Ever since virology burst onto the scene three years ago as the major force shaping our lives, a growing number of people like myself have been scrutinizing the claims of the virologist priests
Why on Earth don't you have a zillion followers? Well, I just "discovered" you myself, so I suppose you are out there in various forms, including in Spain, perhaps, and I just don't know it yet. At any rate, I look very forward to reading deeper into your work. So much of what I read, so far, on this -- my first of your writings -- rings gloriously true! I have more-or-less distilled my own understanding of Science™ as follows: if the word "quantum" is used, they are simply full of shit and don't know anything; and in Medicine™ or Health™, if they use the word "genetic" they are also full of shit and don't know what they are talking about. Everything after that is up for debate. ¡Adelante amigo!
You bet, although I don’t know if I can point to any specific examples. It’s more of a general concept for me: the whole of medical and health research seems to be based on either virology or genetics, both of which are oddly interconnected. It seems that nearly every non-infectious condition, from heart disease to diabetes to cancers to practically anything, can be quite directly linked to metabolic disruption caused by factors such as lifestyle (i.e., diet), toxins, or “interrupted heredity” rather than to bad genes (oops, another misstep by God!) or bugs. Have you encountered the book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price, DDS, written around 1932? This is where I learned the phrase “interrupted heredity”. The book should be a required text in every school and discipline of so-called Health Care. I won’t go on about Price and his work since you may know it already. However, the poking into the work of Otto Warburg and, more recently, of Thomas Seifreid (sp?) might also be compelling regarding the metabolic pathway to dis-ease, if you are not familiar with it.
I have long been an admirer of Weston Price.. I used to have a hardcover edition of his Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, though I didn't recall the phrase "discontinued heredity". Its a big book and easy to miss things.
What I do know about "genes" is that, like "viruses", it was a concept that was made up before they had any proof of anything (Watson and Crick, circa 1954) and with the U.S. Human Genome Project in the early 2000s, they found out they had completely misapprehended the way nucleic acids DNA and RNA functioned, so much so that there was a great debate about what a "gene" actually is. I imagine that debate was somehow suppressed, because I've only seen but one article about it. But anyway, there are a lot of questions left unanswered for me.
As for Otto Warburg and Thomas Seifried, the names seem vaguely familiar. I would be interested in anything you can share with me by them.
That is cool that you know Price’s work. It’s the first half of the book that most affected me (the stories of the 16 “healthy” groups around the world). As for Warburg and Sayfried (note spelling) I actually only know of them through a number of interviews I have seen/heard over the years with Dr. Sayfried. His website is tomsayfried.com as well as his book site which is cancer-as-a-metabolic-disease. I think it is verbotten to paste links to youtube videos here, but there are plenty of good interviews with Sayfried on there. A recent one is with Alison Munroe (don’t know anything about her) and it seems like a good summary of his work. Interestingly, in the rewriting of History department, it seems that one of the co-“discoverers” of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is being more and more emphasized on all the sites if you search for discovery of DNA (britannica, wiki, sciencehistory dot com, history. Etc.). And, of course, she was a “trailblazer” in the Science™ of virology. And Jesus wept
I'm getting that DNA was actually discovered in the 1800s though its structure and function was unknown. Allegedly, Franklin was the first to discern the structure of DNA and later RNA in the early 1950s. In 1953, Watson and Crick either appropriated or expanded on her discoveries, but little if anything was know about the role of DNA in "genetics" at the time.
Is your wailing about Rosalind Franklin simply related to the fact that she is portrayed as being important to "virology", or is there something more?
So sorry -- of course the link didn’t work because I spelt his name wrong. Yeesh! As far as Rosalind Franklin is concerned, nowadays any time the term “virology” is used my hackles raise (spidey-sense?) and I automatically expect it to be connected with the greater psyop of medicine as it is reaching us today. There wasn’t (as yet) and further reason to “wail” about her). I am not really a digger, though, more of a reader of diggers. Upon reading your comment, I do seem to remember that there were claims of appropriation of others’ work. Amazing how those kind of allegations -- and truths -- surround so many of the heroes of modern Science™ and Medicine™: Edison, Einstein, Darwin, Pasteur, even back to Newton (what ever happened to Leibnetz?). At the same time the real scienticians such as Steinmetz and Tesla and, perhaps more importantly, Walter Russell -- have all been relegated to the trash-heap of conventional wisdom. I’d put Velikovsky in that category, too. I imagine (hope) there will be a general rehabilitation of many of their, and other’s, theories and concepts.
