There’s been, of course, a focus in the news – and hence on this website – recently on the whole Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus narrative. Some of that focus has been on the various attempts to skew the numbers, and this in turn has focused on the tests for it. Odd stories have come out that have increasingly focused on the reliability, or lack thereof, of those tests, and some have entertained the speculation that the tests covertly involve (1) DNA testing and (2) DNA data collection. These types of speculations have focused on those odd stories of, for example, the governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, first tested positive for the virus, and then, mere hours later, negative! (See: Ohio Gov. DeWine tests negative for COVID-19 hours after testing positive)
All this is background grist for the mill of today’s high octane speculation, and it’s really, really high octane speculation, and it isn’t even my own speculation, save insofar as I’ve entertained similar speculations. In a word, and beyond the questions about the covid statistics and how they’re being counted, I’ve sensed there is something underneath even that problematic that is just… well… “off.”
Well, this week’s “inbox” included the following article that was shared by “S”, and it’s both a stunner and a “whopper doozie” that, if true, raises that “offness” to a whole new degree and by several orders of magnitude. Indeed, “S” offered his own speculations which I shall do my best to recapitulate, because the implications of the article – again, if true – are obvious. Here’s the article:
This article is so short, and such a stunner, that I cite it in full:
This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!
The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?
I really cannot overstate the significance of this finding. At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.
In other words, those who began to notice the peculiarity of the tests for the virus, and how they might be used to (1) collect human DNA, and (2) possibly covertly insert things into people’s nasal cavity, may have had a point, and then some. Again, assuming the article to be true, and given the vast amount of “positive” tests, are we really witnessing “false positives” that are, in fact, genuine in the sense that the patient is being shown to be human? And is this why there is such an emphasis on testing everyone?
Years ago, at the Secret Space Program conference of 2015 in Bastrop Texas, I offered the idea that the sudden rise of DNA testing corporations that will, through genetics, “show your ancestral history” might be a covert way of searching for people that look fully homo sapiens sapiens, but aren’t. The only way to determine whether or not such a population exists among us ala the old late 1960’s science-fiction TV show, The Invaders, would be to test for genetics. So why put a primer for a virus into a virus test that, essentially, is common to all humans, and then insist that everyone get tested? It might be exactly what one might do in order to search for such a population. This isn’t to say that the virus is not real, and that positive tests are ipso facto suspicious. It is to suggest that maybe, under the guise of the planscamdemic, they’re really looking for something, or rather, someone else. And it might be that this is an underlying reason why the numbers “cases” as a percentage of the population appears to be so high, while actual deaths as a percentage of population appears to be so low.
If that sounds already off-the-end-of-the-speculation-twig, it is to be sure. But there’s an even worse implication, and this is where is gets completely crazy, because it might mean “testing negative” could be interpreted by the wilder and crazier sort, as testing not negative for the virus, but negative for humanity. In this regard, my mention of the old The Invaders TV series was not accidental, but to a purpose. The series, for those who do not know, starred actor Roy Thinnes, who accidentally discovers the “aliens among us”, who looks, walk, talk, and in all but very minor respects resemble humans, as they slowly take over the world through a process of infiltration. Thinnes’ character – “architect David Vincent”, an apt name for a small human trying to triumph over the covert “alien Goliath” – then spends the series trying to collect evidence and names of other witnesses to persuade the government to take action. Interestingly enough, Chris Carter, producer of the later aliens-among-us series, The X Files, in a master-stroke of TV esoterica had Thinnes star in a few episodes in the reverse role, playing one of those aliens-among-us. But in any case, in the original Invaders series, Thinnes’ character shows up at the trial of a friend being accused of murdering a man, who it turns out, was one of those aliens-in-disguise, leading to the premise of “the alien defense” as the defense team, at Thinnes’ encouragement, argues that the murder was not murder because a human being had not been killed, neatly sidestepping the moral issue of how it is not murder when a thinking, rational intelligence being like us in all respects except DNA is dead at someone else’s hand.
Genetic medicine emerges in the field of medicine as a response to the long-noted trend that, while pharmaceutical and other medications seem to work well for many, for many others they do not. As scientists and doctors have tried to understand why this is the case, they have begun to understand that our very genes could have a bigger impact than the medication’s effects.
Genetic medicine is targeted medical treatment based on an individual’s genetic “map”. It does require some fancy labwork, some of which must be ordered by a doctor, although these days some tests are available online without a doctor’s order. Treatments vary but people often respond quite well to targeted vitamin therapies.
We all have two sets of genes, one of which we inherited from our mother, and one from our father. It’s the unique combination of those sets of genes that make us Us, at least on a biochemical, physiological level.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the MTHFR enzyme (and the MTHFR gene that codes for it). If not, maybe you’ve heard about methylated folate, the active form of the vitamin folate (AKA folic acid). Many people will have also heard about the supplement SAMe, a rather expensive option on the ever-broadening supplement shelf. These are all related, and they all participate in a particular physiological process called “methylation,” which has lots of downstream effects on the way our bodies function. That’s because methylation is a critical process that affects DNA, or our genetic information, and affects how each and every one of our cells function. It does this by directing cell regeneration. If the methylation process doesn’t work properly, the cell regeneration in every cell of our body is compromised.
