you actually know that that's correct at that instance or who the father is when there was, you know, five potential options or something? You know, it's like. It doesn't, there's not necessarily external validity to the validation of these tests either, right? It still doesn't have a foundation. There's still no, here, look, this is true, 100%.
Speaker: one and hundred percent This is a true, we've proved it true. You know, it's all been falsified at some point. which, you know, Popper would say we should reject.
Speaker: I think Popper is rolling over in his grave right now because we falsify our theories and then we keep using them. But anyways, any comments on on that there?
Speaker: Not really, because I haven't really looked into all this stuff. But yeah, I mean, it's it's all good points. yeah Based on my knowledge, it's all good points. So...
Speaker: Good. Okay, I guess the last topic I really want to discuss um is the whole idea of gene editing, right? Like, how do we, you know, edit someone's genome, genetically modified organisms, you know, genetically modified animals, humans even.
Speaker: um So I it really, you know, It comes down to, sorry, I wrote out a little bit of a, you know, how this is conducted, right? So I'll read through this and then maybe we could talk about it a little bit.
Speaker: um Gene editing initially is done, you know, you have a sequence, right? You get your DNA, right? You have this sequence that you want to alter.
Speaker: um You want to correct the mutation or you want to add new gene to make it resistance to a certain thing, right? to In the plant's case, they try to have glyphosate. They want the plants to be resistant to glyphosate.
Speaker: um So they take a guide RNA, which I don't even think I had on my list there earlier. um And this supposedly guide RNA takes this CRISPR-Cas9 enzyme to the region of the DNA that you want to mutate, right?
Speaker: So then a different type of DNA, a donor DNA comes in and that's attached to this, you know, unit, this CRISPR-Cas9 molecule goes in and then You know, ah it attaches, this whole enzyme attaches, it cuts the DNA and then adds in this, you know, new sequence of DNA.
Speaker: um but That's is literally what it is, right? Like that's literally how it's explained. You know, again, what comes back to how do we know this?
Speaker: Well, it's not like we've ever taken a genome, sequenced it, ah edited its genome, and then re-sequenced it and got the perfect genome match with a different sequence where we mutated it. No, we verify all this just through PCR. Okay.
Speaker: So you take a part of your, the gene that you mutated or that you edited, you take a sample of that and then you run PCR on it, which falls into all the other traps that we were talking about.
Speaker: um But essentially this enzyme comes in, cuts the DNA, adds another piece of DNA, repairs itself. And then there you go. You have a genetically edited cell or DNA or whatever. Right. So this is what underlies the whole genetically modified crops, genetically modified animals and genetically modified people.
Speaker: So with the crops, you know, i think that's where there's a little bit of an interesting discussion. We have the GMO crop itself, which is supposedly has a higher resistance to, you know, drought or glyphosate or certain environmental factors.
Speaker: So what happens actually in the laboratory facilities, you know, they might say that they use these technologies, but the genetic sequences are only confirmed through PCR. So we know that there's actually no confirmation of any sort of genetic editing whatsoever.
Speaker: We just know that they're adding a bunch of toxins and chemical reactions to, you know, the... the genes of the cells. um But then what is not shown or discussed is that, you know, we're still just hybridizing these, these seeds or whatever, right? We're just adding the glyphosate and we're adding drought conditions to test whether or not the seeds are more resistant to glyphosate or more resistant to drought.
Speaker: And then when we see, oh, well, yeah, this seed need less water to germinate, then boom, yeah, we we did gene editing. we we we can We did gene editing, but you know, this is just basic adaptation, which is what Lamarck spoke about, which is even what Darwin spoke about.
Speaker: You know, Darwin was not a neo-Darwinist. He just saw saw that we adapt to our environment, right? So we're just talking about chemical treatments, right? We're talking about artificial breeding. All of this needs to be done in vitro.
Speaker: None of this can be actually done. you know, through natural methods of, you know, delivery whatever, right? So we're just chemically altering these things, right? We're just introducing foreign substance.
