DNA theories, fallacies, and inaccuracies

Excerpts from: DNA Theories, by Peter Macomber.

Deeply imbedded fallacies and inaccuracies are a powerful impediment to progress towards the acquisition of advanced knowledge when cognitive dissonance causes the mind to involuntarily reject anything out of line with previous thoughts, or actions. [L. Festinger].

As Albert Einstein put it, "The theory determines what you can see." And there is a great deal of deeply imbedded fallacy in DNA theory, i.e., impeding us from realizing a more profound insight into the nature of things.

So get ready, because you are about to read something you may have never read before! Can you overcome your conditioning?

Many people, for example, believe that DNA constitutes a sort of a biological hard drive upon which is recorded the blueprint of life. Yet, it can easily be demonstrated that nothing, could be further from the truth.

DNA is beginning to become elevated to an almost divine status, a sorry situation leading to all sorts of fantastic theories and pronouncements, many of which seem to have more of a political agenda than a scientific one.

I have therefore put together a historical and scientific perspective, i.e., as opposed to the viewpoint of federal grant-supported materialistic Big Science, which is neither. For it should at all times be kept in mind that the one thing Big Science does better than anything else, is ignore scientific evidence.

The idea that DNA is a blueprint for life arises fundamentally from the materialistic concept that life was created essentially by accident way back in the distant past so that all life we see today must be evolved from that past event.

This gives rise to the idea that something must have carried the original pattern of uni-cellular life forward, and that this pattern must have been progressively modified into the various multi-cellular organisms. This is a nice little fairy tail demonstrating a simplistic, and linear thinking process.

It is not true, regardless of who may proclaim it in our institutions of higher learning, etc. The following little bit of history, I hope, will lend an understanding as to why DNA cannot be the blueprint of life.

Antoine Beauchamp (1816-1908) originally discovered that what we call cellular DNA (as well as the rest of a unicellular organism) may arise under certain favorable circumstances from a conglomeration of tiny motile granulations he named microzymes.

It is, in fact, the microzymes that are the primary components of all life, not the cell which is in large part comprised of microzymes. It was, by the way, Antoine Béchamp who originally discovered the so-called germ.

Not the fraud and imposter Louis Pasteur who in large part gained his ill-disserved reputation by plagiarizing the great master Béchamp's vast catalog of discoveries.

Dr. Gunther Enderlein (1872-1968) confirmed Béchamp's findings related to microzymes using dark field microscopy in 1921. Enderlein's name for the microzyme was the protit, or colloids of life.

Enderlein also confirmed Béchamp's findings that uni-cellular organisms can under certain circumstances change their form. Such changes in form are related to pH, and the nutritive environment. This is known as pleomorphism. Enderlein found that the development and order of pleomorphism is:

• The Protit or microzyme (primitave phase);
• The bacteria (intermediate phase); and,
• The fungi (end phase).

These forms may also shift from one to the other, and back again. At about the same time beginning from 1933, the biologist Royal Rife (1888 1971) employing his new Universal Microscope was able to demonstrate that in a biological environment of increasing acidity, viruses arise out of the end phase observed by Enderlein.

At this point, we may legitimately ask, where does pleomorphism leave the theory of DNA? The theory begins to become cumbersome if we are to believe that DNA contains the plans for all unicellular life forms. But let us continue.

After World War II, another researcher named Dr. Wilhelm Reich (1897 1957) additionally confirmed Béchamp's discovery of the microzyme. The way it happened was that Reich needed some protozoans for an experiment, and enquired at a nearby university where he might obtain some.

He was surprised to be told by a biologist that protozoans are easily obtained from common ordinary lawn grass. Reich was advised to simply grind up some lawn grass, add water and nutrients, and let it sit. Evidently, no one had ever bothered to take the time to observe the process by which protozoans are obtained this way, so purely out of curiosity, Reich set out to do just that.

Under the microscope at high magnification, Reich observed the appearance of tiny vesicles or granulations (i.e., microzymes), which he later named primary bions. In a few days, the bions began to group together, or conglomerate.

A membrane formed around the clump of bions, and a cell like structure including DNA began to appear within the membrane. After a while, a fully developed protozoa blithely swam out from under the field of view of the microscope, and on to its appointed task.

It should be clear, then, that DNA arises out of the formation of uni-cellular life, and therefore, DNA cannot be the cause of such formation, nor the sole director of it.

For those interested in discovering information suggesting what might be directing the formation of uni-cellular life forms, and/or, of all life forms for that matter, I suggest the book, "Blueprint for Immortality: The Electric Patterns of Life", by Harold Saxon Burr.

