All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
54:53
"Genetics," DNA and RNA - Webinar by Tom Cowan, Aug. 26, 2022
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, welcome everybody.
Today is Friday, August 26, 2002, and welcome to another webinar.
I don't know of any announcements, and I don't know any titles or exactly what I'll be speaking about next week, so let's just get into it.
So, after hopefully many of you who are listening actually saw the webinar on Wednesday, where I went over the problems of the PCR test, and it seemed to me that I left that a little bit up in the air and sort of came to an abrupt ending, and so I thought it would be best to
Just to recap that a little bit and then actually go into more of the basics about what do we really know about DNA, not just the PCR process.
And as I said in the PCR talk on Wednesday, this will not be a talk where you will get all the answers and all the questions answered.
There will be things that At least I simply don't know.
And then at the end, I'm going to speculate on a potential alternative model to the DNA model, which, as you will, I think, see, I think is pretty flawed.
So that's the goal for today.
So, what did we talk about last time?
The first thing we talked about was that the PCR polymerase chain reaction, as I think most of us know, was invented and I believe patented.
I know he submitted a patent by Kerry Mullis.
Who has become somebody who people look to, or look to as an unorthodox thinker, question viruses, question whether HIV causes disease, and question whether the PCR process that he invented could even be used as a test.
And I believe that what we found was that it turns out that Carey Mullis was a pretty orthodox thinker, for sure believed in viruses, for sure believed that viruses are pathogenic, i.e.
cause disease.
And I say that because that's what he wrote in his papers, or at least the paper that I demonstrated, showed.
And in the patent, he suggested that the PCR process, in fact, could be a revolutionary new kind of diagnostic test.
So, I think the idea that we can rely on Carey Mullis to guide us through this process and question the existence of viruses in general, whether they're pathogens, And whether this PCR process that he invented could even be used as a diagnostic test is actually kind of misguided.
That, like a lot of things in life, we're on our own here, fellow folks.
There's no gurus about to save us.
There's no saviors.
We're on our own.
We got to understand this for ourselves, which isn't the worst thing.
So, then I went through the process of what are the questions about the PCR process.
And the first thing is I brought up the Christian Drosten paper, which started in COVID era, using the PCR as a test.
And then I referred and went over the paper that a bunch of people we knew we know and others, Mike Eden and Kevin Corbett and Stefano Scoglio and many others got together to critique this paper.
And even though it's a very appropriate paper, it deserved the Drosten paper that essentially came up with the PCR primers and testing procedures, the methodology that has subsequently been used as the blueprint for all the labs all over the world.
So everybody who says the PCR is a test for a SARS-CoV-2, for the coronavirus, is essentially basing it on the paper by Christian Drosten.
And there's a lot of good information in the paper, but for me, and I've read this many times and read it on Wednesday, when somebody says in a paper that we made this test that's looking for a piece of this virus, And then they go on to say, and we have no example, no copy, no actual proof of the existence of this virus.
That's what they said.
I'm pretty much done.
Like, I don't need to know anything more about this paper, except it's illogical, irrational, anti-scientific nonsense.
Because there is simply no way you can make a test for something which you've never even shown exists in the first place.
Everything after that, all the analysis of the primers and the temperatures and all the rest of it, is to me irrelevant.
If I'm the peer reviewer, I'm done right there.
This paper is nonsense.
I don't think anybody needs to know anything more about that but that the PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 was based on a process which never involved actually showing or proving or finding the existence of a virus.
So anybody who suggests, well, how do you explain that we all tested positive based on a PCR test, simply knows nothing about actually how this PCR process got to be used as a test.
Because if they did and they don't know that that's a illogical, anti-scientific, irrational approach, then there's just no hope for them.
And so, And then I went on after that.
So, we've all been familiar with the argument that PCR is not an appropriate test and then people go into the cycles and all that.
To me, that's all irrelevant.
If it's not based on a virus, there's no sense, there's no way it could be a test for a virus which they never saw.
And then I spent the bulk of the time Analyzing whether or not it is actually true that the PCR process amplifies genetic material, sequences of DNA, some of which got turned from RNA into DNA by reverse transcriptase.
Is that actually true?