Speaker: You know, we don't know the effects of it. But once we get what we're looking for, we say that it's positive, even though we know, like, you know, there's no evidence that anything's been genetically modified. And this doesn't mean that, you know, supposedly GMO crops aren't harmful, because they're still covered in glyphosate, they're still grown in nutrient deficient soils.
Speaker: You know, they're still pumped with a bunch of toxins, monocultures. All of these problems come from GMO and all they feed are these companies, these major corporations like Monsanto, et cetera.
Speaker: um And they patent the seeds. So they have control over the seed. And this comes into more real world problems, which I've discussed with my farmer friends, where farmers can't afford to seed their fields.
Speaker: So they need to go to a bank to get a loan to seed their field so they can grow their field and so that they can, you know, make ends meet at the end of the day. This is what farmers do. Even fairly large scale farmers do this.
Speaker: But if you go to the bank and you ask for loan, they tell you, yeah, you have to plant these Monsanto seeds. You have to apply this amount of fertilizer and this amount of pesticides. They literally give you the exact numbers of fertilizer and pesticides that you must apply. And if you're if you don't, you don't get the loan. You don't seed your field.
Speaker: You don't feed your family. Right. So that's the control aspect of it. Right. It's all through control and we can supposedly patent these technologies. So the big man profits while the little man just begs for these GMO seeds to be given to them because we've lost true technologies on how to actually.
Speaker: grow things properly in accordance with natural principles like permacultures and foraging, whatever. Right. So um that's that problem when it comes to animals themselves, you know, now everyone's talking about these dire wolves.
Speaker: It's it's quite hilarious when you think about it, right? They're like, oh, we brought back dire wolves. We have three pups or something like that. They would de extinct them because we found their DNA and whatever.
Speaker: You know, so they have, they identify the specific genes that were for the dire wolf. And it was only 0.1% of the genetic sequence that was supposedly different, which again, falls prey to all of these, all other problems and assumptions that we've been discussing.
Speaker: They discovered 0.1%. Then they took the, then they took in vitro fertilization of wolves of the you know ovum and the sperm and you know injected it with you know CRISPR-Cas9 and the genetic sequence and then they eventually made oh dire wolf how do you know well we did PCR You know, what's the difference between a gray wolf and a dire wolf?
Speaker: Do they look different? Well, the dire wolf, you know, he's two centimeters taller. And we don't even know that right now, actually, because they're still pups. You know, so we don't actually...
Speaker: know if there's any phenotypic difference at all at this point. And I highly doubt that you're going to be able to tell the difference between a supposedly dire wolf and a gray wolf, right? Because the apparently it's 99.9% gray wolf DNA and just a tiny, tiny percent of dire wolf DNA.
Speaker: So again, you say, oh well, we have dire wolves now or, you know, It's nonsense. it It doesn't confirm any of this. It doesn't confirm anything. It's actually, it just is nonsense. Like there's actually nothing.
Speaker: We just did in vitro fertilization, injecting chemicals into the seeds of these wolves and finally made it work. And we call them dire wolves.
Speaker: And we say that we de-extincted them. It's complete nonsense. And the same was done in the GMO babies, right? So that poor guy, um you know, the, it was all in the name of, you know, advancing science and making science better and helping people. You know, I don't think that there was necessarily ill intention, although some people claim that there is ill intention, according to GMO being, you know, ah valid technique, like it's probably not a good idea to genetically modify people or animals or plants in general, which I would agree with if these methods were valid at all.
Speaker: um I still don't think it's a good idea to try these experiments. um But, yeah, that was the same thing happened with that with that scientist over in China, you know, and now he's missing, which, again, it's so we're able to tell these stories to make it sound like it's all true.
Speaker: Like, all the government's fighting against, you know, GMO and, you know, inhumans. But now we don't know who the humans are, right? Which again, is valid. Like, we don't want to out these people.