Burr was a professor at Yale University, and dedicated his life to the investigation of this phenomenon known as bioelectromagnetics.

Reading Burr's book is a great prelude to, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", by the late Physics Professor David Bohm, an exquisite work that gives additional insight into the inherent organizing potential of the universe at the sub-quantum level. Plato, in his, "Republic", offers a classical explanation of Bohm's implicate order that is also well worth reading.

Later in his experiments, Dr. Reich learned how to make bions from beach sand. Reich would autoclave (sterilize) the sand, and then place it in a nutrient solution. Bions made this way would emit a bluish glow visible under the microscope similar to a fluorescent effect.

These highly energetic bions were found to have very potent healing powers. Reich discovered that bions could be made from rock, and even from metal filings heated to incandescence. Sterilizing the material from which the bions were to be obtained seemed to accelerate the process whereby living organisms were generated not only from organic, but also from inorganic matter!

Like Beauchamp, Reich began to believe that bions were essentially immortal. Later, Reich demonstrated that bions (i.e., microzymes) could be created directly from a strange form of atmospheric energy he had discovered, and named Orgone. Obviously, there is no DNA in autoclaved beach sand.

There is no DNA in rock or metallic filings heated to incandescence. And there is no DNA in Orgone, which is a form of proto-biological energy. Yet, uni-cellular life arises therefrom just the same, given the proper circumstances, nutrients, etc. Where does this leave DNA theory?

Now, to attempt to explain why Reich's primary bion experiments for the creation of protozoans are not part of our high school biology curriculum would place this message into a category far outside the spectrum of this forum.

And so would trying to explain why we are supposedly investigating the healing powers of so-called stem cells, instead of primary bions. We may speculate, however, that the M-state materials play a part in the arrival of the bions, and that the processes that cause bions to manifest such as heating the materials to incandescence or autoclaving the materials may somehow charge the M-state, i.e., giving motile power to the bions.

A researcher who is still alive and who has valiantly carried on the work of Béchamp, Enderlein and Reich (as well as many others not named here) is Gaston Naessens, a brilliant biologist who resides in Québec, Canada.

Naessens' name for the microzyme is the somatid, and he has succeeded in developing a unique microscope he calls the Somatoscope which has similar capabilities to the Universal Microscopes made by Royal Rife. These microscopes mix two sources light (hetrodyning) to create a powerful beam in the ultraviolet range.

By filtering the wavelength of this beam so as to make it monochromatic at various wavelengths and/or by altering the beam polarization, the beam becomes capable of causing the specimen itself to fluoresce, or emit its own light visible to the human eye.

Rather than illuminating a specimen with light, then, the specimen itself becomes a point source of light. This dramatically overcomes the limitations of ordinary optical microscopes in respect to their potential magnifying power relative to the wavelength of optical light, thereby permitting the real-time observation of the formerly submicroscopic viral forms as they develop from their bacteriological predecessors via the various stages of pleomorphism.

The technique of observing living matter on such a minute scale, i.e., instead of killing the cells and staining them for gross observation has been available ever since before the Second World War. The discovery of Rife's Universal Microscope was crushed, however, in favor of the electron microscope which can only view dead matter stained with a metallic coating.

Again, the reasons for this lie well beyond the spectrum of this forum. However, Naessens' Somatoscope is presently available, and a somewhat more affordable scaled down version which is nevertheless far in advance of any ordinarily or dark-field optical microscope is finally beginning to be put to use by researchers.

Not everything is as it seems, including cellular mitosis. Yes, you can change the characteristics of a living organism by altering the DNA. But where did the DNA come from? DNA theory cannot be easily reconciled with pleomorphism, and Big Science has simply ignored pleomorphism as a way of solving the dilemma. This is hardly a scientific approach.

The foregoing hopefully will shed some light on how this might be happening, and more hopefully, curtail the worship of DNA for many people since this is a purposeful distraction from what is really happening, and nothing more.

Let us proceed away from the consensus reality served up by our would-be masters, and instead enter the Civilization of the Universe. DNA cannot be either a blueprint for life, or for eternity.

DNA is merely a physical manifestation of a higher reality, or ideal [Plato]. I am suggesting that the higher reality is where our focus ought to be, i.e., if we ever want to get there.

In speculating on how the offspring of animals of all kinds (including human animals) might be affected by their surroundings, we should keep in mind that certain geological areas are more bio-active than others, and also, that we don't know what may have been left out of the ancient stories.