Genetics-an uber junk science

Watch my video podcast on Twitter and Rumble to see me discuss this.

Since 2020, after the Covid pandemic, have spent a lot of time learning about virology, vaccines and genetics. Turns out all three are total junk sciences. This article will go over genetics specifically.

I am not denying heredity-a dog gives birth to a dog, a human to a human-information is passed from parent to offspring. Genetics with its nucleotide/DNA string as a model for how information is inherited is flawed is what I am saying. 

The first problem is isolation of nucleic acids. It is not clear that cell lysating procedures, which apparently can be done in a home kitchen (detergent, alcohol and bingo, the nucleic material just comes out) actually take the nucleic acids out from the nucleus. I also find it odd that the same basic procedure pulls out DNA from all kinds of cells-plants, animals, bacteria, 'viruses' (example). The tests defined for what is a nucleic acid/DNA are protein tests-Sanger sequencing or Next Generation Sequencing-and work for anything. Sanger sequencing was originally for proteins-he got the Nobel for sequencing insulin, a protein. You cannot just define a DNA by a sequencing test-need to show the nucleic acid being PHYSICALLY extracted first from the cells. Isolate the nuclei first, and then take out the DNA from them, for it all to make sense.

The Watson and Crick original paper which got the Nobel prize-was just 1 page long, and has 1 diagram. Looks like a Nobel for brevity. The paper clearly mentions that it is the SALT of nucleic acid which the X-Ray diffraction pattern is of; it is not pure DNA. Salt of chlorine, NaCl, or table salt, has completely different structure than chlorine, which is a gas. Wherever this paper has been replicated, the salt is the one which is apparently crystallized, never the pure DNA. The DNA itself is soft and gooey, can't possibly have a crystal structure, or give an X-Ray diffraction pattern. Basically, the DNA is a helix is a ridiculous claim.

DNA coding for proteins etc. is total nonsense. Simple protein chemical reactions are being called with 'codes' in DNA-there is no need to invoke DNA. When proteins light up-DNA is said to be edited, etc. which is a convoluted way of explaining fluorescence of proteins and their chemical reactions.

The DNA is said to be a coiled helix in the nucleus. For humans, it is apparently 2 m long in each cell. There is no proof of this anywhere; just entirely made up guesses is all a literature search reveals. 

Since there is no 2 m long string of DNA, what are they sequencing? A sequence must be of a PHSYICAL structure. The claim that there are a billion nucleotides in this string of DNA-is totally bogus. The sequencers are spitting out fluorescence, and the 4 lanes are supposed to identify the 4 bases. The problem is that without a physical structure, we have no idea how these supposed helixes are coiled up! At best, DNA is a soup of nucleotides; but there is certainly no long string of DNA which has the code of life on it. This is where the geneticists have made a big jump. 

Sequencers are still spitting out data strings of ATGC, now done in software, which seem to be a property of the sequencer itself, not of the sample. Why? How do you sequence 1000 strands in one go? Sequencing means each strand MUST BE sequenced ONE AT A TIME. If we have a necklace with beads of ATGC, you can understand sequencing one necklace at a time, but would be ridiculous to think you could sequence 1000 tangled necklaces at the same time! And here you don't even have any complete necklace. All necklaces are broken in random lengths. And there are thousands of these pieces of the ATGC necklaces. How do you sequence this? Website of Illumina, the main sequencing company, talks more about this data scrubbing (alignment) than about the physical sequencing. Because it all seems to be a software trick.

There are multibillion dollar corporations developing genomics based drugs. They don't go anywhere, make no useful products; because the DNA helix, and the DNA string even being there, or having stored information is totally false.

The "useful" products are often circular referencing, where they themselves evaluate that the DNA etc. has been inserted and the person/animal made better. Once again, simple chemical reactions involving proteins are used as proof of DNA altering/splicing, etc. which can be only confirmed in lab settings. A lot of fluorescence protein tricks are passed off as gene tinkering.

This is also the reason that paternity and forensics tests of DNA go all over the place (can't even tell a dog from a man). Because the whole model is flawed; there is 0 chance to be correct on these. These would be a good use of DNA tests, if DNA existed.

Similarly, DNA from a person is not unique. I have not seen one instance where 5 samples from 5 different parts of a body of a person (or animal or plant) give the same result-that they can identify this person. This is the obvious way to prove that DNA is indeed unique-and the fact that there is no publication about this makes me wonder...clearly has been tried, and as expected, failed. Because once again, the whole DNA helix with bases lined up, is totally imaginary.

Genes, a sequence of these nucleotides, is also an imaginary creation. They do not exist. Wherever they are shown to be inserted/modified, is all an exercise in circular referencing. For example, in GMO crops, which I have talked about earlier-successive breeding (for desirable characteristics like sweeter fruit, smaller seeds) is passed off as genetic tinkering. Darwin wrote a lot about artificial selection by man-by breeding. Nothing can be done without going through the laborious process; the idea that you can modify gene in a lab and make the crop better is a bogus claim. Monsanto (now Bayer) is more interested in selling seeds and patented weed killers by this sleigh of hand. Every natural process can be passed off as gene tinkering-flour turns into pancake (instead of heat) with gene tinkering, now give them $$$ to make gene enhanced pancakes.

One thing which underpins all of Genetics is PCR. The PCR method claims to amplify one single strand of DNA a billion times (in 30 cycles). The PCR when used as a test, which is where it is used most often, claims to amplify something a billion times before testing to see if it is there. It is a totally ridiculous concept-how will you amplify something by a billion times without knowing it is first there? Once you realize that PCR is a scam, genetics automatically becomes flaky.