Speaker: But how are we ever going to get any results whatsoever? You know, there's no actual observation of phenotypic difference. And also it was to make them resistance to HIV, which we know doesn't even exist in the first place.
Speaker: It doesn't even exist in the first place. You know, so what are we going to do? Expose them to this, you know, invisible particle that doesn't actually exist and see if it causes disease it causes AIDS like it's like absurd in the first like you know none of this is all speculation not happened and it won't happen right because it would just be futile you know so anyways we could probably expand a little bit on the GMO babies I know you might have some thoughts on that um to share any thoughts at all on the whole GMO argument that's just kind of what I've gathered recently from that
Speaker: Yeah, no, thank you for pointing out the technology because I kind of am aware of this CRISPR-Cas9, but I usually stayed away from like learning all this new stuff, especially over the last five years, I'm staying away from learning anything new in the field that's dead.
Speaker: DNA double helix field is dead. So why would I be like researching into, you know, technologies? But yeah, so the the designer babies that you are talking about are the ones portrayed in this documentary, right?
Speaker: Make people better. So I asked you to watch it because when I watched it two years ago, I was like, what the heck? And Dr. Church made a very Like the impression he made on me was somebody with a very high ego.
Speaker: Some people would say he is a deep state, plan, whatever. No, just somebody with a very high ego. yeah pretty much so let me just i have a few slides i won't go through the whole thing i will definitely ask people that are interested in it it's available on uh amazon prime for you know yeah you have to rent it for like four dollars but i think it's it's worthy to see the absurdity of what's going on so like as you said this chinese guy was disappeared uh at the conference
Speaker: designer babies resistant to HIV infection. Of course, if everything is based on the false premise that HIV is actually a virus, that blah, blah, blah, I mean, what the heck is is going on, right?
Speaker: So this is Dr. Church. He was even at the late show with Stephen Colbert. So of course, that's a big deal, you know, to be on that show, right? And I mean, i was looking, this is in the trailer.
Speaker: um And even just his posture, I just took a snapshot, but to I'm like, the ego coming out from that guy is just insane. So...
Speaker: um Another person that was in this documentary is this journalist, Antonio, who is MIT technology. So again, at MIT, they're working with all these new technologies, a senior editor. So very interesting thing that I just found. So yes, JK, right, is his name.
Speaker: He was disappeared, but right now, this is June 2025 Regaldo. by antonio rialdo Crypto billionaire Brian Armstrong is ready to invest in CRISPR baby tech.
Speaker: So all of a sudden, so that guy was disappeared in, I believe, 2000, like the whole thing happened in 2018. the the The babies were born in 2018. From what I remember, it was a big deal in my Like in the scientific community, it was like pointing fingers at that one Chinese guy as if he came up with it on his own.
Speaker: I mean, this is now looking back. I was also one, I guess, pointing fingers. Right. But now when I look back, I'm like as if he woke up one morning and did it all on his own as if he didn't have any support. Right.
Speaker: So I mean, it's it's crazy. But there you go. He's disappeared, but in 2025, we have no problem having this guy who's willing to invest, right? here i'm just i just pulled out something so the gene that jk was targeting was the ccr5 again there is this whole story of what this ccr5 it's a transmembrane protein how it um it's actually the point of entry for hiv i mean the stories that they're telling are
Speaker: incredible so these designer babies have mutations in this CCR5 gene but then again if HIV virus doesn't exist so what are we even looking at how does he even know that those babies will be resistant right so again it's all based on Natural antibodies to CCR5 from breast milk block infection of macrophages and endritic cells with primary R5-tropic HIV-1. So ah certain a certain variant of the HIV.
Speaker: Again, our observations suggest, I mean, people, are we serious? This is from the paper. um May control postnatant transmissibility of HIV.
Speaker: Are we serious? Are we really reading this as scientists and saying, oh yeah, this is some, you know, this is proof of whatever. This is proof of nothing.
