Genetics: Science or Dogma with Liev Dalton

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]Another one is peptides. There's a big peptide craze going on. Everyone's >> Oh my god. Don't get me started on that, Le.

[00:00:07]>> This is the True Health Report where critical appraisal fuels true freedom.

[00:00:19]Hello everyone and welcome to the True Health Report. I'm your host Dr. Andy Calfman. Today we are going to start refuting claims in a new subject area, one that I have recently hinted at and will definitely be getting into in more depth. But for this first main piece of content, I wanted to bring on a young man who's very enthusiastic in his skepticism and dismantling of various modern biological paradigms. And I'm referring to none other than Lev Dalton of Beyond Terrain, who has developed an educational curriculum to uh help people uncover these truths as well. And I saw his recent content about genetic diseases and other fallacies of genetics and found it quite compelling and it was very consistent with some of the preliminary conclusions that I also reached. looking at the tenets of the you know I'll I'll say pseudocience of genetics. So welcome to the stage Lev.

[00:01:33]>> Thank you so much for having me. It's an honor to be here.

[00:01:37]>> Well I'm uh glad that we can have this kind of high level level discussion. I'm wondering if you could just uh give the audience a little bit of your background. I know that you definitely studied the mainstream sciences and how you came to you know develop this as a alternative career for yourself.

[00:01:59]>> Well, it's been uh it's been quite a journey and quite a meaningful one at that. Uh I did start out studying biochemistry and molecular biology in my undergrad. I thought it was going to be centered largely around metabolism.

[00:02:12]Funny enough, uh, for our discussion today, it was centered mostly around genetic. Uh, so I understand a lot of these concepts from the mainstream perspective, uh, quite in depth. Like I'm not unfamiliar with the methodologies used, the applied sciences, the lab work. I've done a lot of the lab work that we're probably going to discuss today.

[00:02:35]So moving away from that really it started um listening to a few individuals like yourself Dr. Kaufman who uh uh were discussing the germ theory you know and that's where it started and I actually set out to try to disprove the terrain. I wanted to disprove sort of the claims that that you and Dr. Cowan and Dr. Lando were making because you know I was I took a few microbiology courses. I took some verology courses and my my goal was to disprove it. And so in doing so uh I went back and I read the co-pilot studies. I read the original papers, the contagion studies, right? The foundation of germ theory. And in doing so obviously uh it was a complete falsification of the germ theory. And so now we find ourselves discussing genetics and it's the exact same path.

[00:03:25]Once we go and read the original papers, we find that there are just tons of confounding variables. There's a lack of scientific method. Uh just just a a a story sort of pulled out of a a magician's hat, you know, and really no foundation and nothing to support it, right? And that's sort of the big problem in modern science is we tell these stories and and Thomas warned us about this in the structure of scientific revolutions. It's called theory ladeness, right? It's like when we believe something, our preconceived notions, you know, they we put those onto our observations. And so when we take, you know, dirty bandages, as we'll dive into, when you add, you know, phosphoric acid to it and you get a white powder that's phosphorus based, you say that's got to be the blueprint of life just because we're basing it off of our preconceived ideas. There's truth to heredity and we're going to dive into these topics more, but just as a little preamble, you know, there's I think what what what we want to do is just highlight where there is a lack of the scientific method, where there is a disconnection with reality and trying to find maybe some truth in it at all. But it's a large field of of nonsense. So anyways, that's what excites me most about this stuff and diving into it. So I'll throw it back to you. we keep going.

[00:04:52]>> Well, Lev, I think uh there's there's some interesting stuff there because one um parallel between us is the way that I first woke up to some of these scientific truths and it was before germ theory actually. It was looking at uh the climate and the alleged uh global warming. And I took the same exact tact as you. I set out to try and prove that global warming was a real phenomenon.

[00:05:19]And of course once I got into the research I saw that it was also just a story and there were computer models that are easily fudged that were the only you know so-called evidence really to support it. Um so I think it's a very useful approach and it also gives you know some internal validity to your opinions uh on the other end and it also quelches some of the criticism that you might face by others because you know you were actually on their side and you just couldn't support the claims. So it's not like you were coming in as some you know uh opposing force. Now what you said about the stories that are created but are never validated with empirical experiments.

[00:06:13]Um when I read Crick's paper about the the central dogma I thought it represented a fever dream really. And I'll give you a little anecdote from when I was in genetics back in uh MIT days that uh we had I don't remember if it was a midterm or a final exam, but I stayed up I wanted to stay up all night cramming for it. And uh so I drank a 2 L bottle of Mountain Dew as foolish college students do things like that.

[00:06:47]And you know, I I crashed at about 4 a.m. and woke up a half hour later in a cold sweat because I had like a fever dream from the from the Mountain Dew that there was a mut mutating genetic beast inside of me that burst out right through my abdomen just like in the movie Alien. And now I think if I would have just written that down in a scientific paper format like could that be now the modern prevailing theory >> not something there. So Lev um we can now get a little bit more serious and you know obviously if we observe biological organisms like like humans being you know the most complex we can see that the amazing degree of organization and complexity we have of all the processes going on at any given point in time must need a source of information. something akin to a blueprint in order to be able to reproduce this, right? Like every time a new offspring is formed, it is able to do all these things.

[00:08:04]So, it would be great if we could understand exactly where that information comes from and how it's passed from generation to generation. And that is really the attractiveness I think of genetics is that it provides a relatively simple uh way to understand that. But the question we're going to tackle here today is you know is it actually true? So let's talk about heredity because we can you know we we know this information right is passed down over generations and we can observe heredity right that we can observe eye color hair color stature right many many other things even actually personality traits right which we can observe I don't know if you have any children but children when they're quite young you definitely know they have certain personality traits It's like my three-year-old, you know, I've known this for a while, is quite stubborn and independent. Uh, you know, if you want him to do something, he doesn't want to do it. And and now he's starting to negotiate, right, because uh because of language. So, but we we certainly don't have a gene for stubbornness. So, tell us about the difference between, you know, about heredity and how it relates to genetic determination.

[00:09:25]>> Yeah, great starting point. Um, I do I have a a daughter. She's about six months and she's already very much like her mother. So, and she's quite young.

[00:09:35]So, >> hopefully that's a good thing, Lev.

[00:09:37]>> It is. It It certainly is. Yeah. I'm I'm very >> fantastic.

[00:09:42]>> I love the starting point. And I think, you know, it comes what comes up for me is the the genotype versus the phenotype, right? So, the the phenotype is sort of the expression of a gene, right? And it's the observable characteristics like you were pointing out like eye color like height or hair or skin or whatever it is even personality and and this is observable right there's we're not denying that in in any case and I think that there's a lot of truth in here and where my mind goes is uh Weston a Price's work actually and I think that this is really important because I believe too that the health of the parents can dictate the health of of the children, you know, and and Western I pray showed that when you stray from the natural lifestyle, the the natural foods, the natural habits, movement patterns, the rituals, whatever it may be, the the children of the offspring that moved away from traditional life had dental deformationation, right? Mal mal u mal development, >> mal acclusion. Yeah. Yeah. They had they had visible Exactly. They had visible uh phenotypic traits that were sort of abnormal for lack of better terms and it was based on the health of the parents.