And is it true that just because you have more of something at the end of a process than when you started, that that means that somehow you made more of the original not very much stuff?
And I think I hopefully pointed out that that is not true.
There's lots of ways to get more stuff.
Without having amplified or duplicated it, and then we went through the obvious inconsistencies in the process.
Which doesn't prove that that's not what it's doing.
I'm not here to claim that.
I'm only saying that somehow this has to be validated with appropriate studies and controls and every step of the way is this heating process that they do, is that the only thing it does is to unzip the zipper, which is the double strand of the DNA?
In other words, it never breaks down this genetic material, this DNA, into smaller bits.
And of course, they have an explanation for that, that the hydrogen bonds between the strands, they break first, and the other ones wouldn't break at that temperature.
Is that true?
Is that what is a bond anyways?
You know, what do we really know about atoms?
There's a whole lot of questions there that need to be answered before we can all agree that it's been scientifically proven that PCR is amplifying genetic material.
I also talked about the inconsistency in the heating and cooling, and even though there is, I think it's called a pelletier or pellet something, electronic heating element instead of what we usually think of as a refrigerator, Is it true that it can heat from 90 to 50 in 3.3 seconds?
I mean, that's pretty amazing.
And maybe it can, and so that's fine.
I just need to see all that proven.
There's no visual evidence of the nucleotides.
There's no confirmation that the primers and the nucleotides actually contain what they say they do.
It's kind of implausible to me that these polymerases can synthesize that quickly billions of copies of this complementary strand.
And at the same time, none of the original complementary strand, you know, sticks, anneals to it itself.
So, all that to say, there's a lot that needs to be investigated here before we should all believe that the PCR process is amplifying genetic material the way we think it is.
And the reason that's important, as I pointed out, is every DNA study, practically every DNA conclusion these days, is facilitated, not everyone, but the vast, vast majority, somewhere in the process, they took this chemical, which they're unable to find,
Even though it could be found by gel electrophoresis, which separates chemicals by charge, it could be found, it should be able to be found, the intact strand of DNA, but it never was really.
And so they end up having to amplify it to make a billion copies out of 10.
And this has allowed so-called scientists and geneticists and molecular biologists to work with DNA, they say, because now they have enough to work with.
So, all of the forensic and all of the ancestry stuff, and in very particular, all the claims that you have a genetic disease, or your child or grandchild has a genetic disease, is based on essentially information that was gleaned where a PCR process was part of this process.
And as I pointed out, in many instances, they don't even test the actual genetic material.
They test a protein, and then they say what is the, quote, central dogma of genetics, that A, all proteins are coded for by DNA, and the stepwise process is this sequence of of nucleotides called a gene codes for a sequence of amino acid.
It's transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein amino acids, and the amino acids get put together to form the proteins.
So the basic idea is that everybody has a unique and fixed complement of DNA that essentially is your defining characteristic.
It defines your ancestry.
It largely defines your tendency to health and disease.
It determines the proteins that you make, which is crucial because we are essentially made out of proteins.
So it determines your physical structure, that is to say the proteins.
It determines how you function because the enzymes which essentially control the rate of reaction of all the chemical reactions in our body, those are proteins which are coded for by DNA.
They further say that the DNA is the mechanism of the evolution of all species.
So the reason we're here now is because of a series of mutations, which then became the fodder for the natural selection.
So randomly arisen mutations, that is to say changes in your fixed DNA, The ones that are beneficial are selected, and that is the mechanism of evolution.
So, there's a lot of story here about the importance of DNA.
It is defining your structure.
It is defining the proteins that you make.
It is defining your ancestry.
It is defining Whether your tendency to sickness or health.
So, it isn't a bad idea to look at, so how do we really know about DNA?
How is it found, etc.
Now, I'm going to go through this pretty quickly.
This is not meant to be a total expose on DNA.
Again, My friend, Tam, wrote a paper called Critical Check on DNA, and I would encourage everybody to go find that if they're interested.
So I'm just going to go through a few points and point out some of the, to me, glaring inconsistencies of this model.
So here we go.
Okay, so when you look at DNA, here are the so when you look at DNA, here are the questions that need to be answered.