Speaker: um It's clear, but again, we don't treat it like that. We pretty much skip this word. We don't even read a scientist. We don't even register that what is written here is suggest.
Speaker: And then we just build on this suggest we just build a whole new story ah published in viruses. Right. I mean, it's it's crazy. So, um,
Speaker: from yeah this is this is about again this is just the jk uh what happened so from university this missile from the university in 2019 so the whole thing happened in 2018 in november at the conference in hong kong where he was kind of handcuffed and taken away um i'm skipping this ah but very interesting he contacts um so yeah so
Speaker: He's taken into custody, arrested. um The summit focused on the rapidly advancing field of human genomic editing, exploring the potential benefits and risks, ethical considerations and policy implications.
Speaker: So of course, this was a very controversial announcement. And again, all of a sudden, nobody wanted to be friends with him. Like before, probably they were all talking to him. I mean, there there is footage of um all of these different scientists, maybe giving him some advice, this and that. And all of a sudden he became, as people say, he became um fluorescent. He became you know radioactive. Nobody wanted to touch him and be be around him.
Speaker: ah So in the documentary it's shown how he actually contacts a professor from. Arizona State University, who is actually teaching ethics he's actually explaining why this stuff is not ethical what's going on. um it's it's It's very interesting and how he actually talks to her. What what really made impression on me, how he talks to her girl to his girls at home. He has two daughters and how he's trying to teach them about ethics at the age of, I don't know, was it eight, 10? They were not even teens.
Speaker: They were really little. So trying to teach them on you know how to go about things. And then here was my thing, who's George george Church?
Speaker: um He was like, oh, he sees the future. This was in the documentary. He's a national treasure. And I was just, my my my stomach was turning because by, when I was watching it now, and even before, I already had some ideas about George Church, but now really my stomach was turning as I was watching it again.
Speaker: One thing that he said at one of the round tables he was he was in, the only problem will be if we try to bypass regulatory agencies, meaning FDA.
Speaker: And by now, at least people that listen to you know what FDA is, that it's really not doing what it's supposed to do, who's usually in charge of these agencies are people that were maybe in big pharma before, and then all of a sudden they just end up at FDA or US Department of Agriculture, USDA, or all these different agencies, right? So so what he says here is like,
Speaker: Really? I mean, wow, this is what this is how you operate. I mean, this just shows me who he is, how he thinks, right? It's just, oh, as long as the FDA approves, then we are good to go.
Speaker: um Of course, his laboratory is at Harvard, who's in the middle of this whole controversy now, Trump taking funding from them.
Speaker: I say, thank God, things are happening, finally. I mean, it's about time. He has founded around 50 biotech companies.
Speaker: In 2018, the Church Laboratory at Harvard spun off 16 biotech companies just in this one year. Research and technology developments at the Church Laboratory have impacted or made direct contributions to nearly all next generation sequencing methods and companies.
Speaker: So what does this tell you? This tells you that everything that we are doing comes out from one person, pretty much one lab. Like all of those technologies that we are so fancy talking about and nanopore and all this stuff, this is all coming out from, if not just this one lab, maybe a couple of labs.
Speaker: So what does that mean? If they never, just this one person, if they never questioned the underlying assumptions, they will just build on top of them. And we as users will just go with it. So it's it's insane what we are doing, but this is what I found this morning.
Speaker: And it's on Wikipedia. And I was like, oh, I never came across this information, but it's it's it's really interesting how everything comes from George Church. And he is the one who was at the beginning involved with the Human Genome Project.
Speaker: And he his genome was one of the first genomes that was. Church was the first person to make his medical records and genome publicly available for researchers.
Speaker: Of course, we would celebrate this as a big thing and it's like, oh boy, I mean, no comment. One thing that was very nicely, so this is what I mentioned earlier, um in vitro fertilization.
Speaker: It's actually 1978 when Chargaff wrote, his book came out in 1978. So it's interesting in this documentary, they actually mention how these two technologies are perfectly merging at this time to create these designer babies.
