To access all the episodes of this ludicrous fictional tale of social media influencers and their self indulgent life, simply go to the pinned comment on:
I'm not entirely convinced DNA is or does what we've been told to believe. Once you look into its history, it becomes about as blatantly obvious of a lie as virology....
I have a hard time taking any claims seriously that assert DNA can be changed. Well sure, it changes from 1 minute to the next. Something that unstable sure doesn't seem like it can be significant enough to alter an organism let alone a species.
Just my 2 cents. I still haven't seen anyone do a thorough deep dive on this but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
I think you're right that there's nothing that they can say that's of any interest. They admit that they don't know what over 99% of it does, they call that "junk" dna. You're right about genetics and virology. It's junk "science".
Things we can be sure of: If the gov't bans a substance it must be good for us. If the gov't mandates something it must be dangerous to comply.
That's not MY problem. I propose that he doesn't make the claim as long as he can't prove it. Making unprovable claims is how they have assassinate a good portion of the human race these last 2 years. So I think that making unprovable claims and stating them as facts seems to already have democide on its track record and should perhaps be avoided.
On the other hand, perhaps he's just left out the obvious prefacing of his remarks with "in my opinion", but I think it might be important to specify this.
I'd like to at least hear the basis for this opinion.
To access all the episodes of this ludicrous fictional tale of social media influencers and their self indulgent life, simply go to the pinned comment on:
Episode 17 -https://francesleader.substack.com/p/diamonds-are-occasionally-dim
I'd like to see the proof that a new species comes from radiation damage to DNA, if that's what he's saying.
I'm not entirely convinced DNA is or does what we've been told to believe. Once you look into its history, it becomes about as blatantly obvious of a lie as virology....
I have a hard time taking any claims seriously that assert DNA can be changed. Well sure, it changes from 1 minute to the next. Something that unstable sure doesn't seem like it can be significant enough to alter an organism let alone a species.
Just my 2 cents. I still haven't seen anyone do a thorough deep dive on this but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
I think you're right that there's nothing that they can say that's of any interest. They admit that they don't know what over 99% of it does, they call that "junk" dna. You're right about genetics and virology. It's junk "science".
Things we can be sure of: If the gov't bans a substance it must be good for us. If the gov't mandates something it must be dangerous to comply.
How do you propose that he prove it? It is unethical to conduct such experiments.
That's not MY problem. I propose that he doesn't make the claim as long as he can't prove it. Making unprovable claims is how they have assassinate a good portion of the human race these last 2 years. So I think that making unprovable claims and stating them as facts seems to already have democide on its track record and should perhaps be avoided.
On the other hand, perhaps he's just left out the obvious prefacing of his remarks with "in my opinion", but I think it might be important to specify this.
I'd like to at least hear the basis for this opinion.
I have read an article recently which forms the basis of that opinion:
https://inugo.substack.com/p/inugo-research-mirna