Since the new genetic engineering injections (called corona vaccinations) have been available, I have been increasingly asked whether and how my own DNA can be restored.
Because what most “vaccinates” missed: these novel genetic engineering drugs cause changes in the affected (“vaccinated”) cells, so that they are reprogrammed and produce these “spike proteins”.
Now that more and more people are becoming aware of this and there are also increasing reports that the mRNA could be built into our cells after all (a very “scary” idea), the question arises as to whether and how the whole thing could be made reversible.
While searching for this question I came across a very old post called “The Primeval Code”. It is a contribution that was broadcast on television at the end of the 80s and can still be seen here on Youtube:
This contribution is dated December 17, 1988 and is said to have been broadcast on Swiss television. In any case, the article also features Kurt Felix (whom we know in Germany from “Hidden Camera”), who introduces the scientists and their results.
In my search, however, I came across even more interesting contributions that are said to have been broadcast on ZDF in 1996:
This post is of significantly better quality and also shows more details of the research.
Daniel Ebner, the son of one of the two scientists who were listed years later, shows three other interesting contributions on the subject of primeval code.
In these contributions, Mr. Ebner explains very precisely and impressively what the research at the time was really about and what conclusions were drawn from it.
I don’t give too much away when I say it was never about “restoring an original DNA”. Then what was it about?
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:
35 years ago
In December 1988 the above show with Kurt Felix was broadcast on Swiss television. Two scientists were introduced: Dr. Guido Ebner and his colleague Heinz Schürch, both of whom worked for the then Swiss pharmaceutical giant Ciba-Geigy (today: Novartis).
During the performance of these two scientists, it turns out that they had carried out experiments with a static electric field on plants and, to a limited extent, on animals, with astonishing results. because dr Ebner claimed that his experiments with male fern spores, which he treated with a static electric field and then grew, resulted in a type of fern that only remotely resembled a male fern.
This fern, on the other hand, bore more resemblance to extinct fern species that are only preserved as fossils. Therefore, it almost looks as if the original DNA was restored by the treatment with electric fields.
Whether this expression of new characteristics (phenotype) is based on a change in the DNA cannot be proven, at least not at the time. Because the gene sequencing that would have had to be carried out for such a statement was still in its infancy.
The two researchers explained that they also conducted experiments with wheat and corn. Here, too, they had been able to see clear changes in the expression.
In corn, up to five cobs were seen on a stalk where only a single cob is usually developed.
The “electrostatic” wheat showed new proteins that cannot be found in today’s wheat. In addition, the treated wheat produced significantly larger roots, resulting in faster plant growth.
The YouTube post shows further experiments with rainbow trout. Here, treatment with the electric field caused the trout to have a more pronounced coloration and behavior resembling that of a wild animal. This means that these trout are more aggressive and much more cautious as predatory fish. They were also slightly larger and more agile than the “normal” trout.
Here, too, one got the impression that one was dealing with old wild forms that no longer seem to exist today.
All this, of course, provokes the idea that one…
- can manipulate (reset) the DNA with static electric fields and thus bring original species back to life.
- that such treatment provides exactly what crop growers are looking for in their quest for improved yield performance from their plants. The only difference here is that new variants with higher yields are sought after in breeding. Treatment with static electric fields goes in exactly the opposite direction, namely back to the original forms.
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:
There are a lot of questions
The most common question is why these promising results have not been put into practice. And it’s about why hardly anyone knows anything about these sensational experiments?
Daniel Ebner explained that these experiments were not made available for scientific publications, since Ciba-Geigy patents here immediately [2] had registered. You have to know: Scientific publications usually contain new scientific aspects while patents already acquaintance aspects, so that patenting no longer permits scientific publication.
In this way, with the help of patents, you can not only secure usage rights for yourself, but also prevent unwanted scientific publications. The patent expired after 20 years. After that, hardly anyone except Daniel Ebner and his foundation, which bears his father’s name, dealt with this phenomenon.
Another reason for successfully preventing this technology and preventing the emergence of these alleged “prototypes” is their nature.
We learn from Daniel Ebner that these forms created by electric fields were much more resistant to environmental influences than their successor products, which surround us today. This means that with wheat and corn, for example, no pesticides or other chemicals were necessary to prevent diseases and the resulting crop failures. These “primordial forms” seemed to be much more resistant to environmental influences than the modern variants.
This is exactly what makes sense in an evolutionary-biological context: Without this resistance, these plants would not have been able to survive, because millions of years ago there was no pharmaceutical industry with herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, etc.
And it makes “sense” to discourage this technique of creating more resistant and high-yielding “ancestors,” at least from the perspective of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, since these “ancestors” are likely to shut down the need for chemical disease-preventing drugs. It’s just like with people, where the healing of patients or successful prophylaxis is bad for the doctor and the pill industry.
Preventing scientific publications and patenting this technology is the best strategy for asserting one’s own business interests with pesticides, herbicides, etc.
The fact that more resistant and higher-yielding forms could possibly curb hunger and misery in countries with inhospitable conditions only occurs to this society if these forms also bring in money. It is not for nothing that efforts have been made to patent natural products as well:
The most important question: Do electric fields change DNA?
As it appears, especially if you look at the example with the ferns, it seems that the changes after treatment with static electric fields must have caused a DNA change.
This may seem so at first glance. But, one has to ask oneself: DNA changes, i.e. mutations, which in the examples shown all produced the respective old “primordial forms”, must then be guided by something that leads them in this direction. Or in other words: mutations are not targeted but random. In this case, however, we are dealing with changes that are very targeted.
In 1988, the term epigenetics as we know it today did not exist. DNA was thought to be something that was unchangeable or changeable only through mutations. The concept of genes being activated or silenced by other factors was virtually unknown at the time.
Daniel Ebner also explained in his interviews that the static electric fields do not cause mutations, but that there is a probability bordering on certainty that epigenetic factors are activated here, which reactivate existing, permanently switched-off genes, which then lead to the expression of the observed properties.
Conclusion
It appears that the breeding of crops and livestock has been perverted throughout history in its quest to produce more productive forms for humans. Instead of creating higher yielding forms, the chemical industry has been used to create forms that only yield yields when appropriate amounts of chemistry are spread over them.
At the same time, the old anti-nature philosophy is indulged that nature cannot survive without chemicals. The static electric fields then showed the true conditions, which is why the industry had tried to hide this knowledge and these findings as much as possible.
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:
Sources:
- Archived video on YT: KenFM in conversation with Daniel Ebner The Urzeit Code – YouTube
- Electro-field and DNA – Eterna-SL: Everything you always wanted to know!
Featured Image: pixabay.com – geralt
This entry was published on February 4th, 2023.