Speaker: So first they were trying to make like get rid of all of the problems with the in vitro fertilization make it acceptable because that was the thing at the beginning the way this baby was born to um to i mean louise joy brown uh to this woman the way this baby was born was kind of um in the almost in the hiding somewhere in some hospital it was not publicized um because it was definitely controversial, right?
Speaker: And CRISPR-Cas9 is still controversial, but at least now IVF is accepted. So it's it's interesting how things are working. So this is the summit where I think it it was at this summit that George made that statement about as long as it's approved by these agencies.
Speaker: And this is a hello tomorrow. I looked it up. What is the hello tomorrow? It's a global summit. Part of the deep tech days. I would call it the deep state days, but that's again, just me as a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker: And here it clearly says under the high patronage of the 2026 is coming up next year in Amsterdam, under the high patronage of Mr. Emmanuel Macron.
Speaker: We know who he is, the president of the France. And it's so ridiculous. Once you know how human body works, it's so ridiculous that they're talking about, we accelerate radical solutions to improve human health and planetary health.
Speaker: let's make it clear humans are made perfect the creator made us perfect if there was no toxins that would be dumped on us from the air in water blah blah blah food all of those processed foods we would be just dandy and our lifespan would be If you read the Bible, our lifespan would be hundreds of years, which sounds crazy, but I fully believe it.
Speaker: I fully believe it. And these guys are thinking that what they're doing is improving human health and planetary health. I mean, come on. They're trying to play God. And again, because scientists are just amazing creatures.
Speaker: They love playing God. They love to be solving problems that somebody created for them. And then they were put in charge of human health. There you go.
Speaker: So, I mean, it's it amazing what's happening. And then the problem is like, this is from their website, makepeoplebetter.com. dot com They're now complaining, so you know, yeah, yeah, all this stuff is available, but equity and access. So, you know, all this stuff is so expensive.
Speaker: How can we ensure equitable access to gen gene editing technologies? Oh, just give me a break. I mean, can we just can we just stop it, first slow down and then put that rear ah gear and...
Speaker: go backwards, go back and restart anew because this is this is completely where this is leading. It's completely crazy, completely crazy. And he is working on longevity, aging and quest for immortality. So this is what what they're doing. And George Church is involved in this.
Speaker: Again, just from their website, um immortality. Some people believe using CRISPR to extend lifespan is playing God, which it is. because we don't need none of that.
Speaker: If um scientists and doctors stopped messing with humans, we would need no need to be researching how to live longer. We would just live longer.
Speaker: That's just it. I mean, the same goes with our pets. Lifespan, it's becoming normal. um I just looked it up, I'm gonna just throw it out there so people are aware, it's not just humans when we talk about longevity.
Speaker: I was looking at something, wondering about my cat who's 13 years old, she kind of was losing weight a little bit and I was just, you know, now you ask Chad GPT, what Chad GPT thinks about cat losing weight, right? right Actually, I asked Grok.
Speaker: I don't know. Not that I trusted more, but I usually trust Grok. So I asked Grok and it said, oh, you're like my cat. She's considered at 13.
Speaker: She's already considered not like early geriatric, but geriatric. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. what I know about cats, they can live very nicely into their mid-20s. I mean, extreme 20s if they're indoors, whatever. of course, if they're outdoor cats, that's a whole different story.
Speaker: But if they're indoors and eat properly, you know, whatever. So you are calling my 13-year-old, and they're calling my 11-year-old an early geriatric.
Speaker: Why? because the age moved down. Why it moved down the lifespan? Because of vaccines, because of food they're eating. And there is also another thing.
Speaker: These companion animals live in toxic, physically toxic houses, meaning, you know, all these scents. I mean, people use all these different febreze and all of this stuff, scented candles.
Speaker: ah Those are... Bad for humans, they're worse for cats or companion animals. But then there's another thing. There is energy. A toxic human emits energy that is really hurting animals.
