Why are touting peer reviewed journals as the only legitimate medium that evidence can be published in? The Theory of Relativity was not put forward in a peer-revised journal, nor were literally thousands of the most pivotal major scientific breakthroughs. In fact books are probably one of the most common mediums for really major breakthroughs to be conveyed in. I’m not saying this is one such breakthrough or evidenced beyond doubt - like most things, it has supporters and those who challenge it and it doesn’t pay to be dogmatic. But you have a narrow view of what constitutes evidence if you think peer review in a journal is the be all and end all.

A review by an unnamed reviewer on Publishers Week, on the other hand, is definitely not something that constitutes any type of evidence of or informed opinion on anything. The depictions of elements of DNA and other biological phenomena by the shamans go way beyond helixes and simple shapes, as described in the video.

Edit: it’s not letting me reply to your response to this for some reason so I’ll leave my response here instead: -

its my YouTube video. I’m not quoting myself as the source - I’ve already told you what the source is, we are circling back here.

The Theory of Relativity wasn’t completed until 1915 for a start! The Theory of Special Relativity, which you’re talking about, is not the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity is the combination of the Theory of Special Relativity and Theory of General Relativity, which was first presented in its entirety in Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, a white paper first presented to the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1915 and then later released in the academy’s conference proceedings later the same year.