[00:11:09]So we could see that you know the state of the the parents the state of the parents affects the offspring.

[00:11:16]>> And I think that's an important observation too.

[00:11:20]So, it's it's it's not absurd to to claim these things. Like, it's not absurd to claim that there's something inside of us that gets passed down, right? Is it DNA? That's sort of the question that we're going to dive deeper into. Or is it, you know, could it be something else? You know, we're not going to probably dive too too deep into positive claims here because then we're tiptoeing into a little bit of the the whole modern problems. uh rather we're just going to falsify the the concept of it being DNA without you know denying reality you know we don't want to >> I think it's a good starting point Leah a good starting point for us is we realize that there's information that explains things like heredity and our degree of organization but we don't know how the information is stored or passed down or coded if it if it is right >> sure exactly Exactly. Yeah. And I mean listen, Hypocrates discussed this question long time ago. I remember studying Hypocrates at in school actually in my undergrad and I took a course on the the development of modern medicine. It stem back all the way to his work and we studied him quite in depth. And he asked you know the the information contained in the seed right and in the in the ova in the egg it has to contain the entire essence of the being.

[00:12:44]like the the whole oak tree is contained in an acorn, you know, the whole >> That's right. And this this fits with fractal mathematics and it also fits with the hermetic principle of as above so below >> 100%.

[00:13:02]So this this is not the claim that we're refuting, right? It's just it it's just whether or not it's DNA, right? Right? Because DNA comes with that story comes with all sorts of problems, right? It comes with genetic determinism. It comes with, you know, it comes with uh uh the concept of of disease caused by genes that are out of our control. It comes with the PCR. It comes with all of these different stories that also render life meaningless like neodyarwinism and random mutation can be the cause of disease or your problems or whatever it is. And it it just it it like there's a certain amount of of constitution that's passed down. And I know that obviously the terrain is something that that influences our environment is something that influences us on a far greater level. And now some geneticists are, you know, they'll start and they'll say, "Oh, well, it's epigenetics." And one of the big copouts that you hear now is there's a complex interplay between our genes and environment, right? And so there's a certain amount of constitution that we gain. But again, coming to environment, something like height for example, is it purely a genetic thing? Because I'm taller than both of my parents. I'm maybe the tallest person in my lineage.

[00:14:21]>> I am too.

[00:14:22]>> How could how could that be? You know, how could I surpass it? Just there.

[00:14:28]>> Well, you must be a mutant. you that that's the that would be the explanation in the current paradigm, right?

[00:14:37]>> Yeah. Exactly. It's backfill, right? And that's an important concept that we can understand too is that when we have observations that don't fit the theory, we create another story to try to make it fit, >> right?

[00:14:51]>> And we don't need a paper for that. We just write it in the >> Yeah, exactly. we just write it in the discussion section and say oh well this fits because you know XYZ and you make it make sense right we see that >> so this is basically what what you're talking about Lev is right the scientific method you have to have a hypothesis and then you design an experiment to test the hypothesis right and then either the hypothesis is true or not true but when the results don't support the hypothesis being true what they do is then go back and change the hypothesis is to match the results, right? That's the uh you know post hawk uh revision fallacy or maybe there's a slightly different name, but that's you know completely false. Uh that's rewriting the story.

[00:15:42]>> Yeah, exactly. You add in assumptions, you add in you add in anything that you need to add in after the matter to make it work, to make it fit. That's the theory ladeness too that I was referring to earlier, right? We have this concept of constitution being passed down to a certain degree and we're going to try to to solidify this in the material world through DNA through a physical blueprint of light. And from there, we have to make every experiment that we do fit this idea that that we're discussing right now that we're not denying that there's a certain amount of of, you know, traits that are passed down, right?

[00:16:27]They have to make it fit into their experiments. And that's where there's a disconnection with reality because now we're deep deep into the test tube first and foremost. So there's initially the dom and quinine problem of when we isolate things do they act like they do in nature because there's no isolation in nature. It's like the first problem with empiricism. Now that being said if we're going to do empiricism we have to take it serious. We have to use it from a falsification standpoint and all the confounding variables end up causing us problems down the road. And we'll dive we'll dive deeper. So all >> right. Right. And that's important. And I just want to mention, you know, uh, two other things here. Um, one thing is that when we when we talk about heritable traits, we can all look at certain traits and know that they're not genetically determined. Like for example, you can inherit your religious beliefs, right? If you're born to Catholic parents, then you're Catholic. If you're born to Jewish parents, you're Jewish.

[00:17:31]But no one would make the argument that you know Judaism and Catholicism are genetically determined. And I'm sure you can think of many many other examples like that. You know poverty would be one. And then I also want to comment on what you were saying about you know that we could look at that all the information is contained you know in the egg uh for example or or in the embryo so that it can become the full organism and have the same uh features right as as the parents. But I want to caution the audience of the materialism inherent in that statement that we think there's some physical storage of that information. And that may or may not be true because we can look at modern technology like our cell phone, right?

[00:18:22]Which no one can live without.

[00:18:25]The information that we utilize on that cell phone doesn't all come from the cell phone, right? It comes from magical waves, right? They're not really magical, but waves that are not in the material world, right? They uh are represented by vibrations in the material world, but they are not material in and of themselves. They have no substance. And yet they provide all this information. So in nature we have something called the human resonance for example which is just like a cell phone signal but it comes from the earth or from nature. So, you know, could that contain the information coded, right?

[00:19:09]And then the the egg just has a way to receive that. And like Tom Cowan, for example, has talked about the chromosomes uh that they resemble antenna in in modern devices. So, could it be receiving, you know, a signal of some type of electromagnetic waveform? Now, I'm not saying we have evidence for that or making a claim. I'm just saying if you think of all the possible ways you could approach this uh scientifically I would definitely look in that direction as well more yeah and I mean it's like a consciousness can you find it in the brain do you find it in the person even right it's like there's something greater at play here I love that point >> well if we look at Mark Grober's uh work I think there's very compelling real scientific evidence that consciousness is not localized uh to the body at all. Now you know of course how is that possible and all that we don't have all the explanations but it's been shown in many uh different experiments to be the case. So you know I think what this tells us more than anything else is that we don't really know the answers.

[00:20:27]>> Agreed.

[00:20:29]>> All right. So, let's let's get into the hardcore um molecular biology here, Lev.

[00:20:36]Now, you and this comes from the 19th century originally, but you know, tell us about like is DNA actually in living organisms at all?

[00:20:47]>> Does in other words, does it exist in nature?