Speaker: So we always need to think about our energy, not just physical toxins. um It's being said that if there is more than two people in a household with only one cat, it's very easy that that cat picks up because it's picking up energy from a lot of people that will get sick. I mean, this is kind of going away from what we were discussing, but again, everything is connected.
Speaker: At the end, everything is connected. So I just wanted to throw this out longevity, let's not get fooled by, oh, humans can live longer because, you know, now they're living into their 70s, but they could live up to 100 because now medical science is improving.
Speaker: No, let's go back. Methuselah was 500 years old. um We call it, I don't know, in my country, when you are celebrating 50 years, you are called Abraham um years, whatever. So,
Speaker: And he was not just 50 years old. Again, we are going into hundreds. So again, some people might think it's stories, but the more I dig, the more I find that it might be true.
Speaker: So just just throwing it out there. Yeah, you hear that from many cultures, even indigenous cultures discuss those things. um Yeah, amazing.
Speaker: ah You know what's so funny about George Church, I thought the exact same thing, highlighted by the fact that I have this quote written down, it only becomes arrogant, laughable and sad if we ignore or try to get around our regulatory agencies. like this So the exact same quote that you noted down i had written exactly here.
Speaker: um it's ah It's an absurd way to think, right? It's a completely illogical way to think. And that's what scientists science is. Science is illogical. ah We use circular reasoning to talk about everything now. i shall But yeah, I mean, the it's so it's so interesting. A couple other points that I wanted to highlight was, it was mentioned in that documentary as well,
Speaker: um that the only problem with genetically modified organisms in plants and in crops was that the public did not receive it well. So in the scientist's mind, the failure was not in these completely toxic monoculture devoid of nutrient food sources, but it's that the public thought poorly of them.
Speaker: And so the same thing happened ah in the case with the, um, ah with the Chinese scientist, right? um It wasn't received well by the public.
Speaker: So everyone turned on him. Government turned on him. His scientist ah scientists friends turned on him. Everyone turned on him. It wasn't just him. He didn't just do it by himself. Like you were saying, everyone turned on him when the public thought it wasn't a good idea.
Speaker: There raises... Another problem with it happening the way that it did as well, because this was spoken about in the documentary, ah they likened it to the idea of in virtual fertilization.
Speaker: So nobody ever wanted to do in virtual fertilization. And one day the benevolent doctor did it for that couple that you mentioned and closed doors, you know, just did it just like ah this doctor or the scientist did with the CRISPR babies.
Speaker: um that it It set the foundation. it's set you know It happened, so now we can do it again. you know That's the mindset that shifted because now 1 in 85 children in the US are in vitro fertilized, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry.
Speaker: um And after 1978, nineteen seventy eight It started popping up everywhere, right? The public perception was negative initially, eventually through convincing, you know, scientists and public figures and FDA is convinced everyone, um you know, it's fine.
Speaker: It's okay. You know, so we can do it. Right. And, you know, It's not as though we know the implications of in vitro fertilization ever 1978. ah Relatively speaking, was, you know, not that long ago, you know, 55 years old.
Speaker: So it would be really interesting to see what the longevity of the people are who had in vitro fertilization. And I'm not trying to discuss this. Morally or ethically whatsoever, but from a, you know, objective scientific standpoint, if there are health associations with in vitro fertilization, I don't know, nobody knows, because we have not been able to study it enough there. We haven't, there's not been a full life to 100 from IVF, yeah right, it hasn't occurred.
Speaker: Even in the documentary, they talk about in vitro fertilization as it can never be proved safe. You'd have to wait the lifetime of a person. And then realistically, using scientific method, you'd have to have placebo controlled groups and whatever. You can't just and again, it's still epidemiological.
Speaker: You're not going to be able to isolate out all the lifestyle factors that come into play. It's just it's very difficult to draw pure scientific, ah you know, results from a study of such.