Is there actually a chemical in living organisms called DNA?
You know, we don't look in living organisms, we look in dead tissue, dead and dying tissue, and then we subject it to all this chemicals and heat and X-ray beams and dehydration procedures, assuming that none of those actually create a new chemical, even though we know all those things do create new chemicals.
And so, it's simply an interesting question.
How do we know there is a chemical in the living organism, while it's living, that we could call DNA?
If so, what's the structure?
If so, what's the form?
Is it the same in all cells?
Is it the same in all organisms?
Is it located in the nucleus?
Does it code for all the proteins?
Is it the same in all the cells, same DNA in all the cells of a single organism like you?
We are told that you have a mutation in your DNA or your child or grandchild.
That's why you're sick.
We're told that the DNA is the same in every tissue, every cell of your body.
After all, it's your defining characteristic.
It has to be the same in every cell.
Is that true?
Is it really the hereditary material?
Is your DNA unique to you?
Does it determine your ancestry?
Can it be used to solve crimes?
Is this how GMOs are made?
If not, what is actually done to produce a GMO food or animal or something?
So those are the questions.
I'm not going to get into all of those because this is not meant to be a deep dive yet into DNA, but those are the questions.
And just to say a fundamental principle is that how we look for something determines to a large extent what we find.
Except I wrote found.
Not to take that into account, I would say is the definition of an anti-scientific endeavor.
In other words, if you find something by putting it in an acid bath, you better know that that acid bath didn't change the nature of what you're looking at.
Particularly if you're going to make statements about what's in a living organism, and the first thing you do is kill it and then put it in a hot acid bath, which that organism couldn't possibly survive in that situation.
And you're assuming that that didn't change any of the things that are found in you?
That seems like a pretty big stretch to me.
And here's Hillman.
I've shown this.
All these procedures, he says, are inappropriate for studying living cells, unsuitable.
And these are all the ways that viruses and electron, sorry, DNA has been found.
So who found it?
Well, it was first isolated by a guy named Friedrich Meissner, something like 1869, and he looked at cleaned up pus that he got from bandages in a hospital near his university.
And basically, he did some chemical extraction, in other words, mixed the pus with a bunch of chemicals, and he was able to say that the reason why this stuff wasn't a protein was because it was very poor in sulfur and rich in phosphorus.
Now, I can't confirm this, but I think one of the reasons this may have been was that one of the acids he used was actually phosphoric acid instead of sulfuric acid.
Phosphoric acid is rich in phosphorus, sulfuric in sulfur, and that could have been one of the reasons why he found higher amounts of phosphorus.
So then we go on to 1879 and the first observation of cell division called mitosis.
These are the chromosomes doubling.
And then we have the chromosome theory of heredity in 1902 by a guy named Walter Sutton.
These are all theories.
And then in 1941, we had the pronouncement that, based on experiments on red bread mold, that the genes, the string of nucleotides, that the genes, the string of nucleotides, they code for a certain protein, which could then be an enzyme.
And one gene has the code for one enzyme. - Right.
And then, like they often do, if they find it in red bread mold, it must be the same for elephants, people, dolphins, chrysanthemums, and everything else, because obviously that's got to be the case.
And then we come to the very famous Watson and Crick Nature Study, published in April 25th, 1953.
Where Watson and Crick postulated the chemical chemistry and structure form and then the function of DNA.
And this was really a turning point in Modern Science and Molecular Genetics.
This was the first paper that they said, now we have the structure and composition of this genetic material and we can therefore speculate on how heredity works and how and why this double strand Here we have some of the wording that was in this paper.
called DNA is the code for proteins and is the basis of heredity.
Here we have some of the wording that was in this paper.
And I probably won't read all of it, but it's interesting to look at it because it doesn't really look like anything was proven.
We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of DNA.
And this was a chemically treated, processed, dry form of DNA obtained from the thymus of a calf.
We believe that the material which gives the x-ray diagrams is the salt, not the free acid.
We wish to put forward a radically different structure.
We have assumed an angle of 36 degrees between adjacent residues, so that the structure repeats after 10 residues on each chain.
So, in other words, they didn't actually demonstrate that, they just assumed that was the case.