[00:20:50]>> Exactly. Yeah, that that's that's the big question. And and I think the point of confusion comes again from the true scientific method. Dr. Dr. Coffin, I know you're very familiar with that and I know that your listeners are likely very familiar with how to approach the scientific method. We need isolation of variables, right? We need the isolation of methodology as well. So the addition of reagents and chemicals into an experiment must be controlled for right. It's question is how do we know that the addition of a chemical doesn't alter the initial substance? So right >> originally there's this guy it was 18 >> before you go there Le just let me just review this point because it's really important the audience >> understands this right so we know that to to do a scientific experiment we need an independent variable and we need a control and the reason especially for the control experiment is because we know that our experimental procedure itself can affect the outcome and we have to show that the results that we're interpreting didn't come from the procedure, but it came from the independent variable. And so that we have to have both of those things to know that we're actually um observing something that happens in nature and not something we created in our own laboratory.

[00:22:19]So, so think of that as you're des I mean the audience think of that while Lev you're describing the initial experiments that led to the discovery you know discovery of DNA.

[00:22:31]So like I was saying 1869 Misher originally he discussed nucleon it wasn't called DNA it was called nuclean and so what he did again sort of with a a preconceived idea that there is something physical in our bodies that is the blueprint of life that is the the basis of you know our existence of our biological manifestation our bodies. So he took pus from surgical bandages as his starting material and he precipitated it via chemical treatment. So he used acids most notably phosphoric acid which is a very important point. He had an alkali and uh he he used heat. He used different methodologies in his so-called isolation procedure. Right? So he started with, you know, pus from surgical bandage, which is biological material, but then added these chemicals that again, how do we know whether or not they affect the so-called nucleon or DNA? We say that DNA is one of the most fragile substances that we know. Yet the addition of these acids don't alter the so-called DNA.

[00:23:53]So the the big observation here was that rather than it being a nitrogenbased white powder that they ended up with at the end, the precipitate was a white powder and it was phosphoric based.

[00:24:09]It had more phosphorus in it rather than >> Lev to get into the methods a little bit more. So now they didn't have you know NMR and mass spec back at the time this experimental research was done. So how did they when they so you know I think what you're saying here is that they started with pus from surgical wounds.

[00:24:33]>> Yeah.

[00:24:34]>> Added a bunch of uh steps of chemical reactions maybe solvent extractions acidbased reactions and at the end ended up with a white powder. But how do they know what the white powder is?

[00:24:50]>> I mean, this this is exactly it. That that's that's a great question, Dr. Coffin, because I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion exactly based off of it was the methodologies and the theory laid in this that led them to to believe this in the end, right? There w because there was no confirmation. There was no, you know, let's let's confirm that this is nucle and that this is uh uh the starting point of of something biological, right?

[00:25:23]We don't have that any comparison to work off of. And was there nuclean um or nucleon because ostensibly it comes from the nucleus, right? But was there any experimental procedure to separate the nucleus or extract material only from the nucleus? Because we would have white blood cells in pus, right, that you could see under a microscope.

[00:25:52]I I don't believe in this in this paper they claim to isolate the nucle. They claim I I believe in later papers to try to isolate the the nucleus. But again, it kind of falls into the same trap of how do we how are we confirming that we actually isolated nucleic material, right? It's still sort of we do a step, we say like we write in our paper, this is what's happening and then all of a sudden we have the result. Like this is when you go and read the papers you realize it's very much it's not also it's not written like our modern IMRAD papers introduction methods discussion or results discussion right it's a different structure it's it's very much written as in like this is what's happening this step this this is what happening like that we don't have the confirmation we don't have any comparison that the modern literature tries to do right we say we kind of ascribe meaning to each step as we're going >> right and uh I imagine as many of the papers that I've read of this genre they don't actually describe the experiment in any detail such that you could reproduce it >> exactly exactly yeah the reproducibility now uh one one interesting point about this is that uh hopeier actually reproduced the experiment allegedly using the same methodologies very again lack of detail in these papers is the biggest problem as you're pointing out um now the interesting thing is is when hopeier followed up with these with these experiments I I think one of the biggest problems was that people viewed that as confirmation they viewed the the reproduction of these methods as confirmation of the method methodology and then the result, >> right? But just repeating the same steps and getting the same white phosphoric based precipitate, it doesn't necessarily mean that the methodology was correct or adhered to the scientific method or it doesn't confirm anything. You're just doing the same steps over again getting the same result.

[00:28:13]>> Right? So again, an interesting point was one of the main differences of this precipitate versus one that was nitrogen-based is they thought that the nitrogen-based one would be like a a protein material and the phosphor phosphorus base was a nucleic material.

[00:28:31]That was one of their ways of confirming that this was in fact different than uh some other biological material. Right?

[00:28:41]And so the most interesting part about this is that they added phosphorus in the methodology. They added phosphoric acid to the biological material. So of course there was a greater presence of phosphorus in the result which again this is the confounding variable right of of the difference in in their result in their their desired outcome.

[00:29:06]So they put phosphorus in the experiment and then they measured it at the end but they concluded that it came from the biological tissue rather than what they added. Right? It it sounds very similar to some of the viology experiments where they take pus you know similarly or lung fluid and they do a PCR test say that it has a certain genetic sequence then they put it into an experimental organism and measure it and show the same sequence.

[00:29:36]Well, it's like, okay, you detected what you just put in.

[00:29:41]>> So, what what conclusions were drawn from this research?

[00:29:47]>> The the the uh the main purpose of this was sort of the the isolation of nucleon of some sort of, you know, blueprint of like now I don't think that they called it the blueprint of life at this point. Some of these old papers were actually quite conservative in their conclusion. I believe that this it was still quite conservative at this time that when they said we just isolated nucleon and we need more research like we need to do more at this point and and so interestingly enough when you go and you read sort of these fundamental papers and you realize by the time Watson and Crick comes around which we'll get to that in a moment you realize that it was all just taken pieced together and said here's the story of DNA even though this experiment you We can't reliably conclude anything from this. And some of the authors like even Castle and even even you know when it comes to the bases like they were they were weary about saying like this is the blueprint of light they were just kind of doing some chemistry on biological material and saying oh well this is nuclean and then eventually it developed into the whole DNA double strand and based on the assumptions and stuff like that. So again, a lot of these conclusions when you read these papers are quite conservative, which is interesting that maybe some of these scientists I mean at the end of the day like Meer doesn't really know what you know what happened in in 70 80 years with Watson and Crick right they just took his paper and said ah this is the foundational paper let's assume it's you know the basis of life and keep moving right so >> right and and DNA wasn't really or nucleon wasn't really widely thought to be the genetic determining factor even in the early 20th century right when you had uh the experiments going on uh with mandelian uh patterns of inheritance and such. But it sounds like the what they did conclude is that that this you know phosphorusladen genetic material meaning you know DNA RNA and the nucleotides are present in all life forms but did they exhaustively test hundreds of different specimens from hundreds of different species?

[00:32:17]Well, and I mean I think the interesting point there is that maybe some people did, but even if they did, if you just take biological material and add some acid to it, an alkali and form a white precipitate that's phosphoric based and you never actually confirm what any sort of molecules are present and what what's actually present in the white substrate.

[00:32:39]you could probably reliably conclude that this is so-called present in all biological organisms just by using the same methodology that goes unconfirmed.