Because there is nothing at all to the science of Genetics and DNA, the claims of geneticists lately have gotten equally ridiculous. Some claim to insert spider gene into goats to make goats which will produce spider silk. As expected, no commercial success. Another claims to create corn which will be contraceptive for humans-sperm killing gene incorporated into the corn. Or even more absurd is using viruses with modified genomes for gene therapies even in humans. SHOW ME A USEFUL PRODUCT which you made by your supposed gene tinkering, we have been doing DNA for 70 years. There's nothing!

The ridiculousness of genes and DNA is obvious by the current mRNA vaccines for Covid. The mRNA molecule apparently uses YOUR OWN cells to produce a protein which is the Covid virus envelope-. Then (other cells of) your body make the antibodies against it. YOU YOURESLF make the virus protein AND the antibodies to it! The magic mRNA injection pits one part of your body against the other. Science fiction on steroids. None of this can be proven to happen-but the claims get you a lot of $$$ in vaccines, all passed off as high science.

Adenovirus vaccines, or more generally, viral vector vaccines, are even more science fiction like. The Covid vaccines of JNJ and Astra used this 'technology'. You apparently insert the gene of the Covid virus into adenovirus, and then inject this modified adenovirus into a human. The claim of editing & replacing genes of UNPURIFIED submicroscopic particles (viruses, both adenovirus and Covid virus), using it for a war inside a human body to help the human body win, sounds absurd to me.

There's humanized mice, where human genes are inserted into mice to make them mimic humans (reference). Ridiculous meet science here.

There's gene guns-tungsten or gold particles with DNA coats inserted into plants by force of a gun. You confirm gene is inserted by-fluorescence in onions, etc.

Another is splitting DNA gene into two (as if it were a physical strand) because it is too big, insert it into two viruses, and insert these viruses into humans to repair their hearing. Anything nonsensical can be claimed in gene science-maybe a DNA helix viral vector which takes us to the moon is next.

Genes and DNA apparently can be synthesized from scratch, one nucleotide at a time. On one hand calling it a secret code of life and on the other being able to generate artificial sequences, sounds like a contradiction to me. Synthetic biology is the field-a lot of circular referencing, with once again, no useful products being made.

Then there's junk DNA. Apparently 97% of DNA in us doesn't do anything-just sits there. Imagine it being the elixir and secret code of life, and 97% of it doing nothing. A contradiction right there. Not to mention how you come up with the estimate at the first place, cells being of so many different types and having different quantities of DNA-another hand waving approximation it seems.

Genetics has sometimes been calling genetics horoscopes, appropriately (see this article). It is very similar to astrology-very word heavy, diagram heavy, maybe even internally consistent; but in the end nothing comes out of it. No falsifiable predictions, no useful products.

The buzz word of gene therapy makes its rounds in Pharma circles. If gene therapy were possible, genes could be spliced into us at will, it would contradict the idea of we having a unique genome right there! How will you know whose genome it is? Same problem happens in transplant patients. Whose genes will a bone marrow/lung/kidney transplant patient carry? This has been addressed here.

The practical implications of genetics being junk science are big. All DNA based tests, notably used in forensics and paternity and to determine genetic disease propensity, must be discarded immediately. People's lives are being ruined based on these junk tests-example: 7 women in only family have gotten major surgeries because of the BRCA mutation test, which the test maker now says is wrong.

To evaluate paternity tests-you can do simple experiments. Put the DNA of the real father (known positive) of a child with 10 other random men DNA. Tests must pick the real father correctly in these 11 people. This should be repeated with maybe 20 true father-child pairs (known positives), and in all cases the father-child pairs must be identified correctly. You can do it for known mothers too-because real mother-child is far more certain with mother than father.

To evaluate forensics tests-forensics departments must take the lead and evaluate gene tests. Like paternity tests evaluation-give geneticists DNA of known criminal of a crime (true positive) mixed with 10 other random DNAs, and let them identify the real criminal from that from a DNA sample which they take at the crime scene. 

No such evaluations have been done for paternity of forensics tests (or not published; because they failed miserably).

Gene tests have failed miserably for identical twins-who should have exact same DNA, if the theory holds. Only 10% of the twin-pairs had that in a sample of 300 pairs.

Genetics and DNA were originally proposed as a mechanism/model for heredity, how information passes from parent to offspring. It was unverifiable, and numerous attempts to prove this failed. Another role was added to Genetics-protein synthesis in cells. Suddenly genes as an inheritance mechanism took the back seat. The game of proteins-where genes and DNA 'code' for proteins, acting as control towers for what goes on in the cell, is totally absurd science fiction (a child copy of control systems engineering). There is no intermediary needed to do protein synthesis-or at least the gene mechanism with nucleotides is totally wrong. But now gene insertions and edits can be confirmed by protein reactions-and this may be the main reason that genetics added the role of protein synthesis to genes in the animal/plant-some experiments could now 'confirm' genes were being changed; instead of the challenging and exciting problem of how characteristics are inherited, its original goal. Gene therapy is not gene therapy until you can show that the changes are passed on to the progeny.

In summary, the DNA is not a helix, there is no long string which has nucleotides stacked up neatly, and therefore there is no sequence to begin with. The sequencers are spitting out junk data which is passed off as genetic code. There is nothing there-which is why no useful products have been made by DNA and gene technologies in the last 70 years. 

Related: Why virology is junk science, video podcast on Twitter  and on Rumble

and

Why vaccination is junk science, video podcast on Twitter and on Rumble.

An excellent article here on DNA, and on PCR amplification and testing, by the same author (Tamara).

 A great article on DNA here by Tracey.