One of the pairs must be a purine and the other a pyrimidine for bonding to occur.
I didn't explain why this is.
If it is assumed that the bases only occur in the structure in the most plausible tautomeric form, in other words, we say that this is the form because we assume the bases are like this, they have this structure, and so this is the most likely form.
And we go down through all these assumptions and stimulated by the general knowledge of the unpublished, etc., etc.
And you can read more about this in Tam's critical check, DNA discovery, extraction, a structure, a critical review where she goes through all this stuff.
Here's some other stuff which we don't need to get into.
Now, I should make this a bit bigger.
Sorry about that.
Now, what's so interesting is, if you go back to the history of Watson and Crick's paper, And how did it happen that they finally were able to confirm this double helix, 10 nucleotides until there's the next turn of the helix?
How were they able to determine that this was true?
So it turns out Watson and Crick essentially stole this evidence From a picture that was made by a woman named Rosalind Franklin, which I believe is the famous photo 51, which is the first time that the chemical called DNA was actually photographed.
And this photograph became the basis For saying that DNA is a double helix.
It's like the zipper that's folded every 10 nucleotides there's a turn.
And all the rest of it followed from that.
And it was essentially based on this one picture.
Now interestingly, and following in the line of thinking from Hillman, if you understand how this picture came about, you realize that it was, I think, the nucleus of a thymus that was subjected to chemicals and acidic treatment and then dehydrated and made into a powder.
And then it was subjected to 62, I believe the number is maybe 60 to 62, continuous hours of x-ray exposure until it formed an image on the x-ray film.
Now if you think about that, what are the chances that putting a living chemical or living tissue, dehydrating it, putting it in an acid bath, and then in particularly subjecting it to 62 continuous hours of an x-ray exposure, will show you the
The exact morphology structure of that chemical while the chemical was in your body, in a living system.
So that's what they're claiming.
Everything was based on this photo 51.
Anyways, I was very interested to see this photo.
It's a very famous photo.
So, just to say, this is the proof of the double helix structure of DNA, and therefore the mechanism of heredity like the zipper and the blueprint for the proteins.
There it is.
And it has two forms.
It has a hydrated, so one on the B on the right, my right, is a hydrated form of the salt of DNA, and the one on the left is a non-hydrated form of DNA.
And that's it.
So that picture was the proof.
And as they say, exposed to x-rays for 62 hours, hydrogen gas was pumped through a salt solution to maintain the desired hydration of the fiber.
This was obtained photo 51, which was the proof from a salt of a calf thymus.
There you go.
Now, one of the things that was interesting I happened to find.
So I'm going to go back to this in a minute.
it.
It was a picture done by an experiment where they did an x-ray crystallography picture, but this time it wasn't of DNA.
It was of a spring from a ballpoint pen.
And here you see a very similar, not identical I would admit, But this was the x-ray image of a spring from a ballpoint pen.
It looks sort of like the double helix, and you could make up the whole story from this.
And I don't know that anybody is saying that springs of ballpoint pen are the unique hereditary material of living systems.
Okay.
Let's get out of this.
Oops.
Okay.
So.
We obviously have questions about whether this chemical certainly exists in the form that they say it does in a living system.
And as far as I know, this is the best proof of what it looks like, and it's double helix and all that, that we still have to this day.
So that's one issue around DNA.
Now let's look at another one.
Obviously, we're told that the DNA is the same in all cells.
That's one of the basis of the reason why you can take a sample from your cheek or your blood or some other tissue and you can say you know what your unique DNA is.
But if you look at studies, here's some from this place.
He says, we know DNA in brain cells varies widely, wildly.
And here's another one.
In multifactorial diseases other than cancer, we can only look at the blood.
Traditionally, when we looked at genetic risk factors for, say, heart disease, we assumed that the blood will tell us what's happening in the tissues.
It now seems this is simply not the case.
From a genetic perspective, therapeutic implications aside, the observations that not all cells are the same is extremely important.
That's the bottom line.
Not all cells are the same with type of DNA.
Genome-wide association studies were introduced with enormous hype several years ago, and people expected tremendous breakthroughs.
They were going to draw blood samples from thousands or hundreds of thousands and find the genes responsible.