[00:32:48]Right? So I do believe maybe um Hope Celier did use I think he used dog tissue rather than like pus from surgical bandages and so the idea that it came from a different substance was again confirmatory that it's present in all biological organisms. But I think your point is valid. I still think that the problem is that even if they did it on hundreds of different species rather than just two different sources, they probably would have tried to say the exact same thing that it's still present in all biological material.

[00:33:20]>> Right now, um, is this problem with these methods, does it go beyond DNA and nucleotides?

[00:33:32]>> Yeah, of course. The problem with these methods, of course. I mean this is the the foundation of the the research on DNA right so when it comes to >> I think you you might have misunderstood so >> sorry please >> that's okay no problem so the way they made claims that you know they found DNA in biological tissues and so it's a molecule right that now is said to be in all biological tissues are there other molecules that have similar research methods that they also say are in either all or certain biological tissues.

[00:34:14]>> Yeah. Yeah. One I've been uh doing quite a deep dive in is vitamins.

[00:34:20]Interestingly enough, they actually take like way more steps to get vitamin C and use much harsher chemicals. They add uh they add lead acetate, lead citrate.

[00:34:32]Some add you know silver nitrates and and mercury. Um petroleum.

[00:34:38]>> Silver nitrate. That's what they use to cauterize tissue, right? So just so you know, right, it it chemically burns tissue. They use it for like nose bleeds that won't stop, things like that.

[00:34:52]>> So So adding that to biological material is going to burn Right. The material, so to speak.

[00:35:00]>> Exactly. Exactly. It's the same story with vitamins and and really any isolated sort of chemical from our biological organism falls into this trap because original isolation procedures all rely on this, right? And then we question okay well vitamin C you can make it with you know two three steps in the laboratory but just because you can reproduce the chemical structure again doesn't mean that it comes from a biological organism that still requires evidence for that claim right just because we can produce chemicals in the lab I don't disagree that we can produce chemicals in the lab but again to find these vitamins it was very pharmaceuticalesque like behavior you know they do 20 steps and at the end they would have like a variable five or 10 steps that they would take these substances and test it on people and see if they could reduce symptoms and the end product that reduced the best symptoms they'd say all right well that's the vitamin that must be the vitamin E though they would take a bunch of different you know substances and say well that sub that substance you know that derivative of vitamin A >> you know did less uh for that reduction of that symptom and it It's the same problem with any isolated any isolated component. And that's a big problem in the modern supplement industry is that it's more pharmaceuticalbased than we than we think.

[00:36:27]>> That's right. Because these things are made, you know, by synthetic chemistry or GMO organisms combined with synthetic chemistry. They they don't come from nature, right? It's not like eating food, >> uh, for example. And so what you're describing here is that all several classes of biomolecules that are claimed to be in organisms like vitamins, you mentioned vitamin C or ascorbic acid specifically.

[00:36:58]Of course, we're mainly talking about DNA and related compounds. And I've looked at hormones um and so has Dr. Cowan. I've been looking at thyroid hormone and I've also been started looking at neurotransmitters and it's the same story in all these cases. You take a biological material, you add chemical reagents, you subject it to physical stressors like heat um and centrifugation and uh acids and bases and then at the end you get some kind of white crystallin powder.

[00:37:38]And then that powder may be physiologically active. Like if you put it in an organism, the organism may respond. And that's just assumed to represent that in the actual organism, that exact substance is produced naturally and has the same or similar physiological effect, right? But it's never looked at as well um did any of the things we've done to this tissue to create this white substance could it have actually changed the thing and what I would say we actually have done in these experiments is that we used biological material as a starting material and we synthesized a brand new compound humanmade and it could be used as a pharmaceutical and it often is and in fact even if we look at the examples of this as a pharmaceutical like let's say insulin or let's say testosterone right both of those are given as pharmaceutical drugs well the pharmaceutical drugs that are made are actually not even identical to what they say testosterone or insulin is they make modifications of it different amino acid sequences for insulin um different uh side chains or reactive you know subgroups for the testosterone drugs versus natural testosterone.

[00:39:13]So that indicates you know really just an extension of what we know that all of these compounds are synthetic. They don't actually exist in nature. We do obviously have substances in our body that have effects that are naturally produced, but we haven't designed proper experiments to actually study those.

[00:39:33]>> Exactly.

[00:39:34]Another one is peptides. There's a big peptide craze going on. Everyone's >> Oh my gosh. Get me started on that, Le.

[00:39:42]>> It's the same It's the same thing that we're discussing here, too.

[00:39:46]>> Right. because those are those are made synthetically on a peptide synthesizer machine.

[00:39:51]>> Uh which I had a summer job in college where I ran one of those making peptides for research at a biotech company.

[00:39:59]Right?

[00:40:00]>> So these things are not what's in nature. Um, and you know, you you know by the way it's synthesized because uh you know they're attached to a resin and then you have to use the most acidic acid dangerous thing there is is gaseous hydrofluoric acid to uh get the peptides off the resin um and such. And obviously if that happened inside your body we'd all be dead.

[00:40:28]>> Exactly.

[00:40:30]So what about the double helix?

[00:40:36]>> Yeah, I think I think even if we take it back maybe one step too um to the bases because there was an interesting point about the bases that uh Kell actually did this a few years later maybe 15 years later and >> so we're talking about the four nucleotides that are said to be the building blocks of DNA right that's what you're talking about with the basis >> yeah yeah confusing because they're called nucleic acids, >> but then they're also called bases.

[00:41:04]>> Nice.

[00:41:06]That's good. That's good. I actually never thought of that. Um, but it fits really well into like feeding into the discussion of the double helix because what you realize is Watson and Crick basically just assumed all of the results to be perfectly true. Like so the base pairs feed into Chagraph's um rule that A pairs with T and G pairs with C. So with with Kosell, you know, rather than finding nucleon, he found the the base pairs or the the nucleic acids, right? Adanine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, uricil. And the the the interesting thing he started with different sources like uh guanine came from bird feces from that's why he called it guanine. And >> now that by the way, bat feces is called guano. I wonder if it's The war of origin comes from that.

[00:42:00]>> Yeah. Um now the interesting part about getting base pairs versus getting nucleon is that you use a different scientific or you use a different method not a scientific one use a different methodology.

[00:42:16]So they still use the heat, they still use uh you know centrifugation but they actually used mercury chloride, they used phosotungstic acid, they use silver nitrate again and using a different methodology like in these different methodologies you end up with different results. You end up with different products. Of course this just makes sense. When you add different products you get different products. So it's like the same sort of >> it's just it's just again perpetuating the story. And so once the base pairs were concluded as being you know biological material or the biological material of nuclean which was again the the greater claim made in um in Kosel's paper chap went out and this was um sometime later that he he he wanted to prove that base pair they pair together that bases pair together right that was his his idea, >> right? Because you need that to say that there's a double strand, right?

[00:43:26]>> Exactly. Exactly. Um, and so he he looked at ratios. And the interesting thing about Chagraph's rule is that if A bears with if A binds with T and G binds with C, then there's always going to be an equal amount of A and T and an equal amount of G and C, which surprisingly enough, in his paper, he did not find those ratios at all.