Methylation has three big functions in the human body that have a huge impact on our overall health:
1. Cell repair of injured cells
2. Cell production (especially making those cells that “turn over” quickly, e.g. immune cells and blood cells, the cells in our intestines)
3. Neurological function and mental health
The MTHFR gene codes for an MTHFR enzyme that is responsible for adding a methyl group, or “methylating,” the folic acid and therefore acitvating it in our bodies. Remember that we have 2 sets of genes (1 from Mom and 1 from Dad), so we have two sets of genetic information to make the MTHFR enzyme.
In many people both sets of the genes work just fine, so they are able to make many functioning copies of the MTHFR enzyme.
However, in some people one of the sets of genetic information may be broken, making them less able to methylate folic acid than someone with two functioning sets.
And in some people, both sets are broken, which greatly decreases their ability to methylate folic acid. They are still able to do so, but only at about 30% of what a person with two functioning genes would be able to do. Remember that methylation is a critical process to so many aspects of human health.
Most people who have these defects don’t even know that they do, because you can survive with two broken copies. However, we’re beginning to understand that having defects in these genes can manifest in many different ways, especially in mental health conditions like depression and anxiety, often with people who have not responded well to pharmaceutical medications. Other problems that can manifest from these genetic defects include sleep problems, poor recovery from workouts, low energy, digestive problems, and many other issues.
In recent years a genetic test has become available that looks for defects in the genes that code for MTHFR. These tests are available from your doctor. If you’d like to learn more about methylation and the MTHFR genes and what this could mean for you, please contact your doctor.
First the crops, now the babies: Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos to create designer babies
Wednesday, October 07, 2015 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
(NaturalNews) If a group of Chinese scientists gets their way, the future genome of the human race will be designed and mapped out by their genetic standards. Human genetics might one day have to pass strict genetic tests and go through genetic modification to meet the demands of developing a more perfect human race. Chinese scientists are taking eugenics to a whole new level at the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, confirming for the first time that human embryos have been genetically engineered.
Those who are angered at the current corporate control and genetic modification of crops should be even more furious at the experiments currently taking place on human embryos.
The Chinese scientists claim they have modified the germ line of several human embryos. The genetic changes are intended to eliminate the possibility of a fatal blood disorder in humans called thalassemia. This is the next step toward a society of designer babies engineered to possess more disease-resilient traits.
As scientists are already finding out with crops, altering genes can elicit unintended consequences. For example, GMO Bt corn was spliced with the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, which was designed to repel the corn ear worm, but over time that worm population adapted and became resilient, causing widespread crop damage and the need for more chemical pesticides.
What are the unintended consequences of manipulating human life?
The impending eugenic society
Research team leader Junjiu Huang assured the medical community that all of the embryos used in the research study were non-viable embryos that could not survive. The embryos were obtained from fertility clinics where two sperm fertilized one egg.
After Huang got the results he was looking for in non-viable fetuses, was he willing to stop there or will he take it to the next level? Will this kind of research ultimately be carried out on fully-intact, viable human fetuses – possibly those harvested from Planned Parenthood pathology labs?
Editing the DNA of human embryos is already banned in Europe, but other countries – apparently China and maybe the U.S. – might not be too concerned with the ethical grounds involved in fetal tissue research and the genetic modification of human life.
“This news emphasizes the need for an immediate global ban on the creation of GM designer babies,” said Human Genetics Alert Director, Dr. David King. “It is critical that we avoid a eugenic future in which the rich can buy themselves a baby with built-in genetic advantages.”
“It is entirely unnecessary since there are already many ethical ways to avoid thalassemia. This research is a classic example of scientific careerism – assuring one’s place in the history books even though the research is unnecessary and unethical.”
Shirley Hodgson, professor of cancer genetics at St. George’s University of London said, “I think that this is a significant departure from currently accepted research practice. Can we be certain that the embryos that the researchers were working on were indeed non-viable?”
“Any proposal to do germline genetic manipulation should be very carefully considered by international regulatory bodies before it should be considered as a serious research prospect,” she stated.
The experiment caused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all
The Chinese scientists used a technique originally discovered by MIT scientists. The genetic engineering technique is known as CRISPR/Cas9 and works by inserting a protein from a specific bacterium into the germ line of human DNA. The gene editing process mimics the way in which a virus is attacked in the body. The spliced bacterium snips away at the gene responsible for the rare blood disorder.
This technique has its shortfalls. First of all, what are the long-lasting effects of altered genes that are passed down through generations? How will the environment ultimately respond to these changes, and what mutations might occur?
These are valid questions considering that only 71 of 86 embryos survived the two-day gene editing period. On top of that, only 28 embryos were successfully spliced and an even smaller portion actually contained genetic material replacement when all was said and done.
To make matters worse, the CRISPR techniquecaused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all!
Nevertheless, four other groups of Chinese scientists are expected to continue the research. Lead researcher Huang says he is abandoning the controversial research to study ways to stop these mutations from occurring. How thoughtful.
Sources for this article include: TheAlternativeDaily.com NaturalNews.com
By Michael Forrester, Spirit Science and Metaphysics – February 2014
The fascinating and recent discovery of a new, second DNA code last December (2013) further lends credence to what metaphysical scientists have been saying for millennia — the body speaks two different languages.
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, researchers have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins.
But biologists have suspected for years that some kind of epigenetic inheritance occurs at the cellular level. The different kinds of cells in our bodies provide an example. Skin cells and brain cells have different forms and functions, despite having exactly the same DNA.