Unfortunately, the realities of these studies have been disappointing, and our discovery could certainly explain one of the reasons why their discovery was that not all the cells in the brain have the same DNA.
Here's another one.
DNA not the same in every cell of the body.
Major genetic differences between the blood and tissue cells revealed.
So it turns out that it is very clear from the medical literature that not all tissues, cells, blood, lymph, anywhere has the same DNA as all the rest.
So how could this define you as a unique individual?
And how could this, a mutation in which one of these cells are we talking about, is the reason why you're sick?
Okay, now let's look at another aspect of this.
And for this, I'm going to play a six or so minute clip from a talk given by Stefan.
*music*
*music* The same thing as here in... ...and there is something that is...
...and there is a response to the HIV-Virus.
Or Ebola or Influenza.
You get what you pay for, says the American.
So, and now I show you the question of the genetic.
This knowledge from the time of 2008, 12.06, genetic material in dissolution.
Get it from the Internet as long as it is not yet censored.
Get it!
This is the contradiction of all genetics and thus of virology.
Because the geneticists did not tell the virologists that they contradicted themselves.
Today they say, oh, we're doing epigenetics now.
We need fresh money, 40 years and then we know who about the inheritance.
This report is about a conference that took place in 2006.
The genome was considered an unalterable blueprint of man.
We believe that.
He determined the beginning of our lives.
You know, chromosome, mama, papa, then what?
And then our combination is determined.
Science has to say goodbye to this idea.
In reality, our genetic systems are under constant change.
And I advise you, a heredity that is constantly changing.
Yes?
Once Krugerrand, once...
Green-printed paper, i.e.
a Lehman Certificate, that can be worthless overnight.
I wouldn't accept that.
It turns into a school certificate.
Two years ago, 25 geneticists sat together at the University of California in Berkeley to answer the seemingly simple question, what is a gene?
He tried to define the basic concept of his field precisely.
However, he proved to be extremely difficult.
The meeting of experts would have almost changed him to disaster, recalls Karen Eilbeck, Professor of Human Genetics at Berkeley and guest speaker of the round.
About her name, Karen Eilbeck, I find all the original literature and her colleagues on the Internet.
We had an hour-long meeting.
Everyone shouted at everyone.
And exactly the same thing happens when the virologists are confronted with their own actions.
They don't just yell at each other.
I'm sure if Christian is there, he'll be eaten up.
Because the others say, you idiot, do you have to overdo it?
Now they're all looking at us, yes?
So, why?
The dispute in Berkeley has little to do with research idleness.
It was the first symptom that bioscience was still unnoticed by the public.
Unnoticed by the public.
Today.
That was 2008.
So what do we learn?
The scientists have contradicted themselves, but do not tell the public.
We believe in gene tests, paternity tests, blah blah blah, etc.
In reality, they say, what the researchers are doing in chromosome strands from humans or animals, is blowing up the previously thought-out genetics.
Above all, medical research faces new challenges.
In the first outlines, the body and soul are recognizable.
Aha, there's the soul again, all of a sudden.
Their health, illness, development and aging are subject to a genetic alteration whose complexity exceeds all previous ideas.
And now comes the crucial sentence.
The geneticists have to say goodbye to their image of a stable genome in which changes are sick exceptions.
So, of course we have, we think in space, Greek, we have the idea that there must be a substance in which materialism forces us into, sharpened by Virchow with his cellular pathology and cell doctrine of life.
So does it have to be a genetic substance?
And because the same thing always comes out of a seed, it is of course unchangeable.
These are all compulsory logics.
So we're sitting in the cave of Plato, yes?
I'm not even allowed to turn around, you can see a shadow somewhere, yes?
And then, as he describes it, we see it and interpret it, yes?
But we don't even dare to turn around to see where the light comes from and who constantly makes noises in the audience.
So, that's our situation.
Why?
The heritage of a human being is the result of constant reconstruction.
Every organism, every human being, even every body cell is a genetic universe in itself.
And that's exactly what virologists do today.
They look for fragments, read them, and then build a genetic strand, just like the geneticists built a chromosome in the past.
And the geneticists didn't tell him, let it be.
Let it be.
Let it be.