Why on Earth don't you have a zillion followers? Well, I just "discovered" you myself, so I suppose you are out there in various forms, including in Spain, perhaps, and I just don't know it yet. At any rate, I look very forward to reading deeper into your work. So much of what I read, so far, on this -- my first of your writings -- rings gloriously true! I have more-or-less distilled my own understanding of Science™ as follows: if the word "quantum" is used, they are simply full of shit and don't know anything; and in Medicine™ or Health™, if they use the word "genetic" they are also full of shit and don't know what they are talking about. Everything after that is up for debate. ¡Adelante amigo!
If you have any leads on "genetics" please send them my way
You bet, although I don’t know if I can point to any specific examples. It’s more of a general concept for me: the whole of medical and health research seems to be based on either virology or genetics, both of which are oddly interconnected. It seems that nearly every non-infectious condition, from heart disease to diabetes to cancers to practically anything, can be quite directly linked to metabolic disruption caused by factors such as lifestyle (i.e., diet), toxins, or “interrupted heredity” rather than to bad genes (oops, another misstep by God!) or bugs. Have you encountered the book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price, DDS, written around 1932? This is where I learned the phrase “interrupted heredity”. The book should be a required text in every school and discipline of so-called Health Care. I won’t go on about Price and his work since you may know it already. However, the poking into the work of Otto Warburg and, more recently, of Thomas Seifreid (sp?) might also be compelling regarding the metabolic pathway to dis-ease, if you are not familiar with it.
I have long been an admirer of Weston Price.. I used to have a hardcover edition of his Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, though I didn't recall the phrase "discontinued heredity". Its a big book and easy to miss things.
What I do know about "genes" is that, like "viruses", it was a concept that was made up before they had any proof of anything (Watson and Crick, circa 1954) and with the U.S. Human Genome Project in the early 2000s, they found out they had completely misapprehended the way nucleic acids DNA and RNA functioned, so much so that there was a great debate about what a "gene" actually is. I imagine that debate was somehow suppressed, because I've only seen but one article about it. But anyway, there are a lot of questions left unanswered for me.
As for Otto Warburg and Thomas Seifried, the names seem vaguely familiar. I would be interested in anything you can share with me by them.
That is cool that you know Price’s work. It’s the first half of the book that most affected me (the stories of the 16 “healthy” groups around the world). As for Warburg and Sayfried (note spelling) I actually only know of them through a number of interviews I have seen/heard over the years with Dr. Sayfried. His website is tomsayfried.com as well as his book site which is cancer-as-a-metabolic-disease. I think it is verbotten to paste links to youtube videos here, but there are plenty of good interviews with Sayfried on there. A recent one is with Alison Munroe (don’t know anything about her) and it seems like a good summary of his work. Interestingly, in the rewriting of History department, it seems that one of the co-“discoverers” of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is being more and more emphasized on all the sites if you search for discovery of DNA (britannica, wiki, sciencehistory dot com, history. Etc.). And, of course, she was a “trailblazer” in the Science™ of virology. And Jesus wept
I'm getting that DNA was actually discovered in the 1800s though its structure and function was unknown. Allegedly, Franklin was the first to discern the structure of DNA and later RNA in the early 1950s. In 1953, Watson and Crick either appropriated or expanded on her discoveries, but little if anything was know about the role of DNA in "genetics" at the time.
Is your wailing about Rosalind Franklin simply related to the fact that she is portrayed as being important to "virology", or is there something more?
Thanks. The link you gave didn't work. It should be tomseyfried.com
but before discovering that I found a couple of youtube videos.
Thanks so much for sharing this important information. I think I'll write about it!
Hey, this just showed up today on my timeline thingy (whatever it's called) https://vigilantfox.news/p/professor-exposes-the-big-lie-about?r=pfh98&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
So sorry -- of course the link didn’t work because I spelt his name wrong. Yeesh! As far as Rosalind Franklin is concerned, nowadays any time the term “virology” is used my hackles raise (spidey-sense?) and I automatically expect it to be connected with the greater psyop of medicine as it is reaching us today. There wasn’t (as yet) and further reason to “wail” about her). I am not really a digger, though, more of a reader of diggers. Upon reading your comment, I do seem to remember that there were claims of appropriation of others’ work. Amazing how those kind of allegations -- and truths -- surround so many of the heroes of modern Science™ and Medicine™: Edison, Einstein, Darwin, Pasteur, even back to Newton (what ever happened to Leibnetz?). At the same time the real scienticians such as Steinmetz and Tesla and, perhaps more importantly, Walter Russell -- have all been relegated to the trash-heap of conventional wisdom. I’d put Velikovsky in that category, too. I imagine (hope) there will be a general rehabilitation of many of their, and other’s, theories and concepts.