NO SUCH THING AS JUNK DNA
The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but it turns out that so-called junk DNA plays critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health and consciousness because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.
As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. Another 15-17 percent has higher functions scientists are still decoding.
Recent findings in the journal Science may have big implications for how medical experts use the genomes of patients to interpret and diagnose diseases, researchers said.
The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. Dr Stamatoyannopoulos with co-authors were stunned to discover that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled.
The newfound genetic code within deoxyribonucleic acid, the hereditary material that exists in nearly every cell of the body, was written right on top of the DNA code scientists had already cracked.
Rather than concerning itself with proteins, this one instructs the cells on how genes are controlled.
Its discovery means DNA changes, or mutations that come with age or in response to vibrational changes within the DNA, may be doing more than what scientists previously thought.
“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said lead author John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine.
“Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture,” he said.
“Many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously.”
These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made.
The discovery was made as part of the international collaboration of research groups known as the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, or ENCODE.
DNA RESPONDS TO FREQUENCY
The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA. The bottom line was: “Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.” This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.
This finally and scientifically explains why affirmations, autogenous training, hypnosis and the like can have such strong effects on humans and their bodies. It is entirely normal and natural for our DNA to react to frequency. While western researchers cut single genes from the DNA strands and insert them elsewhere, the Russians enthusiastically worked on devices that can influence the cellular metabolism through suitable modulated radio and light frequencies and thus repair genetic defects.
Garjajev’s research group succeeded in proving that with this method chromosomes damaged by x-rays for example can be repaired. Garjajev’s research group They even captured information patterns of a particular DNA and transmitted it onto another, thus reprogramming cells to another genome. So they successfully transformed, for example, frog embryos to salamander embryos simply by transmitting the DNA information patterns! This way the entire information was transmitted without any of the side effects or disharmonies encountered when cutting out and re-introducing single genes from the DNA. This represents an unbelievable, world-transforming revolution and sensation!
All this by simply applying vibration instead of the archaic cutting-out procedure! This experiment points to the immense power of wave genetics, which obviously has a greater influence on the formation of organisms than the biochemical processes of alkaline sequences.
[The following article is adapted from the author’s newest book, Potentiate Your DNA: A Practical Guide to Healing & Transformation with the Regenetics Method.]
In Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-body to a New Era of Healing, Larry Dossey, the former chief of staff at a major Dallas hospital, examines allopathic medicine in light of the principle of “nonlocality” often studied by quantum physicists.
Putting today’s medicine in quantum perspective, Dr. Dossey asserts that we “are facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ in medicine—a crisis over our own constitution, the nature of our mind and its relationship to our physical body.”
To help elucidate this “constitutional crisis,” and to assist humanity in moving beyond it, Dossey outlines three main Eras in the history of Western medicine.
In practical terms, these Eras necessarily overlap to some degree. Conceptually, however, each possesses a defining, exclusive focus (Figure 1).
While these three Eras are associated with specific historical time frames for reference, the characteristic thinking behind each Era appears transhistorical.
In other words, the Eras function almost like archetypes by tapping into distinctive evolutionary thought modes universally embedded in the human psyche. This can, and does, mean that outdated thinking from an earlier Era can be very much present during a later Era.
In Dossey’s model, the first medical Era initiated with Cartesian thinking in the 17th Century and was characterized by a mechanical view of the body. Era I medicine views the human body as a machine that can be manipulated.
In this rather primitive medical approach, which remains firmly entrenched at the center of contemporary allopathic medicine, there is no place for mind or consciousness. Surgery, drugs and vaccines are applications of Era I medicine.
Properly speaking, many often beneficial forms of so-called alternative medicine—ranging from herbs to bodywork to chiropractic—also are based on an Era I perception of the human body as an essentially mechanistic phenomenon.
The 19th Century, according to Dossey, saw the birth of Era II medicine with the acknowledgement of the placebo effect. Characterized by mind-body approaches, Era II thinking fostered the emergence of psychoanalysis and psychiatry.
Era II medicine is based on the fact that your mind and body are interconnected such that your consciousness can benefit your physiology in provable ways.
This is the “power of positive thinking,” to borrow an iconic phrase from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale. Alongside Era I, Era II thinking is established solidly in today’s medical paradigm.
The new kid on the block, which is expanding medical parameters at an exponential rate, is Era III medicine, also referred to as nonlocal.
The cornerstone of Era III thinking is that human consciousness, being nonlocal at its base, is capable of operating outside the confines of the physical body—and even outside the individualized mind—in order to facilitate healing in the self or others.
Having sketched the basic historical outline of Eras I-III, we now can make a handful of important observations that will serve us well as we explore three complementary perspectives on DNA in the following sections.
As shown in Figure 1, we can conceptualize Era I medicine as impersonal; Era II medicine as personal; and Era III medicine as transpersonal.
In other words, Era I medicine, which treats the body as a mindless machine, seeks to heal without regard to individual identity.
Swinging to the opposite polarity, Era II medicine’s therapeutic efforts, as developed primarily through psychology, center almost exclusively on the individualized mind.
A parallel framework sees Era I as a function of the subconscious mind; Era II as a reflection of the conscious mind; and Era III as emerging from the super conscious mind responsible for all creation (Figure 1).