[00:44:00]>> But I bet he's still stuck with his hypothesis.

[00:44:03]He certainly did and and worse so um Watson and Crick stuck with that hypothesis to assume that the that there was a double strand that they were dealing with as >> now let me ask you Lev if if they have these matching or complimentary bases and it forms a double strand why doesn't RNA form a double strand it's made of the almost the same bases is >> yeah well well and that's the thing and so interestingly enough now they will claim that there is doublestranded RNA I do believe in certain viruses and >> well yes they they do and they also say that there's singlestranded DNA >> exactly >> right but but how is this possible given this complimentarity >> issue the thing this is the thing exactly yeah exactly Um again the the lack of of answers especially in this sort of primitive uh DNA work there's they don't they don't answer any of these questions of course.

[00:45:10]Um >> so so before they actually did the X-ray crystalallography experiments you're saying that they already had this idea of complimentarity and of double strands.

[00:45:22]>> Yes. That was one of the assumptions that Watson and Crick actually based their structure off of that there was a complimentary strand that it was double stranded. So Watson and Crick of course the the whole double helix and the you know photo 51 they use that X-ray uh defraction pattern of nucleic material.

[00:45:43]>> Before we go there Lev you just used the word assumption.

[00:45:48]Now, does assumption fit with science?

[00:45:52]>> Of course not, Dr. Coffin. Of course not.

[00:45:56]>> Okay. So, so I think this is a really important point is that all the experiments that that we are describing and especially as we get more into the modern genetic experiments, they they have assumptions, right? They're based on assumptions. So this is of course uh you know fraught with error and in fact you know can you even really interpret the results of an experiment when you have assumptions that aren't proven in the first place.

[00:46:27]>> Exactly.

[00:46:29]Yeah. And I mean the assumptions go a little bit deeper than that too than just the the complimentary strand assumption. um Watson and Crick and looking at the image of the you know 62 hours of X-ray that it took to get the image to get photo 51 right they had to blast DNA again with X-ray which supposedly >> but before they even got there >> do you know how they created the sample that they exposed to the X-rays >> yeah I believe they this was so this was in the 50s I I believe that they used um a slightly different approach to isolating the DNA. I don't think that they just do did the the um the method that that Meer used. They actually added I think more chemical reagents from uh what I found. I think they added things like phenyl chloroform and alcohol precipitation and they did try to isolate the nucleic material by breaking the cell to access the nucleus. So cellis uh hydraysis they used >> um nucleases formic acids they used different uh chemicals to get the nucleic material. So it wasn't actually the simple >> uh you know misher method orelier method of just adding a few acids and a few a little bit of alkali and getting a white powder. actually added a whole other level of, you know, we're kind of in a >> alle we could be in a whole different world here for all we know, >> right? And and I I would I would um you know, argue that the reason they did a different preparation is because in order to do, you know, they call it's called X-ray crystalallography. Mhm.

[00:48:17]>> And if you look in the textbooks, you'll see that every molecule that they can draw a three-dimensional structure of and talk about the geometry, they basically found that by this method. And what they need is a very pure crystal to start with, right? Which has a crystals have a regular structure uh that's repeatable and homogeneous throughout the substance. And you can assess that by physical properties of the substance like optical properties for example. So it is observable that crystals have a regular structure. I mean just look at a a nice piece of clear quartz you'll see that it's it's uniform throughout right. So they need that as a starting material. But if we look under the microscope at cells like we can see the nucleus with a light microscope. It's a real thing. But are there any crystals in there?

[00:49:18]>> Yeah, interesting observation.

[00:49:21]>> So even if like the interpretation of the X-ray defraction pattern is accurate, we we have this problem that DNA is not in crystals inside of an organism because we can't observe any crystals.

[00:49:39]So could it be in a totally different shape?

[00:49:43]That's exactly it. Yeah, 100%. Again, it's kind of an assumption within the the methodology itself, within the methodology of X-ray crystalallography as you're pointing out. Yeah. Like we know with uh if we look at carbon for example, carbon has different forms, right? And they're very different. They have very different properties from each other. Um the crystal, the perfect crystallin form of carbon is a diamond. And another form is ash or graphite. Those are different forms. Now we know graphite does not have the same properties as diamonds.

[00:50:23]So even if DNA were a real thing in our bodies, right?

[00:50:28]We have a different form of it now that we're doing this X-ray experiment on. So what does it really tell us about, you know, even if even if it was accurately interpreted as being a double helix? So all that tells you is that this crystallized form of this substance has a double helix shape. It doesn't tell you what shape it is when it's in an organism when it's not crystallized.

[00:50:56]>> Yeah. Yeah. Very interesting. I mean it it the funnier part about it too is that they also assumed the angle of the double helix Watson and Crick uh they didn't actually calculate it mathematically what what the angle of it of the you know double helix is so it's all based on >> they could calculate the angle though could they not >> they didn't based off the image they they couldn't wrap their head around the image they had to assume the angle and then look at the image because The problem is is the image is also non-specific. And I love the points that you bring up, Dr. Har. It adds layers of um of of falsification to this methodology. But there were actually some students that used the same approach, the same um X-ray defraction on the springs of ballpoint pens. This happened years later. And they actually ended up with >> they ended up with the with an extremely similar image.

[00:51:58]a a very similar defraction pattern.

[00:52:01]Now, ballpoint pen is also not a double helix.

[00:52:06]>> That's one single string.

[00:52:08]>> It's a single helix.

[00:52:10]>> Exactly. Exactly. And and it's a much different angle, you know, of of the helix than allegedly DNA is.

[00:52:22]Right now, we can we can actually look at this um at a more fundamental level because the the procedure, I'm sure you know this is that they take this crystallin substance that's a pure crystal and they put X-rays through it and as the X-rays pass through the material there is defraction of the X-rays and then there is a photographic plate that um can detect this defraction pattern, right? Because it would it would just have uh basically be uniform if there was no defraction if you put the X-rays just through air. By putting it through this crystallin substance, it defracts the path of the X-rays and then these are detected on a photographic plate and then that pattern is essentially measured and the coordinates of the you know part of the photographic detection are then put into a computer or maybe originally they did these calculations by hand but they then perform a 4A transform. form on that data and then from that they get geometric coordinates right but there are assumptions in that process as well. Uh the assumption is that there are you know essentially nuclei of atoms right that exist as discrete particles in space and that the crystal is mostly empty space because of the electron clouds. And so they're saying that basically the defraction pattern represents the nucleus of the individual atoms making up the molecule of DNA.

[00:54:11]However, they've never actually proven that those atoms exist or that a substance has these, you know, points and empty space. That's also just been an interpretation of an experiment that was not really designed to prove that and can have many many other interpretations. So we have level of assumption upon level of assumption upon level of assumption here to get the result that they say which is you know a Nobel Prize winning um conclusion and you know then it's almost laughable that we can replicate the experiment with a simple metal spring which doesn't even have the same shape uh and give us the same results.