Speaker: um It just couldn't work. Same is going to be said about the CRISPR babies. How do you prove that gene editing prolongs life? Like you were saying, people want to prolong life now. How do you prove that? You can't. You'd have to do hundreds and hundreds of years of randomized controlled trials and try to isolate out the variable. you know You'd have to control what they eat, what they're exposed to, EMS, chemtrails or whatever. All these sources of toxicities.
Speaker: it's nearly impossible to control all these things because one, the scientific community doesn't view these absolute toxins as being toxic to humans for some reason. We totally ignore that in a lot of our studies. We ignore other lifestyle factors.
Speaker: um We don't consider toxins or deficiencies for some odd, odd, odd reason, um but it confounds almost every single epiologicallog epidemiological paper and study out there and even randomized controlled trials. It's still a confounding variable.
Speaker: um Just problem after problem after your problem after problem after assumption and assumption and assumption. It's just it's just the it's the same thing over and over again.
Speaker: um and like you mentioned, ah you know, drawing on the analogy of IVF, it's a multibillion dollar industry. You know, it also is multibillion dollar industry. CRISPR babies. People are just waiting to tap in.
Speaker: um Is it going to be beneficial? Are we going to be able to actually change people's eye color? using CRISPR, that'd be really interesting to see. i mean, from a pure scientific point of view, it would be interesting.
Speaker: Would it be ethical? Would it be right? Would it be morally justified? i don't think so. But if I was trying to remain as, you know, objective as possible, I would say it would be interesting to see if they can actually do that.
Speaker: I don't think that they're going to be able to do that. You know, the day that they can alter someone's phenotype and determine whether or not they have blue eyes or brown eyes or a certain hair type based on CRISPR, it will be interesting.
Speaker: But again, how do you... prove that it was the crisper you know are you going to take someone who only has people with black hair in their family and then crisper them and give them blonde hair how do you measure that is there families out there like that are you going to try to make white people black and black people white and you know are you gonna is that what you're going to try to do like again how do you know that you're not just causing disease or how do you know that you're not causing problems you know like these things like My wife, you know, she, her whole family, blonde, black hair, everything.
Speaker: And she's a redhead, a deep red hair, you know, you know, and she probably has red hair in her family at some point, but not recently, you know. So it's like, how do you, how do you prove these things based on our ideas? And it all comes back to these assumptions and questions that we've raised throughout this conversation.
Speaker: Beautiful, long presentation, podcast episode. ah Yeah, I really, my final thoughts are you don't need to know about any of this to be healthy. Like you said, get back to natural design, get back to what the creator intended, what nature intends, stop with the modern toxicities and interventions and measurements and all of this stuff. We don't need it to be healthy, you could be healthy without it, which has been showcased throughout history. Once again,
Speaker: That's all I got. Anything you want to add to leave the listener on? you know, now's the time. i just want to add, just observe how first problems are created. Right. Because you mentioned this one in 80 one in 80 babies now is IVF in the US.
Speaker: And we know why. Fertility went down like. Why? The food we are eating, the water we are drinking, I mean, all those toxins, right? So first is the problem.
Speaker: And then scientists come in and doctors and all of these guys come in on the white horse. Oh, we're going to rescue humanity. I mean, just observe. It's always the problem comes that's put there we won't go into speculating who doesn't really matter. But just we see there is a problem.
Speaker: And then they give us the solution, which is IVF, um why people are being born with like all sorts of they call genetic diseases, again, there is no such thing as genetic disease being being shared from one generation to another through genes there is something else but again they will come in with crisper cas9 and be like oh we can actually solve this problem and why there is a problem in the first place somebody put it there again through it's always always through toxins and then there is this other thing toxic mind
Speaker: because that's that's another thing that definitely scientists that are all in this materialism in materialistic science they never think about um what does mind mindset have to do uh that's a story for another day amazing well I we did a good number on genetics, on DNA, on the genome. yeah
Speaker: It's at least the the beginning to the end at the very least. um This is, you know, like everything as, you know, I try to think of myself as a true scientist. I try to emulate that. You have a search, you know, it's going to continue, you know, and we're just going to discover more things and, know,
Speaker: solidify things and maybe change things and who knows, you know, so I just try to remain curious. That's my only goal. And I think that's what makes a ah good scientist, you know, whatever that means.