Going above and beyond Eras I and II, Era III medicine is based on a novel understanding of three related truths:
1. Giving rise to the body as well as the egoic mind is a blueprint of consciousness;
2. By working with the consciousness blueprint, it is possible to transcend curing—the goal of Eras I and II—and embrace a new paradigm of permanent healing and radical transformation; and
3. Such healing and transformation ultimately are transpersonal, occurring nonlocally by way of the super conscious mind, or “consciousness field,” which connects us all because we all derive from it.
Era III medicine differs from Era I in that the former encourages healing and transformation on a level that is beyond and yet gives rise to our animalistic physical nature.
Similarly, Era III departs from Era II by grasping the fundamental unity behind all individuality as the domain where genuine healing and transformation must be initiated.
In fact, many Era III techniques do not even require that facilitators know anything about recipients’ conditions or diagnoses in order to be of profound and lasting benefit.
This is because, viewed through the lens of Era III medicine, what is responsible for assisting the recipient to heal is not our individual, egoic mind, but the transpersonal, spiritual Mind—i.e., the consciousness field of our collective beingness where all is one, all is known, and all can be made well.
For this reason, it must be acknowledged that Era III healing occurs through, yet is not of, individual healers. Central to any genuine Era III modality is to allow oneself to be a vessel for hyperdimensional consciousness to flow through in order to assist the self or another on the evolutionary journey.
Figure 1: Three Eras of Medicine. The chart above outlines the evolution of the field of medicine through three Eras that correspond to the development of genetics, epigenetics, and meta-genetics.As also shown in Figure 1, it can be useful to conceptualize:
1. Era I medicine as concerned with the domain of matter;
2. Era II medicine as focused on bioenergy in the light domain (space-time); and
3. Era III medicine as respecting the primacy of bioenergetic consciousness in the sound domain (time-space) in healing and transformation.
Stated otherwise, Era I ignores bioenergy altogether in its naïve belief that the material world is all that is worth considering for medical purposes. By contrast, Era II displays an appreciation of the role consciousness plays in maintaining or improving wellbeing.
Era II medicine, however, stops short of being able to activate our extraordinary self-healing potential to the extent that it restricts its operation to localized, individualized, light-based, predominantly mental techniques.
Here, I am coming from a shamanic perspective that views light and thought as equivalent energies. The new physics, as well, explains that the act of thinking produces electrical currents that generate hyperdimensional, or “torsion,” waves of light—much as audible sound waves produce torsion waves of sound.
Era II modalities function through light within the light domain and, thus, are restricted in their ability to reset and modify our consciousness blueprint without using sound to access and modify the sound domain.
The above observations relative to Era II therapeutic avenues illuminate why psychotherapy and counseling seem to go in circles; allergy elimination treatments never seem to end; and many forms of energy medicine seem to do so little.
From Light to Sound
Today’s Era III movement from perception centered in the domains of matter and light, to a more holistic understanding of reality rooted in the sound domain, is beautifully expressed by Joachim-Ernst Berendt in his masterful exploration of music and consciousness, The World Is Sound.
“Many outstanding scholars, scientists, psychologists, philosophers and writers have described and circumscribed the New Consciousness,” writes Berendt. “But one aspect has not been pointed out: that it will be the consciousness of hearing people.”
To be clear: the “New Man will be Listening Man—or will never be at all. He will be able to perceive sounds in a way we cannot even imagine today.”
Berendt explains that modern humans “with their disproportionate emphasis on seeing have brought on the excess of rationality, of analysis and abstraction, whose breakdown we are now witnessing […] Living almost exclusively through the eyes has led us to almost not living at all.”
In contrast, historically speaking, wherever “God revealed Himself to human beings, He was heard. He may have appeared as a light, but in order to be understood, His voice had to be heard. ‘And God spoke’ is a standard sentence in all holy scriptures. The ears are the gateway.”
Emphasizing that humanity’s collective Shift in consciousness will be realized only “when we have learned to use our sense of hearing fully,” Berendt quotes from Isaiah: “Hear, and your soul shall live.”
This line of reasoning is echoed by Dennis Holtje in a wonderful little book entitled From Light to Sound: The Spiritual Progression.
“The stunning simplicity of the Sound energy confounds the mind,” explains Holtje. “We are conditioned to use the mind to solve all of life’s dilemmas, unaware that the … energy of Sound … provides the permanent solution of awakened spiritual living.”
Now, to avoid confusion, allow me to emphasize once again that the transformational sound energy being referenced is hyperdimensional in nature.
It is absolutely true that we can produce audible sounds here in space-time to stimulate repatterning—via DNA—of our sonic templates in time-space.
But please understand that much in the way thought creates torsion light waves, the sounds we make here generate subtle, torsion sounds that technically are inaudible to most people and must be “heard,” ener-genetically, with the “inner ear.”
The intimate relationship that unites sound, language and DNA is a truly fascinating subject that must be left for another time. But here, let us outline three perspectives on DNA that correspond to the historical development of Eras I-III in the field of medicine.
Era I: Genetics
In this and the following sections, as we examine three distinct yet complementary ways of viewing DNA, it can be helpful to reference Figure 1.
So, what is DNA? The simplest answer is that in its typical form, DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is a two-stranded molecule shaped like a double helix and composed of various combinations of four protein bases called nucleotides.
The double helix of DNA is stabilized by hydrogen bonds between the bases attached to the twin strands like the rungs of a ladder. The four bases of DNA are named adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T).
The discovery of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick engendered an elaborate genetic science devoted to studying the biochemical properties of the molecule of life.