No, they keep going.
Too big, too few.
It is clear that even if the geneticists do not say anything to the public in 2008, and now we have 2022, that they have completely rejected themselves, we cannot expect that from the virologists either.
And maybe, not maybe, but it's a very important message from me, it's our culture.
So we should really approach these people with reverence, because it is almost impossible, at least very, very difficult, to give up one's own models.
Because I connect my identity with it, nurture my family and so on.
And all of this is supposed to be wrong and in this case even dangerous.
Okay, so where are we here?
So, here we are now.
Okay, so where are we here?
There are three central points of DNA heredity genetics.
One, all of the proteins, of which there's somewhere around 200,000, maybe 180,000 different proteins, are coded for by a unique, fixed, stable, unchanging gene.
That cannot be correct, because as far as we know, even though we, as Stefan points out, we can't even define a gene in the first place, that there's only 20,000 or so genes, and there's 180,000 or so proteins. and there's 180,000 or so proteins.
So who's coding for the other 160,000?
To that, there's no answer.
They make noise about, well, we have these enzymes and they remodel things and maybe we can get a few more thousand out of that.
So they have no idea where 150,000, which is the bulk of the proteins, actually come from.
Where's the code?
If they say you have a protein too high, too low, and they say that must be because the gene for that is abnormal or mutated or sick, how do they know that that is one of the 20,000, not the 150,000?
And I would say that even the idea that the 20,000 code for proteins, it may be true, but it's certainly not proven, at least to my satisfaction.
The second idea, that all the cells, you have one fixed, stable genome.
It defines you, it's with you your entire life.
Turns out not to be true.
We have different DNA in every cell and tissue and blood of our body, so we do not have a stable, unique DNA complement whatsoever.
And the third, as Stephan points out, and as these geneticists and molecular biologists had to agree to, there is no such thing as a stable, unique, this-is-you DNA.
It changes all the time.
It's in constant flux, depending on the situation, the environment that the organism finds itself in.
So how can this be the basis of your individual character, your uniqueness, your hereditary makeup?
There are lots of questions, but those are the three biggies for me.
Now I said I would finish with some speculation about, so, because understanding where structures like proteins, in particular proteins, enzymes, come from is probably, if not one of, or the, it's certainly one of the fundamental questions
Who makes, how are these proteins made if there's no code?
Who determines, how is it determined which proteins in which configuration get made?
And so here we have to go back to what I'm saying is my model.
It's not my model.
That's the wrong way to say it.
A model of What we're actually made of.
And I've done this many times before.
So this is nothing new, but here is what we have.
This is all you can actually see.
We have a thin membrane.
We have a watery cytoplasm that's in the form of a gel.
The gel has a bunch of stuff in it, in particular ions, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, a whole lot of other ions.
Without the ions, there's no electrical charge.
It also has proteins, which are The nidus, the structure upon which the gel phase of water forms upon, just like jello.
So you need a structure.
That's the proteins like gelatin.
You need to unfold the proteins.
In jello, that's done with heating the mixture.
In living systems, it's done with a chemical called ATP, which attaches to the ends of the proteins, unfolds it.
And then allows the water to interact with it and then form these unique gels.
Each tissue has its own proteins.
Each tissue has its own unique crystalline gel formation.
And then embedded or, yeah, embedded, implanted in the gel, maybe on, you know, embedded with protein columns.
Is this dome shaped nucleus, which you can see here is always looks like a dome.
This is obviously a two dimensional picture.
So you can imagine this lifted up into a three dimensional dome.
And then emerging from the center or the parts of the dome, we have antennas, which I think are these spiral formations, which may be a chemical.
And it may be that we either have springs from ballpoint pens, or we have a chemical called DNA, which might be able to function as a single spiral antenna emerging from the nucleus.
So, the system is antenna that downloads information from your own organism, from your thoughts, from your soul, whatever that is, from the ether, which is the electromagnetic plasma form that we all live in, as if we're swimming in this plasma form of water.
It downloads unhealthy signals from your wireless devices and from 5G emissions.
It downloads positive thoughts, love.
