Dr. Mike Yeadon : The officially accepted model of epigenetics is completely inadequate to explain body function.
Jamie Andrews : "Clearly I wouldn’t be recommending getting your dog’s pedigree checked using this stuff unless for comedy purpose alone, closer to that of the game Guess Who."
Foreword
Dr. Mike Yeadon, December 19, 2024 :
https://substack.com/@drmikeyeadon/note/c-82202637
https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/scientists-find-new-forms-of-rna/comment/82202639
I think this is simply another facet of the field that’s called “epigenetics”, the realisation that the simple model of <<genes make RNA makes proteins makes functions>> is hopelessly inadequate to explain how the body works.
It’s rather wonderful because the Human Genome Project was supposed to make the “blueprint of life” fully available to the perpetrators and with this, they could rationally engineer everything.
Not so fast!!
Luckily for us, knowing a bunch of sequence information is all but useless. It very rarely “explains” anything let alone everything.
Also, I remember the mute silence & confusion when we were presented with the emerging information that our entire genome appeared to code for fewer than 30,000 proteins. Some apparently simple organisms appear to code for more different proteins than does the human genome.
Very few human illnesses are “monogenic”, that is, caused by a defect in or absence of a single gene product. Who’s really surprised about this? I wasn’t. I have always appreciated that biology is extraordinarily complex and irreducible to simple unequivocal statements.
I wouldn’t at this point get too excited or concerned about yet one more influence on expression of genes or behavior of cells.
Even if all speculation is right, I’ll tell you this with confidence: it will not give rise to a simple way to manipulate our biology. It just doesn’t work simply & mechanically like that.
Linked :
Scientists Find New Forms of [RNA Obelisk] Life Inside Human Bodies As Global Population Decline Predicted By Lancet
The question looms for humanity-- Instead of wondering what will Earth be like with less people, perhaps we should STEP UP AND DO SOMETHING??? Yes, we should probably head this off at the pass. NOW.
Dec 19, 2024
https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/scientists-find-new-forms-of-rna
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Harold Hillman
Why you should know about Harold Hillman’s work on the living cell
February 14, 2024 | Mia Breeze
by Mia Breeze
This paper looks at how Harold Hillman’s critique of the living cell impacts our current understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), genetics, viruses, genetically modified organisms (GMO), and our understanding of living things.
I have tried to condense and simplify Hillman’s work concerning the living cell as much as possible to make it more accessible to the average reader but given modern science’s tendency to over complicate and obfuscate things, there is a lot to unravel.
As such, if you are able to put aside your modern attention span and invest time in reading this paper, it is likely you will finish knowing with confidence what exactly about these topics is knowable and what is false.
i. Harold Hillman
In Harold Hillman’s (b. London 1930 – 2016) obituary, we learn from his brother that,
“… Harold Hillman, … was a biological scientist whose research … repeatedly challenged the orthodox scientific community in its interpretations of the effects on cell structures of extracting, dehydrating and staining under the electron microscope.
In the book The Living Cell (1980), which Harold wrote with Peter Sartory, he argued that the technique resulted in fundamental changes to the cells themselves, and was thus unreliable, a view rejected by most of his peers, and for which he paid a high price in career terms.
Harold was uncompromisingly and intellectually honest, dedicated to leading a life based on principle and driven by a strong moral compass that affected everyone he met. … Its manifestation was revealed in every aspect of his life – his family, his humanist philosophy …, his abhorrence of capitalism and his commitment to exposing institutional corruption, the diminution of academic freedom, cover-ups of discreditable research, loss of human rights and abuse of animal welfare…”1 When you go through Hillman’s work and interviews, the above seems to be an accurate description of the man. You can read the story of his career and the prices he paid for his intellectual honesty here.2
Hillman was a rare scientist, in that the focus of his career was not centred around proving or discovering something novel. Instead, he focused on fact checking and critiquing what are considered proven facts which comprised the very foundations of his chosen field of biology. Facts in the sense that they are ideas taught as infallible and verifiable truths by teachers, lecturers, and authors of biology textbooks to this day.
When you read Hillman’s books, The Living Cell (1980) and Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques (1972), you get a good idea of Hillman’s uncompromising intellectual honesty. However, once you have gone through a substantial amount of Hillman’s work you begin to realise that demonstrating intellectual honesty was the underlying theme of all his scientific work, the actual focus of his career.
Intellectual honesty in scientific experiments in any branch requires the methodical and good faith application of the scientific method.