Although there is much more that might be stated about DNA, for present purposes it is most important to recognize that genetic science understands DNA as merely a molecular, biochemical phenomenon with no relation to bioenergy, or consciousness.
Let us appreciate that DNA definitely is a molecule, or pairing of molecules. When you initially look at it, that is probably the first thing that stands out.
But let us acknowledge as well that such an understanding, being quintessentially Era I in its conception of DNA as a material matter, constitutes a superficial, Newtonian grasp of DNA—one that completely ignores the latter’s nonlocal, quantum aspects.
Disregarding the energetic qualities of DNA has allowed mainstream genetic science, in true Era I fashion, to focus exclusively on DNA as a self-replicating machine for building proteins, cells, tissues, organs and, eventually, bodies.
This way of defining DNA, in turn, has led to crudely mechanistic, Era I attempts to manipulate DNA such as gene splicing and gene therapy.
Additionally, defining DNA solely in terms of biochemistry has fostered the problematic belief that DNA is the cell’s “brain” and controls gene expression in a robotic, predetermined way.
In due course, this belief has spawned a widespread genetic fatalism, whose dubious assertion that most diseases are hereditary—and thus beyond our individual control—is used to peddle unnecessary pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions to the gullible masses.
In a nutshell, mainstream genetics views DNA as, and only as, a physical molecule whose activity is primary. If this were indeed the case, it would mean that “nature” is more directly responsible for our experience of reality than “nurture.”
Fortunately, in recent years a second perspective has emerged that challenges the “Primacy of DNA” and the idea that nurture is less important to our health and wellbeing than nature.
Era II: Epigenetics
Enter the pioneering work of biologist Bruce Lipton, one of the developers of the science of epigenetics.
From the perspective of traditional genetics, epigenetics represents a radical departure that undermines the long-held assumption that DNA and nature are primary.
The following passage from Lipton’s The Biology of Belief neatly summarizes the basic tenets of mainstream genetics. The “Central Dogma,”
also referred to as the Primacy of DNA, defines the flow of information in biological organisms … only in one direction, from DNA to RNA and then to Protein … DNA represents the cell’s long-term memory, passed from generation to generation. RNA, an unstable copy of the DNA molecule, is the active memory that is used by the cell as a physical template in synthesizing proteins. Proteins are the molecular building blocks that provide for the cell’s structure and behavior. DNA is implicated as the “source” that controls that character of the cell’s proteins, hence the concept of DNA’s primacy that literally means “first cause.”
Lipton’s theory of epigenetics, which grew out of his longtime study of the effect of our individual thoughts and beliefs on our genetic function and overall health, effectively demonstrates that this “Central Dogma” is just that.
In contrast to the materialistic, mechanistic mindset of genetic science’s Central Dogma, it is clear from the research cited by Lipton that our own consciousness always and inevitably impacts the function of our genetic and cellular expression—at least in limited ways.
Such is the case because, according to epigenetics, the cell membrane (not the DNA within the cell) is the cell’s brain. DNA is merely the cell’s reproductive system.
Lipton cites the fact that enucleated cells (i.e., cells whose nucleus and DNA have been removed) die as evidence that the “nucleus is not the brain of the cell—the nucleus is the cell’s gonad!” Moreover, “[g]enes-as-destiny theorists have obviously ignored hundred-year-old science about enucleated cells.”
According to the epigenetic model, genes in DNA simply store instructions for propagating a given species. In other words, the primary function of DNA is not to “think” or interact with the environment, but to pass on—automatically and brainlessly—the basic genetic coding that creates a human being or a chimpanzee.
In Lipton’s words, “epigenetics, which literally means ‘control above genetics,’ profoundly changes our understanding of how life is controlled.” Epigenetic research establishes that “DNA blueprints passed down through genes are not set in concrete at birth.”
What is responsible for “thinking,” epigenetically speaking, is the cell membrane—specifically, the various types of interlocking regulatory proteins in the membrane. These have been documented to reconfigure in response to environmental stimuli—including toxins, traumas, energies, thoughts, and beliefs.
Emphasizing that “[g]enes are not destiny,” Lipton points out that “[e]nvironmental influences, including nutrition, stress and emotion, can modify … genes, without changing their basic blueprint. And these modifications … can be passed on to future generations as surely as DNA blueprints are passed on via the Double Helix.”
Epigenetics explains how environmental signaling instructs chromosomal proteins to change shape, thus determining which parts of DNA are “read” and allowed to express themselves.
This theory contends that the activity of genes ultimately is regulated “by the presence or absence of … proteins, which are in turn controlled by environmental signals.”
“The story of epigenetic control is the story of how environmental signals control the activity of genes,” writes Lipton. “It is now clear that the Primacy of DNA … is outmoded.” An updated understanding, in Lipton’s view, should be called the “Primacy of Environment.”
As opposed to the old top-down genetic model that enshrined DNA and nature at the apex of the pecking order, the Primacy of Environment explains that “the flow of information in biology starts with an environmental signal, then goes to a regulatory protein,” and then, and only then, passes to “DNA, RNA, and the end result, a protein.”
From the brief overview above, we are in a position to make three critical observations about epigenetics.
First, it should be readily apparent that while genetics is invested in the power of nature, epigenetics sees nurture as even more central to life. Thus epigenetics provides a much-needed counterpoint to the formerly one-sided study of biology (Figure 2).
