The DNA deceit

Be the 1st to vote.

From Sharpstuff:

Thesis:
If you remove any substance from a ‘living’ organism it may be part of that original but immediately must become something else.

We cannot, then, therefore make any reference to it as a ‘part’ of the original (since the original is now also a part of the original and deplete of its ‘wholeness’ and the removed ‘part’ is now a separate entity). Any results of ‘experiments’ or studies upon the removed part can (in simple) only be a form of conjecture as to its part in the original .

If, for example, let us make an analogy, say, making a fruit cake. We may work from a known recipe or create one from any several parts, which we call ingredients. We take those ingredients and mix them into a bowl. Now we have a ‘dough’ comprised of the ingredients all mashed up, therefore not recognised as separate entities. We then place this into a cooking vessel (e.g. a cooking oven, or even an ice-box) and after a given period of time we are presented with a structure (comprised of the individual ingredients but now not recognisable as such) which we might say is a complete object we will call it a ‘cake’.

No tags for this post.

2 thoughts on “The DNA deceit

  1. barbm124

    ok, I’ll leave a reply. What chemist are good at is analysis of gases. They use chromatography or spectrography and it really works and produces exactly the same results every time and everywhere. So if they can gasify something they usually can analyse it too. That’s why I think DNA really exists as a biological substance. Not so their analysis methods used for sequencing the so called genes. they can’t see the order of the DNA-bases directly so they read them from this famous strip patterns which are the result of so called gel electrophoresis, where they put parts of parts of the DNA called micro-satellites on a gel-paper, keep this within a strong electrostatic field for a while and get this strip pattern which looks different every time. The same probe tested twice won’t look the same. This is also used in all the PCR tests when they look for genes or what they call nucleoids. There simply is no other way. The PCR corona test though does not look for genes. It only amplifies some molecules which then are mixed with a test fluid and if they have a reaction the test is positive. Very similar to the antigen test where they use blood water called plasma or serum. All this tests are not calibrated and especially the PCR corona test always finds the so called “signal”, except they messed it up in the lab or they set the sensitivities lower than usual. This is another trick. The accuracy of this tests is being described with terms of “sensitivity” or “specifity”. For instance sensitivity is defined as the ability to find a person with antibodies. It sounds like something which is calculated from the labs results but in reality it is something they set in the lab. If the media call out for a pandemic, they set the sensitivities higher to get more positive results and that way justify this media call out. That’s how pandemics are being made. Not a rocket science, is it?

    1. Unreal

      “it really works and produces exactly the same results every time” barbm124

      Thanks for the detailed explanation, Barbm124. From what i understand of Sharpstuff’s post, his main contention is that whatever works and produces results outside of a living organism does not reflect what actually happens inside a living cell. So finding the results is not the problem – it is the logic of the process that is in question.

      In other words, the techniques used to analyse, extract and visualize living organisms can be cleverly construed abstractions misrepresenting what really happens in a living cell in its true environment – without a cells exact temperature, pressure, moisture, acidity, electric tension etc.

      Once we remove living tissue from its proper milieu and build nanoscopic landscapes of water-repellant silicon and deploy a DNA solution on top*, dehydrating the whole setup before photographing the scene with an electron microscope…. Is it possible to contend the image of DNA thus obtained is representative of what really exists inside a living cell and informs a cells development ?

      * herunder Di Fabrizio’s 2012 DNA imaging shows DNA supported by silicon pillars

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.