There's no video of Crick saying anything like that. But if you realize there are such things as videos, bravo - that's one small step for man you have heroically taekn.
Great copy and paste too, nice technique. And with no plausible deniability. Oops - you've left yourself no alibi - no ground for any plea of innocent.
There's no more 'benefit of the doubt' available - like must be a mixup or some 'honest mistake' - when misinfo refuses correction. That's a case of Clear Intent - willful deception and deliberate deceit - and grim determination to mislead others. Well hurray for that. You just go ahead and be incorrigible.
Meanwhile, while on the subject - if anyone actually likes to know, hey you've named the game now - "Copy And Paste" ok. Deal me in:
[–]doctorlao 8 points 9 months ago*
"DNA was discovered whilst under the influence of LSD" -
However - its one among various prized 'fun facts' - routinely broadcast in psychonaughty FYIs and public service announcements. Its tripper-parroted all over. Perhaps even believed by those doing so ... although who can tell?
Let the record be corrected. This DNA-LSD Crick crock was idiotic right out of the gate. There was never least reason to even think it might be true in the first place, much less believe it. Right from the gitgo it was spun as a convoluted web of third-hand bs: 'someone told so-and-so, that somebody else remembers a friend of a friend, who once told them ...'
The whole line of malarkey started with a "National Enquirer" style tabloid feature, concocted by some bs artist "journalist" named Rees. I guess if some tabloid publishes it - whatever circus standard applies to journalism about 'alien 3 headed baby' stories etc. - its automatically believed, or ruled 'true' by John Q. 'open minded' Tripper ... provided it makes the 'right' kind of sound, tells a good story?
In 2004, after Crick died, this 'pull my finger' joker Rees claimed he was told by another person (Kemp), that someone else “a close friend” - of Kemp (not Rees) - some Harker fellow - told him (Kemp, not Rees) that Crick had told him (Harker, not Kemp) … etc. A tangled web of 'A said B said C said ...' empty rumor. Pure gossip, transparently calculated to make gullibles go 'wow,' set tongues wagging.
Beyond stupid. WAY BEYOND ...
Meanwhile, since 2006, informed folks have known from reliable non-tabloid sources, that the whole line top to bottom - 'Crick (and therefore the entire world; if you pay attention, follow the storyline) owe LSD for his discovery of the double helix" - is garbage.
Matt Ridley's definitive biography of Crick lays it on the line:
"... that Crick was on LSD when he discovered the double helix; or was involved with a man named Dick Kemp in the manufacture of LSD. These assertions ... reported second hand in an article in the Mail on Sunday by Alun Rees ... have since gained a certain amount of traction on the internet. Both stories are wrong... I was told directly by Crick’s widow and by the man who (as his widow confirms) first supplied the Cricks with LSD... Crick was given (not sold) LSD on several occasions from 1967 onwards by Henry Todd... Todd did know Kemp ... but the Cricks did not ... his major breakthroughs in molecular biology were made before 1967.”
Beyond its falsity - the Crick claim is apparently such a prized piece of subculty propaganda, so eagerly told as fact, its 'truth' so adamantly insisted upon "no, really" - that its incorrigible. It isn't about to be corrected. It has no intention of being true or accurate. That's not its 'point' and unless you 'get' that - 'you missed the point' ... a standard banal retort from propagandists and disinfo peddlers, oft-sounded in psychonaughtiness.
Apparently in some contexts, truth is irrelevant, even problematic - if it doesn't make the right sound, or 'prove' whatever claim is being staked, in service to a cause so glorious that nothing else matters.
No, Crick did not discover DNA (meaning its organic structure, the double helix) - from or while tripping. Nor does such claim "become true" magically, by being repeated over and over as is done in psychedelic broadcast programming. Such practices, active propagandizing - only call the subculture, and glory of its mission, into deep dark doubt.
And along with other such treasured falsehoods with purposes to serve - one can reasonably predict the 'story' (as Ridley calls it) will continue to 'gain traction on the internet.' By its handling one can directly observe, its not merely misinfo, but apparently - disinfo. It has a vital propaganda function for purposes of an oppositional subculture, waging covert ideological 'culture war' on 'the paradigm of Western civilization.' Its the moral of the story that propels it - all about how the world owes psychedelics; even as it ignorantly defies and denies its debt to tripping; and to trippers. And how psychedelics are "boosting intelligence, enhancing cognition" etc (got that from subtitle of 'The Psychedelic Future of The Mind').
The seizure of Crick and use of his distinguished name, as a figure for narrative propaganda - simply reflects a party line, ideological zeal. Recent decades, psychedelia has been systematically casting its line further and further from basic bounds of truth, reality, integrity, meaning. When any glorious cause crosses a line of conviction, of reason and integrity - nothing else matters. Now the ends justify almost any means. Welcome to the community.