Uh, life is safe, and it probably downloads toxic thoughts, fear, hatred, and materialistic misconceptions like your problem is you have a mutation, and that's causing you to make an abnormal protein, and that's causing you to have a crappy or unusual life.
That is a fixed, materialistic, unproven assumption which I think fixes what is going to be made by this system.
I've said that one of the ways we've demonstrated this is with Veda Austin's simple putting water, freezing it, sending it information like show me a wedding invitation, show the water a wedding invitation, makes the wedding ring.
You ask the water what falls down and the obvious answer that the water shows you is London Bridge.
Now, in this case, the water doesn't have proteins.
It has probably very few ions.
It's not part of a living system, so it can only work with how it organizes the crystals.
The analogy, instead of making London Bridge, is you make certain proteins which are unique to that liver, or unique to that nervous system, or unique to your lungs, or brain, or some other organ.
So it's the water receiving information, just like in Veda Austin's experiments, creating forms, in our case, in living organisms, they're called proteins, that organize the system into a coherent living organism.
This is similar.
I'll just go through these because I've shown them.
People, I'm not the first one.
We have a liquid crystalline cytoplasm in the interior of every cell.
Sven Gorky said, the structure of water is the essence of life.
Marcel Vogel who knew more about crystals than anybody else.
The water is structured with mind and with thought, remains fluid, but structure is called a living crystal, a mesophase, a mesomorphic transition.
We even know that when you do an MRI, which measures the structure of the water, cancer cells have destructure.
They're like a liquid pool instead of a mesophilic or mesomorphic crystal like Vogel was talking about.
So when you go from crystal to liquid, that looks like abnormal tissue and that's one of the ways we diagnose that something is wrong.
And we call it cancer.
This has to do with every religion.
The only thing that creates water in Genesis, water and light.
Light is the information.
Water is the downloading device.
Jesus says we're born of water and the spirit.
Water is the downloading device.
Spirit is the information.
Says it in the Koran, we're created out of water.
And in the Vedas, this is not new.
And as I've shown you, hopefully, this is a picture of a structure that you've all seen called the Taj Mahal, which has exactly the same components.
We see the antenna, the dome, the columns that amplify the signal.
Actually, I think the word is a capacitor, and then it gets amplified into the water below to create a harmonious society or a healthy world.
And this was the way, apparently, that people who knew how things work actually created a society that works for everybody, which unfortunately we have lost.
So I think that when you think about what creates disease, especially and particularly these things we erroneously call genetic diseases, any part of that system that's in error will create mistakes.
So one could be you don't have the ions in your water, so there can't be an electrical charge developed.
No electrical charge, then no life.
You could be starving for proteins.
You could be starving for lipids.
You could be starving so that you could be putting poisons, glyphosate, everything else into your water so it distorts the structure.
I'm pretty sure that the way that deuterium works, which is so-called heavy water, Is the deuterium creates an abnormal form of water.
The more you accumulate over your lifetime, the more distorted the crystalline structure of your water and your cells will become.
And then you end up with heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
So if you deplete the deuterium, which is another word for giving yourself back the real water, which is H2O, not DHO or D2O, you can reverse that process and that has been shown with many different studies.
Or, and this is probably in some ways just as likely, you could be exposed to abnormal information from the outside.
The sun could be covered up by somebody, heaven forbid, spraying stuff in the air.
They could be putting particulate matter or toxins in the air.
They could be injecting aluminum or nanoparticles or graphene into your tissues, which would distort The watery cytoplasm.
Or you could have a fixed idea that my problem is a genetic mutation that's going to define my life.
And my guess is then you get fixed with churning out a very specific and probably dysfunctional protein over and over again until you become aware
you and the people around you that that's not the way it works and it's a fixed materialistic inaccurate view of reality which has no place in modern medicine and therefore we have to work with what is real which is the purity and the integrity of the water and the health and purity and Yeah, aliveness of the information that we receive.
If you think about those things, you will make a huge impact on your health.
Again, not to say that I know that this is the answer to how it works, It being how we synthesize proteins.
But I have a feeling that this may be the way that humans have known about for many, many years.
Unfortunately, we forgot.
And I think this should be intensively studied because I think it will bring fruits to the world the likes of which we have never seen before.
▲
Export Selection