A second observation is that in providing greater balance to the biological sciences, epigenetics empowers people to move beyond genetic fatalism by embracing the fact that our own thoughts and beliefs play an important role in creating health or illness.
“Rather than being ‘programmed’ by our genes,” writes Lipton, “our lives are controlled by our perceptions of life experiences!”
The third observation is that for all its impressive background science, in the final analysis epigenetics represents essentially a mind-body approach to understanding and interacting with our biological functioning.
The basic concept behind this “new paradigm” is anything but new, having been summed up decades ago by Norman Vincent Peale when he wrote, “Change your thoughts and you change your world.”
One important corollary to this third observation is that, at its core, epigenetics grows directly out of Era II thinking.
In the final analysis, epigenetics is light-based and, therefore, limited in its ability to explain or promote thoroughgoing healing and transformation.
Before we introduce Era III’s approach to the biosciences, “meta-genetics,” let us take a brief moment to touch on some problems associated with epigenetics.
I am a big fan of Bruce Lipton and applaud his successes and efforts in elaborating a valuable avenue of inquiry in the biological sciences.
In pointing out that epigenetics is an Era II approach with some significant shortcomings, it is in no way my intention to belittle this helpful, necessary model.
Rather, by calling attention to the “gaps” in epigenetics, I wish to segue into an even more revolutionary approach to genetic science and healing that corresponds to the evolutionary current of Era III medicine.
If the power of positive thinking were the end-all be-all; if affirmations and visualizations were the final key to healing; if transforming our reality simply involved adopting a mental attitude of “don’t worry, be happy,” why have such Era II approaches failed to work for so many people—myself included?
I spent the better part of a decade unsuccessfully trying to heal myself from a mysterious autoimmune illness through a combination of Era I and Era II techniques ranging from raw food diets to the Rife Machine to Process Oriented Psychology. But it was only when I embraced the transpersonal, transformational potential of Era III that my health was restored.
There are several problems with the epigenetic model that deserve mentioning.
For starters, as previously pointed out, epigenetics is restricted to the light domain, which curtails its ability to effect thorough healing and transformation to the extent that it cannot access or modify our consciousness blueprint in the sound domain (Figures 1 and 2).
Secondly, epigenetics is concerned with space-time and thus constitutes a “local” model that largely ignores the nonlocal basis for our being in time-space (Figures 1 and 2).
Here in particular, epigenetic theory can be misleading. While our own thoughts and beliefs do affect our space-time reality, they do not, in the strictest sense, create it.
Lipton has admitted as much, writing that “soul or spirit” represents “the creative force behind the consciousness that shapes our physical reality.” Indeed, the “structure of the universe is made in the image of its underlying field.”
Practically, however, epigenetics turns a blind eye to the consciousness field. While acknowledging that humans are “Earth Landers” in constant dialogue with our “controller/Spirit,” Lipton’s model fails to probe the profound “meta-genetic” ramifications of this concept.
Instead, Lipton zeroes in on epigenetic “control” over our lives. But here in space-time, we actually control very little.
Although we have free will to interpret and respond to events and situations however we like, our greater spiritual identity in the consciousness field—which can be conceptualized as our Higher Self—ultimately controls our life experiences.
Compared to the reality-engendering Consciousness in the sound domain that gives rise to our intuition, imagination and inspired thoughts, any so-called thinking rooted in the light domain is a variety of egoic, bodily consciousness whose ability to alter reality is quite circumscribed.
Rather than using the language of control to characterize the impact of our individual perceptions on our experiences, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that our own perceptions of events and situations help us epigenetically “manage” them.
Thirdly, a related point. In characteristic Era II fashion, epigenetics is largely individualistic, centered for the most part on the individual’s thoughts and beliefs (Figures 1 and 2).
While this approach laudably encourages people to take responsibility for their lives, it can have the unintended effect of discouraging people from seeing themselves as spiritual beings on a human journey with a more collective, unified origin outside their immediate physical environment.
Just as critically, the idea that there might be functional applications, ones that could be understood and proven by way of the biosciences, to focusing outside our localized space-time to our spiritual templates in the nonlocalized realm of time-space is left hanging in the balance.
In other words, in the epigenetic model as elaborated by Lipton, the spiritual “creative force” that operates in the sound domain remains a nebulous, basically unusable concept that is—effectively if not entirely—dismissed.
Yet from the perspective of Era III medicine, this very creative force—which we have called torsion energy, bioenergy, and consciousness—is the key to healing and transformation.
Two additional problems with epigenetics, which are best understood in retrospect as we discuss some of the implications of meta-genetic theory in the following section, need only stating here:
1. In discounting the role DNA plays in terms of consciousness and our conscious experience of reality, epigenetics does so while ignoring ninety-seven percent of the DNA molecule; and
2. Because it ignores the vast majority of DNA, where our meta-genetic interface with the consciousness field occurs, epigenetics cannot account for the origin and evolution of species any more than genetics can. Only meta-genetics can explain these two interrelated phenomena.
Era III: Meta-genetics
In order to grasp the basics of meta-genetics, how this revolutionary science goes above and beyond both genetics and epigenetics, it is necessary to be absolutely clear as to the manner in which Eras I and II view DNA.
According to the genetic model that grew out of Era I thinking, only three percent of DNA is worth studying. There was no misprint in the previous sentence. Decades ago mainstream genetics dismissed ninety-seven percent of the DNA molecule!