[00:55:02]It's amazing.

[00:55:04]Well put.

[00:55:06]>> So, we're really skating on thin ice um in these topics.

[00:55:12]What about genetic disease? You know, the people are getting tested, celebrities have a mutation that confers a quote unquote risk for breast cancer and prophylactically getting a double mistctomy.

[00:55:28]You know, is is that a rational decision? Lev at this point. We can assume my answer, but you know, that's that's the main problem is the preemptive, right? It's the we're we're then causing harm to ourel based on sort of a boogeyman, right? I mean, it it's so easily falsified because people who have the gene also don't develop cancer. Some people get the gene, they don't develop cancer. Some people don't have the gene and develop breast cancer.

[00:56:01]Right? So again, trying to find a single gene or single nucleotide polymorphism or mutation, it's kind of like a growing list as well because when someone has breast cancer and they do the genetic testing and they come up with this, you know, sequence and they can't find the mutation that caused it, they can just add it, right?

[00:56:22]They can just add it to the list.

[00:56:24]I think zooming out a little bit because some of like those conditions like the idea that there's you know uh we can be genetically uh predisposed to cancers or autoimmune disease or whatever it may be. These things develop later in life, right? You know, so at some point it's they say it's triggered maybe by the environment and again that there's a complex interplay between our environment and this is again sort of a a backfill statement to say well it's not just the gene you know it's also the environment but if the environment is a required factor and the gene is not a required factor which is not because people cannot have the gene and get cancer or have the gene and get cancer.

[00:57:10]the required factor is the environment.

[00:57:13]Then our answer kind of lies in it's just the environment. It's like when we say the germ, you know, you can only get hit with a germ and and develop a disease from a germ if you have low immune system. And I don't like that terminology, but what causes low immune system? Oh, well, it's stress, lack of sleep, lack of nature, lack of sunlight, lack of nutrition, toxicity. All of these lower your immune system and then the germ attacks you and and you get disease. Well, then again the required factor is still the environment.

[00:57:46]It's always it always comes back to the train and that in that front and so generally I hear okay well what about mandelian disorders?

[00:57:56]Dwarfism is my favorite because 82% this is not my statist this is this is this >> now how how do they say dwarfism is supposed to work according to mandelian genetics is it autotosomal or sex link do you remember >> don't remember I don't remember no >> but what would be the predicted pattern >> sure well and here there there is a pattern there is a pattern but The interesting thing about dwarfism is that 82% of dwarves are born denovo from non dwarfs. 82% of dwarves are born from non dwarfves. Right now there is a pattern once there is dwarfism in the in the parents um that the children are highly likely to be born as as dwarves.

[00:58:52]82% of dwarves come from non dwarves.

[00:58:56]Right? So again it comes back to the point of even mandelian disorders people born with birth defects right because these are present at birth rather than something developed at age 16 17 or 50 60 years old right something born at at if you can if it's visible at birth we're kind of in a categorically different space than they say type 1 diabetes is caused by you know genetics and you know it's the autoimmune but it's caused by genetics maybe at basis or maybe a virus they try to say sometimes but it still develops a little bit later in life like you're not born >> similarly like Huntington's disease too is like that right >> exactly exactly so the the main question is like one where where did it start right it had to have started somewhere like these things haven't been around for thousands of or you know thousands of years maybe dwarfism they say that there were dwarves you know a long time ago but again it kind of comes back to the question of is it within the state of health of the parents, right? And I think that's what West Price's observations show us really well. It's the state of health of the parents that depict the health of the children. If there's birth defects in the children, unfortunately, the reality is that the parents were likely uh toxic in some capacity or perhaps deficient. Because the interesting part of West Aric's work is even people with dental uh deformationations, right? improper facial development. If they returned to their natural diet and natural lifestyle, their offspring would have perfect dental development, right? Their faces would develop >> Yeah.

[01:00:35]>> perfectly pristinely.

[01:00:37]So, it only it only takes one generation to reverse these things when we return to that baseline where we have, you know, low to no toxicity and we're properly nourished.

[01:00:49]So you're saying that we're not mutating back to the original genetic sequences, right? Uh we mutate to that and then we mutate back um you know in such an orderly fashion because uh all of the you know genetic evolutionary theory right says that all the mutations are random.

[01:01:10]>> Exactly. Exactly. But it's demonstrabably false that it's random. I mean that that there's just even when you go and read Mendel's work, I mean it's it's not random.

[01:01:23]>> Now what about you know >> what about a disease like cystic fibrosis? Now, that may not manifest at birth, but you know, it's it's said to have a a specific gene, the CFTR gene, that there are specific mutations that occur and it changes, you know, chloride uh channels and the lung cells and the pancreas and such. So, I know you've looked at that a little bit. So, tell us, is that a real thing?

[01:01:53]>> Symptoms are a real thing, right? people experience symptoms. We're not denying that. Now, chloride channels, I think we get in sort of a questionable world when we think of Gerald Pac's work. We think of sort of the new biology. I know Dr. Cowan's discussed this at length. I believe you have as well, right? We start to talk about, you know, areas of the the membrane of the cells and stuff and we start to fall into a few assumptions and some false science.

[01:02:22]Now, the the symptoms, Sure. Sure.

[01:02:24]Absolutely. Now the the my problem again with with cystic fibrosis again it's not necessarily present from from birth the growing >> it could be it could be present from birth right in some cases.

[01:02:38]>> Sure.

[01:02:40]>> Sure. Um the problem with the claim that it's genetic in my opinion here is that we have a large growing list of mutations and SMPPS that that are continuously growing right so when when we test these like individuals who have this classification of symptoms we test them for cystic fibrosis you know for the for the genes if we don't find the genes on the list we can just add another mutation to the list, right? Like this is kind of the problem with the whole genetic code thing. This and this happens across the board too.

[01:03:19]Cickle cell happens with a lot of these so-called mandelian disorders and other genetic disorders as well is we just grow the list whenever we're we're like well it's an emerging science, right?

[01:03:29]That's how we try to justify it and we just continuously grow the list of new mutations that are allegedly the cause.

[01:03:36]But again, we get into the the claim of the strand of genetic code in the first place and all the assumptions therein that we're just purely in a computerenerated sequence based on all the assumptions that we have just discussed here for the last hour. Right? So, we're kind of in the world again of we're not doing a service to any of these individuals because we're not working with what their bodies are displaying. What are their bodies asking for? What are the meaning of their symptoms? were just trying to look for a little boogeyman and blame that rather than maybe their environment or the environment of their parents because again as you're aware Dr. Coffin like we can have a certain set of symptoms and and that can be present in multiple different causes of disease, right? Like it's not always the same cause for the same symptoms. Like we have overlap in in symptoms like our bodies display a sort of a set number of symptoms and we have many many root causes, right? Like the cause of cold and flu symptoms is not always the same thing of toxicity or seasonal adaptation or or whatever it may be, right? So we're kind of still assuming that everybody who has cystic fibrosis symptoms are the exact same because there's likely a distinction between those who are have it present at birth and those who develop it later in life. Right? So it's kind of the questions that we have to start asking to depart from that old paradigm as well.