This means the identification of all assumptions including those related to the procedures undertaken to carry out the experiment – i.e. the limitations of any apparatus, preparations and/or procedures followed to carry out the experiment. It also means drawing attention to how those limitations impact the final conclusions drawn from the experiment.
It means undertaking control experiments at appropriate stages of the experiment, which includes accuracy experiments relating to the equipment used. It means publishing the results of those control experiments in every case and especially when they cast doubt on the initial hypothesis.3
Application by Hillman of the scientific method in the manner described above to the studies of cells and their inner structures, lead Hillman to make some profound criticisms of modern biology.
As stated by Tom Cowan, Hillman’s work demonstrated that many of the foundational facts of biology were very far from facts so much so that the whole field of modern cell biology, the underpinnings of modern medicine, had to be re-evaluated.4 From what I have read of Hillman’s work, Cowan was not exaggerating.
Why should you care about the field of modern cell biology?
Well, because how we think about the cell underpins how we think living entities operate. The cell is considered to be the smallest living thing out of which every living thing is composed – the basic unit of life. Cells are said to run all the processes needed to sustain life, such as protein synthesis. Cells are said to originate only from other cells.
( … )
Full article :
Editor's note: The article is very interesting, but quite long. If you have little time, no desire, or only the modern attention span, then please at least read the two comments published directly below :
…………………………
What Harold Hillman wanted to point out is reflected in the following two comments :
................................
Nike
February 17, 2024 at 7:27 pm
Before analyzing the results of so-called microscopic and submicroscopic domain investigation techniques and before claiming that those results represent the reality inside the living tissues of living organisms, we must have confirmation that those results represent the exact reality.
Any analysis of the results of the so-called microscopic and submicroscopic investigation procedures is meaningless and completely useless until we can have confirmation that the samples of organic matter extracted from the living tissues of living beings are not distorted and not changed due to disconnection from energy vital of the living being, due to exposure to the external environment different from that of living beings, due to the fact that organic matter automatically enters the natural processes of decomposition when disconnected from the living being, due to the harmfulness of laboratory preparations and due to the aggressiveness of the action of investigation itself.
............................................
Nike
February 18, 2024 at 6:54 pm
At the end of subtitle b. Gene expression and the central dogma, it is stated that, I quote: The structures are observed only under electron microscope and the molecules found only after subcellular fractionation.
The reality is that no one has ever been able to prove that with the help of the so-called electron microscope they could show the structure of any DNA molecule or anything else.
All claims that with the help of the so-called electron microscope you can highlight molecules are unsupported by evidence.
All images that claim to show molecules highlighted using so-called electron microscopy are frauds.
………………………………………
RETRACTED CHAPTER:
Critique of these Experiments
By Harold Hillman
First Online: 01 January 2012
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-4922-5_9
About this book
It would seem an appropriate time to re-examine the cellular structure of the mammalian nervous system for the following reasons. Firstly, there is considerable confusion in the literature about the appearance of the different kinds of neuroglia by light and by electron microscopy, and this is complemented by widespread disagreements among distinguished neuropathologists about the international classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Secondly, there is an increasing volume of experiments on the physiology and biochemistry of tissue cultures of neurons and different kinds of neuroglia, whose validity depends upon the accurate identification of both the parent tissue and also of the cells subsequently growing in culture. The biochemical classifica tion in recent years has often tended to become independent of the cellular identification, which makes the use of the neuroglial cell names doubtful and the significance of the biochemical properties of the cells difficult torelate to the physiological properties in vitro or in vivo.
……………………………
agent Roger W., January 2, 2024 :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-the-officially-accepted/comment/84103406
Hillman was a huge scientist. His many bitter enemies say of him "Crackpot!" but I have read two of his books, and I haven't detected anything suspicious. And I have a perfectly homologated and functional bullshit-o-meter, which I threw against the book several times while performing a ritual dance, waiting for a fire or another signal, as per the manual of operation. Nothing unwholesome or superstitious happened. Mr. Hillman's publications were legit. He may be wrong in this, that or the other, but no he was crackpot in the least. Just a scrupulous scientist.
It's just too difficult to come to grips with the idea that ribosomes are a complete misconception. Proteins are more mytserious than we are allowed to imagine.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Rjj, January 3, 2024 :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-the-officially-accepted/comment/84165825
Dennis Noble illustrates the concept nicely below.....
The promises of the genome project are gone silent, now they'll try hammer us with 'therapies' to see what happens.