The three percent of DNA observed “doing something”—i.e., building proteins—is referred to as “exons” or “coding DNA.” The rest—which from a materialistic perspective, appears to “do nothing”—is called “introns,” “noncoding DNA,” or simply “junk.”
Various theories have been proposed to account for “junk” DNA. According to some geneticists, these chromosomal regions could be the remains of ancient “pseudogenes” that have been discarded and fragmented during evolution.
Another idea is that “junk” DNA represents the accumulated DNA of retroviruses. Alternatively, “junk” DNA might constitute a data bank of sequences from which new genes emerge.
Happily, more and more scientists who have asked how nature could be so mind-numbingly inefficient are beginning to rethink “junk” DNA.
When DNA is mentioned in the epigenetic theory of Era II, what virtually always is being referenced is the three percent of coding DNA whose activity has been studied by traditional genetics.
In this regard at least, epigenetics is basically no different from genetics: both theories discount the vast majority of the genetic apparatus. In fact, you will not find “junk” DNA mentioned anywhere in The Biology of Belief.
Nevertheless, recent findings have indicated that “junk” DNA has a number of vitally important functions. The very conservation of noncoding DNA over eons of evolution, rather than signifying genetic detritus, provides tantalizing evidence of such functions.
More to the point, a wealth of Era III research in wave-genetics has shed light on extraordinary meta-genetic activity in “junk” DNA.
This ninety-seven percent of the DNA molecule, which I call potential DNA, appears to have much more to do with creating a specific species than previously acknowledged.
For instance, if we only examine the tiny portion of DNA made up of exons, there is practically no difference, in terms of genetics, between a human being and a rodent. There is also precious little at the level of exons that differentiates one human being from another!
Others who have studied the mystery of “junk,” or potential, DNA have concluded that the three percent of the human genome directly responsible for building proteins simply does not contain enough information to build any kind of body.
Faced with this puzzle, many scientists have started paying attention to fascinating structures called “jumping DNA,” or “transposons,” found in the supposedly worthless ninety-seven percent of DNA.
In 1983 Barbara McClintock was awarded the Nobel prize for discovering transposons. She and fellow biologists coined the term jumping DNA for good reason, David Wilcock has noted, as “these one million different proteins can break loose from one area, move to another area, and thereby rewrite the DNA code.”
This mysterious, malleable majority of DNA that, based on reasonable observation alone, must carry out significant functions for the organism, is the focus of meta-genetics.
This emerging science, famously substantiated and applied through the work of Peter Gariaev in wave-genetics, understands that potential DNA constitutes the biological organism’s interface with a hyperdimensional “life-wave.”
The life-wave, originating in time-space, is responsible for giving rise to a particular physical species or individual identity in space-time by nonlocally directing the activity of the three percent of coding DNA to build species-specific, individualized bodies.
Figure 2: Primacy of Consciousness. This figure demonstrates that genetics and epigenetics are not mutually exclusive, but are subsumed and reconciled by meta-genetics, which understands that both nature and nurture are functions of consciousness.While epigenetics allows us to manage gene expression and cellular function to a limited extent from our local position in space-time, what more directly controls our collective and individual genetic blueprints is the meta-genetic consciousness field in time-space.
Because consciousness dictates our biological reality, not the other way around, I coined the term meta-genetics to highlight the ultimately metaphysical nature of genetic functioning.
We now are in a position to replace both the Primacy of DNA and the Primacy of Environment with that which subsumes both nature and nurture and resolves their apparent contradiction within the unified field: the Primacy of Consciousness.
The Primacy of Consciousness makes it easy to see that the real Brain behind the majority of our biological functioning resides neither in DNA nor in the cell membrane, but in the sound domain of time-space.
In the meta-genetic model of Era III, the primary role of the vast majority of DNA is to mediate ener-genetically between our collective Mind in the consciousness field and our individual bodies (Era I) and brains (Era II) that exist as expressions of this bioenergy field in space-time.
If you could escape the human time scale for a moment, and regard evolution from the perspective of deep time, in which the last 10,000 years are a short chapter in a long saga, you’d say: Things are pretty wild right now.
In the most massive study of genetic variation yet, researchers estimated the age of more than one million variants, or changes to our DNA code, found across human populations. The vast majority proved to be quite young. The chronologies tell a story of evolutionary dynamics in recent human history, a period characterized by both narrow reproductive bottlenecks and sudden, enormous population growth.
The evolutionary dynamics of these features resulted in a flood of new genetic variation, accumulating so fast that natural selection hasn’t caught up yet. As a species, we are freshly bursting with the raw material of evolution.
“Most of the mutations that we found arose in the last 200 generations or so. There hasn’t been much time for random change or deterministic change through natural selection,” said geneticist Joshua Akey of the University of Washington, co-author of the Nov. 28 Nature study. “We have a repository of all this new variation for humanity to use as a substrate. In a way, we’re more evolvable now than at any time in our history.”
Akey specializes in what’s known as rare variation, or changes in DNA that are found in perhaps one in 100 people, or even fewer. For practical reasons, rare variants have only been studied in earnest for the last several years. Before then, it was simply too expensive. Genomics focused mostly on what are known as common variants.
‘The genetic potential of our population is vastly different than what it was 10,000 years ago.’
But these findings can also been seen from another angle. They teach us about human evolution, in particular the course it’s taken since modern Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, learned to farm, and became the planet’s dominant life form.