[01:05:09]>> Right? And they certainly aren't the same. um you know and I have this from some clinical experience that there's a lot of different variability in the you know clinical expression of cystic fibrosis and also I worked with um at a major tertiary care center taking care of all the the cickle cell patients in South Carolina and uh there was huge variability in um in people like in fact I don't even realize it at the time but there were lots of patients who never ended up going into the hospital. They just went to the clinic and they were perfectly fine essentially uh even though they you know uh had this disease and and the way they you know they could diagnose these things before any genetic tests. In fact, when I first learned about cystic fibrosis, they hadn't discovered the alleged mutation yet, right? So all they knew is that there was an inheritance pattern and they could basically diagnose it because they had um pneumonia and pancreatic insufficiency. So it was you know their stool would float. Statorea that's a pretty simple thing to observe. And in cickle cell anemia you'd observe anemia right? So you can see that that they're pale. Uh look at the nail beds and you could see it's pale. And then you could do a test like a protein electropharesis of the blood which which has way less uh steps of processing than we described in isolating those materials. But still it's just it's like a fingerprint. And in fact, you know, I think it would be good to talk a little bit about fingerprints and how they relate because we even have the term of DNA fingerprinting, right? Because we have things like 23 and me uh that have uh become very trendy and people take the information as valid. But if we look at something like fingerprints for example, we know that long before DNA was discovered that fingerprints can uh you know lend some degree of proof to our identity that they're they're unique.

[01:07:18]But and even there's research that I found that shows that fingerprints of offspring actually resemble the mother especially. So you can look at fingerprints and you can make uh draw conclusions about if people are related to each other just like they say you can do with DNA. But does anyone think that fingerprints are the blueprint for all the protein expression in our body?

[01:07:46]Right? That it's uh basically you know your uh certain lines and squiggles represent certain amino acids. We could probably come up with a system like that. And you know, would it be any more or less valid than than DNA?

[01:08:02]>> I don't know. I think we we could probably write a paper on that. Maybe get a Nobel Prize.

[01:08:08]>> Well, you know, if we did it seriously enough, it could potentially be uh accepted for a publication.

[01:08:16]>> Absolutely. Yeah, very good point. Yeah, I think that that falls into the whole applied science thing and generally where people's mind goes here and and rightfully so is, you know, what about the paternity testing? What about the 23 and me like you're bringing up? And and uh again, we always look sort of to confirm our preconceived ideas for some reason rather than trying to falsify them. And we have almost have to consciously make that decision to be like, "All right, I'm going to try to maybe disprove myself or disprove this or disprove that and look at where there's discrepancies and look at where there's contradictions, right?" So, we always look at, oh, well, you know, because I I have people in my family and we found a long lost relative through, you know, the whole 23 and me thing, right?

[01:09:03]And again like first of all the question is does this confirm everything that we've discussed today that that means that DNA is real and that the code of of DNA on computers is real or are they collecting a plethora of other information and they're basing on a historical documents of of people who are you know connecting with each other putting in their own trees and just building a conglomerate of of data rather than actual DNA sequences and we just use the DNA sequence as the you know this is how we do it right but maybe it's based on different factors you know because also interestingly enough you can put in false DNA there's been people who put in like fake DNA samples and still get you know desired results using those 23me tests additionally you go to a different brand and you end up being 50% French instead of 50% Scottish you know like you end up with different results based on the different brands. So again, there's there's all these these contradictions. All we focus on is, oh yeah, but what about my long- lost relative that that we found, you know, and it's like, okay, maybe that was just based purely in a a a birth record from a hospital, you know, maybe that was based purely on on that piece of information as confirmation rather than any sort of DNA sequence, >> right?

[01:10:28]Matching. Or could it be that if we, you know, conduct these kind of tests, we take a sample of our biological tissue and, you know, do X and Y and Z, we get a pattern. And if we do it for people, you know, related to each other, we get patterns that are more similar. And so we can calculate probabilities, but of course, it's not anywhere close to a one:one correlation. And you know I thought of another example when you're describing this that the MHC or or in humans it's called LHA and this is basically the tissue typing system right so they use this to for example determine uh organ transplant compatibility like especially in things like a bone marrow transplant and it's on the white blood cells right they have a set of antigens and and by the way they they really only know this by how it interacts with different antibodies, right? But it gives a pattern once again and the pattern relates to people being similar to each other like relatives are going to be closer uh than non- relatives, for example. And they've they've used this in research actually to draw conclusions about um ancient people and how they um immigrated or may have uh breeded with other people. based on looking at their HLA patterns.

[01:11:59]But no one has ever made the claim that HLA determines our identity or is a blueprint of life once again. So we can have these things like we can even do it a different way. We can look at facial characteristics like the geometry, right? like the the distance between our pupils or uh from the edge of our nose to the corner of our mouth, the thickness of our lips and make a composite variable and we can use that to uh also make predictions about who's related to whom, right? So, but facial characteristics don't aren't our blueprint of life. So, we're we can't validate the theory of genetics at all.

[01:12:44]Even even if 23 and me was 100% accurate and infallible and every other brand gave the same exact results, it it still would not give evidence to prove that genetic determination is a valid um observation or conclusion.

[01:13:04]>> Well put. Well put. Yeah. And I mean even like paternity test they use a slightly different and I think it fits really well too in this discussion. um they use a different methodology than the 23 and me the hereditary based websites and stuff like that. Um so like in forensics and and um and testing whether or not you know two people are related. Again it's not absurd that there are connections between being related you know now biological connections I should say.

[01:13:32]Like it makes a lot of sense that we're biologically connected. I mean we could kind of see that too. What what's interesting is the development of paternity tests over time is initially they actually used I believe the more uh like antibbody or blood type based uh tests like they would test whether or not that you had the same blood type right and if your blood would coagulate or the certain way that you were related and then it developed over time to look at the more nucleic material and now it's developed purely into PCR. So again, my question is like, have we just put ourselves in a box of assumptions and once was something, you know, maybe valuable to test whether or not we're biologically related is now just giving sort of more random results based on PCR because with PCR, of course, we all know that there's a lot more problems than just the assumption of DNA. I mean we can assume DNA is correct and genetic sequence is correct and PCR is still an extremely problematic methodology used >> right because PCR is not it's not an analytic technique >> it's it's really a manufacturing technique which is is good for research but it just it just amplifies a signal it doesn't give you any analytical results you you have to just interpret it that way to to draw that conclusion But it's not it's not in the procedure itself like it's not testing any unique property of a material.

[01:15:08]>> Yeah. Exactly.

[01:15:11]>> So can you know just um maybe kind of draw some general conclusions about you know what what have you determined based on your study and analysis of all the body of research that we've discussed today? And I know it's we we we didn't get into, you know, super detail on anything, but >> we definitely covered enough to uh to to throw some uh doubt into this matter.

[01:15:42]>> Sure.