Speaker: Do you need to be ah a university to be a scientist? I don't know. I don't necessarily think so either. see your day is nodding your head. There it is. No. Yeah. yeah Because if you are there, you are led down a certain path.
Speaker: which is very far away from looking for the truth. So at that point, yeah, it's interesting. Well, Dr. Tomczyk, thank you once again for coming on. I doubt this will be our last episode together, ah but I think this has been really nice.
Speaker: um Appreciate your time so much and everything that you do and your open mind and your curiosity and your willingness to be vulnerable and admit that, you know,
Speaker: You were wrong. You know, i think that's important for scientists. They have too big an ego like this. You talk to people or you listen to people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and George Church. And it's it's painful to listen to these people. I can't. It makes me angry. And that's probably something wrong with me, maybe a little bit that I get angry with that. But it just drives me insane. Like, I can't listen to these people like I can't. I i couldn't be friends with them. I couldn't be around them just because of their mentality, not their views. I have, you know, friends that are doctors and, you know, different roles in healthcare. care And I think that they're good people. I know that they're good people. I know them to the core.
Speaker: It doesn't make them bad that they're maybe misled or wrong in my opinion. um But it's the mentality of these Tysons and churches that, you know, I can't be around.
Speaker: You know, that's the difference. It's the ego. It's the mentality. It's the trying to be God. You know, it's absurd. ah hate it. And that's why we love people like you. So thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Speaker: Thank you for having me. Thank you so much. And I love our conversations because of your background. It's easier to talk to somebody that has the background. So I think that's why we can go a little deeper on some stuff. So thank you so much.
Speaker: Alright, and i want to thank you all for listening before we wrap things up. Please remember, this is for informational purposes only. This is not medical or therapeutic advice in any capacity, and it does not replace the advice from a qualified professional or practitioner.
Speaker: But please remember, we are responsible, sovereign beings capable of thinking, criticizing, analyzing, and understanding things for ourselves. We and the greater forces are self healers, self governors, self teachers, and so much more.
Speaker: I really appreciate all of you for taking the time to listen to the podcast today. If you have any questions, criticisms, comments, concerns about the podcast, please reach out to me on Instagram. It's probably one of the best ways. Email's fine as well. And of course, if you feel like something resonated here, if you learned something, please like, share, subscribe, comment, and consider leaving a rating or review if you're listening to the podcast version.
Speaker: Please do not forget that the Beyond Touring community is live. I'm telling you, this is not a space that you're going to want to miss. It's really something powerful, something amazing, something tailored to each an individual. I took the attunement piece that practitioners should use with their clients and I've integrated into the community.
Speaker: It's not a one size fits all. There will be free resources over there, so make sure you go join as a visitor gain access. And if you want to go deeper, of course, that is what I love to do. First, the dive is on parasites.
Speaker: It's truly a whole classroom in and of itself integrated into the community. Future deep dives will include cell biology, genetics, mold, really whatever you guys want to learn about.
Speaker: That's the bonus of being a founding member. You'll be able to shape the direction of the community. We really talk about it all, movement, lifestyle, we talk about reflections and there are reflective prompts in there to ensure that you are on your own meaningful path and of course there'll be live q and a and discussion calls go and join become a founding member there will only be 100 spots go and join the community it is now launched finally you'll be able to lock in that low price complimentary onboarding call, shape the direction of the community.
Speaker: There's no reason not to sign up right away. If you're ready to unlearn, reconnect, rebuild from the ground up, I invite you to step in to the community. Just remember guys, there are two types of people in the world. Those believe they can, those believe they can't, and they are both correct.
Speaker: Thanks for listening. Take care.