“We’ve gone from several hundred million people to seven billion in a blink of evolutionary time,” said Akey. “That’s had a profound effect on structuring the variation present in our species.”
The researchers sequenced in exhaustive detail protein-coding genes from 6,515 people, compiling a list of every DNA variation they found — 1,146,401 in all, of which 73 percent were rare. To these they applied a type of statistical analysis, customized for human populations but better known from studies of animal evolution, that infers ancestral relationships from existing genetic patterns.
“There were other hints of what’s going on, but nobody has studied such a massive number of coding regions from such a high number of individuals,” said geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania.
Akey’s group found that rare variations tended to be relatively new, with some 73 percent of all genetic variation arising in just the last 5,000 years. Of variations that seem likely to cause harm, a full 91 percent emerged in this time.
Why is this? Much of it is a function of population growth. Part of it is straightforward population growth. Just 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, there were roughly 5 million humans on Earth. Now there are 7 billion. With each instance of reproduction, a few random variations emerge; multiply that across humanity’s expanding numbers, and enormous amounts of variation are generated.
Also playing a role are the dynamics of bottlenecks, or periods when populations are reduced to a small number. The out-of-Africa migration represents one such bottleneck, and others have occurred during times of geographic and cultural isolation. Scientists have shown that when populations are small, natural selection actually becomes weaker, and the effects of randomness grow more powerful.
Put these dynamics together, and the Homo sapiens narrative that emerges is one in which, for non-African populations, the out-of-Africa bottleneck created a period in which natural selection’s effects diminished, followed by a global population boom and its attendant wave of new variation.
The result, calculated Akey, is that people of European descent have five times as many gene variants as they would if population growth had been slow and steady. People of African descent, whose ancestors didn’t go through that original bottleneck, have somewhat less new variation, but it’s still a large amount: three times more variation than would have accumulated under slow-growth conditions.
Natural selection never stopped acting, of course. New mutations with especially beneficial effects, such as lactose tolerance, still spread rapidly, while those with immediately harmful consequences likely vanished within a few generations of appearing. But most variation has small, subtle effects.
Visualization of the distribution of potentially harmful genetic variation across protein-coding portions of the human genome. The top section represents variation that predates the human population explosion 10,000 years ago. The bottom represents variation that arose since then. Image: Fu et al./Nature
It’s this type of variation that’s proliferated so wildly. “Population growth is happening so fast that selection is having a hard time keeping up with the new, deleterious alleles,” said Akey.
One consequence of this is the accumulation in humanity of gene variants with potentially harmful effects. Akey’s group found that a full 86 percent of variants that look as though they might be deleterious are less than 10,000 years old, and many have only existed for the last millennium.
“Humans today carry a much larger load of deleterious variants than our species carried just prior to its massive expansion just a couple hundred generations ago,” said population geneticist Alon Keinan of Cornell University, whose own work helped link rare variation patterns to the population boom.
The inverse is also true. Present-day humanity also carries a much larger load of potentially positive variation, not to mention variation with no appreciable consequences at all. These variations, known to scientists as “cryptic,” that might actually be evolution’s hidden fuel: mutations that on their own have no significance can combine to produce unexpected, powerful effects.
Indeed, the genetic seeds of exceptional traits, such as endurance or strength or innate intelligence, may now be circulating in humanity. “The genetic potential of our population is vastly different than what it was 10,000 years ago,” Akey said.
How will humanity evolve in the next few thousand years? It’s impossible to predict but fun to speculate, said Akey. A potentially interesting wrinkle to the human story is that, while bottlenecks reduce selection pressure, evolutionary models show that large populations actually increase selection’s effects.
Given the incredible speed and scope of human population growth, this increased pressure hasn’t yet caught up to the burst of new variation, but eventually it might. It could even be anticipated, at least from theoretical models, that natural selection on humans will actually become stronger than it’s ever been.
“The size of a population determines how much selection is going to be acting moving forward,” said anthropologist Mark Shriver of Penn State University. “You have an increase in natural selection now.”
An inevitably complicating factor is that natural selection isn’t as natural as it used to be. Theoretical models don’t account for culture and technology, two forces with profound influences. Widespread use of reproductive technologies like fetal genome sequencing might ease selection pressures, or even make them more intense.
As for future studies in genetic anthropology, Akey said scientists are approaching the limits of what can be known from genes alone. “We need to take advantage of what people have learned in anthropology and ecology and linguistics, and synthesize all this into a coherent narrative of human evolution,” he said.
Geneticist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine, co-author of a 2007 study on accelerating human evolution, noted that the new study only looked at protein-coding genes, which account for only a small portion of the entire human genome. Much of humanity’s rare variation remains to be analyzed.
Moyzis’ co-authors on that study, geneticist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, also warned against jumping to early conclusions based on the new study’s dating. Some of what appears to be new variation might actually be old, said Hawks.
Even with these caveats, however, the study’s essential message is unchanged. “Sometimes people ask the question, ‘Is human evolution still occurring?’” said Tishkoff. “Yes, human evolution can still occur, and it is.”
Citations: “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.” By Wenqing Fu, Timothy D. O’Connor, Goo Jun, Hyun Min Kang, Goncalo Abecasis, Suzanne M. Leal, Stacey Gabriel, David Altshuler, Jay Shendure, Deborah A. Nickerson, Michael J. Bamshad, NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project & Joshua M. Akey. Vol. 491, No. 7426, Nov. 29, 2012