[01:15:43]>> I mean, what what this work has really led me uh to to understand about life is that it's important to look at reality, right? Obviously, we could draw conclusions about the scientific method that we must adhere to the scientific method if we're going to do science. If we're going to do empiricism, we have to understand what Popper was talking about. Now, I think we can all be on the same page there, but from a greater level, we have to base ourselves in reality. Like, we have to look at at what's real. So, I mentioned initially genotype versus phenotype, right?

[01:16:17]When we're talking about disease, that there's genetic diseases.

[01:16:21]If people have the genes and they never develop an illness, it's like the asymptomatic argument just with a different boogeyman, right? So, we have to base our our lives in in reality. And now, I personally take this to a level now of I just don't worry about it. Like if if I worry, I I would be uh more concerned with what worry would do to your offspring than anything related to genetic. You know, if you really worry that your kid's going to develop a a genetic disease because Aunt Betty had allegedly a genetic disease, that's that's more worrisome. And my mind goes to How to Become a Schizophrenic by John Modro, right? And the and I know this this might seem, you know, like off topic, but many people claim that schizophrenia is uh genetic, right? And and so when we treat someone as if they are psychotic or schizophrenic, that's part of the recipe of creating someone who develops psychosis. We fragment their reality, right? And Theodore Lids talks about that. And there's more literature on that than than we understand. And Theodore Lids understood very clearly that schizophrenia was not genetic. So that's an interesting uh point for you.

[01:17:38]>> Well, it's it's only an assumption. Um they don't have any actual genes uh that they can uh conclusively make any um opinions about. Right. It's just assumed to be genetic because everything they don't understand uh they make that assumption.

[01:17:57]>> Exactly. Exactly.

[01:18:00]So, I mean really where this where this leaves us is as what I'm trying to do right now is is is trying to draw some lines of of what what's true in all of this like what's based in reality in all this like we can observe that you know we adapt to our environments quite readily not even over years and time or or mutations randomly through our offspring but when you go out into the sun and you get you become tanned like that's your body adapting, right? And so we adapt.

[01:18:32]>> If you if you drink beer um over time, you can drink more without getting drunk, right? That's your your body adapting.

[01:18:41]>> Not recommending that, but it's observable.

[01:18:44]>> And it's true. That is the truth, right?

[01:18:47]But but this is it, right? Like so so trying to come back to something that's more practical. It's like even I think we we can become more tolerant to toxicity over time as well and maybe put off the symptoms. So if you eat McDonald's every day, your your body will eventually build up a tolerance to that toxicity and maybe it'll manifest as chronic illness down the road and less so as acute now. But I know if I were to eat McDonald's at this point in my life because I' i've kicked that addiction and it is an addiction. I I kicked that a long time ago.

[01:19:18]But if I eat it now, I'd get sick instantly, right? like instantly sick, right? So, our bodies adapt to its environment. That is a truth that we can that we can see. It happens not just over generations, but it happens on a even like a week to week, monthto month, daytoday basis in some capacity, right?

[01:19:37]Like when I work as a surf in the summertime when I was a a teenager, you know, every day I'd be out in the sun for eight hours and that eventually made my skin extremely tan, right? So, was it was it a genetic mutation? Was it because of XYZ?

[01:19:54]It this that's the far-fetched claim that's not based in reality. We're so deep not only in the test tube in lab science with genetics. We're so deep in the computers in silicone, right? We've taken it another level that we're out of just problematic lab methodology. We're in complete assumption probability land in in these devices. And what we program like these devices are as valuable as we are because we program them. So they're laden with our assumptions. You know, they're not our god and they're not smarter than us. Like AI, everyone's like, "Oh, AI is so smart." It's just as valuable as human beings because it's completely based off of our data. Like we feed it all the data. So basing our lives more than just research in genetics and research in general, but basing our lives in reality is extremely important.

[01:20:48]>> Extremely important. There are major consequences for making decisions based on you know false paradigms. So I just want to thank you Leah for coming and sharing this research and I love your enthusiasm on the topic. you also are teaching some of these methods. Can you just mention and of course we'll have it below in the show notes, but mention uh what uh you have available and where people can learn more.

[01:21:16]>> Sure. Yeah. Uh so there's content out on Instagram and YouTube all at Beyond Terrain and I do run a little Beyond Train Academy if you want to support me and my work uh my family as well where we do dive into these topics. I have a full classroom built out on vitamins. I have one on symptoms and nosology, going over what symptoms truly mean. Going over, you know, the the complete falsehood of nosology of of disease characteristics and trying to diagnose people. Um, we discuss movement, we discuss parasites was a big one uh that we've done. Parasites not being the root cause. I have quite a large body of work on parasites actually. Um, and now genetics is a big endeavor. We talk about the internal world, our our relationship with our thoughts, our mind. So, it's quite an interesting place if you if you want to dive deeper.

[01:22:05]But listen, there's some amazing content out there on on YouTube, on Instagram.

[01:22:09]So, make sure you go and consume that and I'll continuously upload that there and and keep putting out good good information the best of my abilities. I won't lie to you all. I'll do my very best to try to tell the truth. But listen, my mind changes as well as as new information comes. And I think that uh avoiding dogma is probably just the best thing that we can do in this world right now. So, >> well, I really love that message, Lev.

[01:22:32]And people, if you go on the YouTube channel, for example, Beyond Terrain, and look at Lev's material, it's a great introduction to these concepts. And then, um, I'm sure that you go into a much, uh, deeper dive to get into the nitty-gritty, uh, in your courses. So, I think that's great. And many people still come to me assuming that parasites are a real problem and uh want to ask me if I think fenbendazol and ivormectin are a good idea which of course I don't.

[01:23:03]So now I'm going to be directing people to you to learn all the details that parasites are not our enemy either just like other uh small organisms. Uh they're they're actually working for us.

[01:23:19]So, um, everyone, I look forward to seeing you back for another True Health Report, but this is, uh, really been a treat today. And I know it's going to be controversial, but uh, I'm going to be talking more about the scam of genetics uh, over time, and I'm sure Lev is too.

[01:23:39]So until then, even if you're doing your best to live clean, you're still being exposed. From off-ging furniture and plastics in your food to synthetic fibers, personal care products, and even medical imaging procedures, especially fat soluble chemicals. These toxins don't respond to your average detox.

[01:24:02]They settle deep in your tissues, and you need the right tools to clear them out. That's why I created the ultimate detox protocol, a free 30-day roadmap that teaches you a serious nature-based detox using Pine, targeted nutrition, and a focused daily plan. You'll choose the cleansing diet that fits your needs, support your elimination pathways, and take action against the toxin load that's been holding you back. Many people who've done this protocol have reported major improvements in energy, focus, digestion, and even longstanding symptoms they thought they'd have to live with forever. Unfortunately, I can't share the full scope of results people have experienced using this protocol, not on this platform. If I did, the video would surely be taken down. But trust me, it is incredibly powerful. Download it for free at the link in the show notes. Your health is your responsibility and this is the best place to start. Thanks for listening and I'll see you in the next True Health Report.