Linked :
Denis Noble / VIDEO :
https://youtube.com/shorts/E_fjTIpXENA?si=_IiFpuoO6XagR-xw
Denis Noble (born November 16, 1936 ) is a British physiologist. He is one of the pioneers of systems biology .
Denis Noble studied at University College London , where he received his doctorate in 1961. In his highly acclaimed doctoral thesis, which resulted in two articles in Nature , he developed the first mathematical model of the working heart based on the Hodgkin-Huxley model . [ 1 ] from 1984 to 2004 Noble held the Burdon Sanderson Chair in Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford . Today he is Emeritus and Co-Director of Computational Physiology at Oxford. As Secretary General of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), he was one of the initiators of the Physiom data by setting up quantitative models and solving them using computer simulations the interpretation of genome project, which aimed to promote .
In 2006 he published The Music of Life , the first popular science book on systems biology. Herein he criticizes the ideas of genetic determinism and reductionism , which he finds most radical among some supporters of Dawkins ' theory of the selfish gene . He puts forward the thesis that, due to various feedback mechanisms (e.g. splicing , epigenetics ), the genome is not a significant organizational level, not a program from which the function of “higher” levels such as that of proteins, cells or even organs can be derived using a reductionist approach could become. Instead, he proposes a systemic view of organisms.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
simpatico jones, October 26, 2024 :
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/conversation-with-jamie-andrews-the/comment/74175099
Hi Sasha, I don't quite understand where DNA analysis is accurate and where it is being used to deceive. Would you have any sources to guide me? Maybe you could do an article on it?
……………………………..
Sasha Latypova, October 26, 2024 :
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/conversation-with-jamie-andrews-the/comment/74192626
DNA analysis is not accurate. DNA is a mathematical model, it is not "real" because nobody has ever found or measured it directly. It is only postulated in mathematical sense, based on experiments that are just as ridiculous and unscientific as the virology ones. Here is a good critical review: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
Most DNA "science" is just large statistical datasets with too many variables. Once you have more than 7 variables, anything can be associated with anything.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The DNA HOAX
Part 3: Forensics, Gene editing and Ancestry.
Dec 31, 2024
“( … )
CONCLUSION
We have seen how when actually rigorously tested the supposedly 99% accuracy of Genetic Forensic analysis is actually closer to 10% accurate. In fact so inaccurate that it is WORSE than a guess and therefore may ONLY be used in a fraudulent manner to convict.
Clearly I wouldn’t be recommending getting your dog’s pedigree checked using this stuff unless for comedy purpose alone, closer to that of the game Guess Who: “Does your dog wear glasses and have a mustache?”
( … ).”
Full article :
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-dna-hoax-0a2
………………………………………………………
Related articles :
………………………………………
The DNA Hoax
Part 1: Extraction
Nov 30, 2024
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-dna-hoax
………………………………………………….
The DNA Hoax
Part 2: Sequencing
Dec 18, 2024
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-dna-hoax-4e4
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
For the most reliable information about the "Covid" scam and deceptions of the system, read Dr. Mike Yeadon's daily statements :
Here you can find Dr. Mike Yeadon and his statements :
Substack by Dr. Mike Yeadon : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
There is also a chat channel connected to the channel linked above, which is managed by his friends : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat
When searching for Dr. Yeadon's videos only two browsers are recommended : Yandex and Mojeek. But you can also try other, smaller browsers, too.
Censorship is omnipresent on Google or Safari.
Many statements and videos from Dr. Mike Yeadon can also be found on Suavek's Substack, which is recommended by Dr. Yeadon on the main page of his Substack.
Both links lead to Suavek`s Substack :
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
'The DNA proves you were unjustly convicted, and, in fact, you're the Grand Duke of Luxembourg.'
"And, when the DNA test results arrived, the woman realized her so-called 'little terrier mix' had been part German shepherd all along."
Hillman was a huge scientist. His many bitter enemies say of him "Crackpot!" but I have read two of his books, and I haven't detected anything suspicious. And I have a perfectly homologated and functional bullshit-o-meter, which I threw against the book several times while performing a ritual dance, waiting for a fire or another signal, as per the manual of operation. Nothing unwholesome or superstitious happened. Mr. Hillman's publications were legit. He may be wrong in this, that or the other, but no he was crackpot in the least. Just a scrupulous scientist.
It's just too difficult to come to grips with the idea that ribosomes are a complete misconception. Proteins are more mytserious than we are allowed to imagine.
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.