Hey folks, I wanted to publicly provide the reason why I no longer support some of the information in my post about Chromosome 8 and the WHO from April 2020. This is to serve as a way to set the record straight on that topic.
That post was really only supposed to be a finding. The finding is certainly not being retracted. I did indeed find a complimentary pairing between human DNA and one of the WHO’s coronavirus PCR test primers. This is not disputed. It is the significance of this finding that is disputed.
The post went viral literally 5 months after I had posted it in April 2020. It went viral at a moment where my understanding of PCR and coronavirus had already evolved significantly. By this time, I already knew better than to ask my original question (100% positive in WHO tests?). The response to the original post had re-framed my thinking over those next five months. After some free discussion, I considered the matter to be closed, knowing that I was probably wrong for suggesting 100% of people could test positive with the WHO test.
Imagine my surprise, then, to waking one fine September 2020 morning and finding hits coming at a rate of ten thousand per hour on that post alone…
It had gone viral, in the conspiracy sense. David Icke had it. The now infamous Andy Kaufman was talking about it. Politicians were talking about it. There was no person more thoroughly surprised than myself…I still cannot believe it happened.
It caused me to take another deep dive into PCR, to be sure that I understood where I went wrong, and perhaps ask some new and interesting questions.
To this day, I reiterate that it is sloppy procedure to include PCR primers that can be complemented perfectly in human DNA. That is all my finding was…a complimentary DNA sequence for one of the WHO’s coronavirus PCR test primers. I was too eager to ask whether this would mean 100% of people would test positive, but it is still interesting and still a possible source of experimental error. Primers matching to human DNA could cause imperfect PCR results.
For a test that is so crucially dependent upon a low number of false results, using primers that can be matched in human DNA seems excessively sloppy and rife for possible procedural error. In retrospect, I have considered that the problem would likely be in the other direction…false negatives. Paired primer sequences might be “used up” through matches with human DNA, so there may not be enough remaining experimental materials to adequately amplify the target sequence from the viral RNA equivalent.
This could definitely create false negatives. But that is a separate point altogether.
We would most certainly not see 100% positives, as I had suggested. I admit this, completely. A man named Mark Tic sent me a few emails about this, and for PCR, he used the analogy of a zipper on a jacket. I found this very constructive. Think of the PCR primers like the end-segment on your jacket’s zipper (where you first join the two pieces). The images below are some of my favorite for rt-PCR. I believe that when primers have a match within human DNA, the primer would first copy itself onto the exposed human DNA fragment. The problem is what happens from there, as we would fail to have both the forward and reverse primers operating to make the desired target signal. In the human Chromosome 8 example, it would be like one side of the zipper without a matching complimentary side.
If the primer matches because of human Chromosome 8 rather than SARS-CoV-2, the target amplification would not be achieved. My concern is beyond this…the primer being matched in human DNA may even hinder the kind of amplification that we actually wanted to detect (i.e. false negative).
Kaufman would have to imagine there is some kind of magic happening where the rest of the sequence gets pulled in from some neighboring bacteria or something. This is why I do believe SARS-CoV-2 is a real something. It is not all fake. People do get sick, and the PCR machines tend to pick up a certain seasonal coronavirus signal in PCR data. To Kaufman’s credit, he tried to explain the limitation in my finding, but still seemed to find more use out of it than I ever did.
Please do not think that this implies I am far from Kaufman in my position…I find there to be very little evidence of anything in virology, but I do also concede that the PCR seems to be detecting a seasonal population-wide coronavirus signal. If you do not believe coronavirus is real, you need to try and explain that result to me.
My own feeling is that the coronavirus is seasonally occurring cold, the PCR picks it up broadly in a population, and the media has decided to frame a hysteria around this particular illness. Probably to coincide with the 2020 Presidential Election, because propaganda is so so potent when people are afraid.
While PCR isn’t good at picking up whether a “particular individual” is sick or even infected, it does seem to pick up elevated coronavirus particles at the population level during cold season. It cannot say whether any individual person is sick or had symptoms, but it can detect a population-wide elevated signal. Leaving aside the myriad possible interpretations of that signal, it is being detected. Coronavirus has always been with us, and at most it has been worse slightly in recent years. Perhaps they catered this specific virus to the situation, finding something that would peak in October-December for the 2020 Presidential Election?
All we can really take from PCR at any given moment is that it tells us, broadly, whether seasonal coronavirus is active within the population. Like back in the summer, when it basically wasn’t active anywhere, but we didn’t open the country back up out of…cowardice, I guess?
The worst thing about the coronavirus has been groupthink. People afraid to be the contrary opinion. That time needs to stop. Please do not let them use a virus to bully you into submission. We need real solutions, not the virtue-signaling nightmare that we have ended up in.
For the scientists out there, I just wanted to set the record straight and explain that I understood my error even at the time this information went viral. As for the post going viral, that did not occur under my direction. I was more surprised than anyone.
The ultimate reason I was so excited by my coronavirus PCR finding initially was that I had miscalculated the probability of an 18-character sequence to match perfectly within human DNA. I considered that to be a huge longshot. Much like Mark’s story of a long improbability, I was impressed with the long odds.
When I had been searching other primers (beyond just the WHO), I had rarely been seeing matches that were beyond 16 characters long. Suddenly, on one of the WHO’s shortest primer sequences, I had a perfect 18 of 18 character match. What were the odds?! I looked into it and discovered the odds were about 4-18, which is = 0.0000000000000000014552. That is a compelling number to look at. The decimals are measured at the trillionths space. Upon this brief review, it seemed impossible to think that such a match would come about randomly.
So what convinced me beyond any doubt that I was wrong? The three billion human DNA base pairs. Human DNA has a length of 3 billion base pairs. Since we are comparing RNA (single strand) to DNA (double strand), I figure that the three billion DNA sequences should really be more like six billion total nucleotide sequences. Two strands, at a length of 3 billion sequences each, for a total of 6 billion. Each sequence can be one of four options (A, C, G, T), and I was looking for an exact 18-character sequence, with odds at 1 over 4^18, which is…what again?
Ah yes, well, as it turns out, 4 to the 18th power is only about…69 billion. So actually, on a human DNA strand, where there are close to 6 billion different iterations of an 18-character sequence and a 1 in 69 billion chance, what are the odds of such a random chance match? That comes out to an 8.7% chance of a random match, which is magnitudes higher than I had estimated.
I am now of the opinion that a random match is the only reasonable explanation for my finding, and that it was most likely an innocent error on their part. Remember, I looked through several primers. Eventually I was going to find one that matched. An innocent, random match. Previously, my back-of-the-envelope calculation made me think this match just had to be 1 in-a-million! Yet, with a little time and a little understanding, I have come to see where I was wrong. So be it.
PS: All of this gave me a little peek into the way the conspiracy information world coordinates itself. I am convinced that I witnessed bot nets spring into action (Twitter retweets). When it is desired for people to see your information, suddenly and via automated processes it seems to get fed to the top. How interesting!
That was a very fascinating timeframe for me, and I had a great time studying the post travel viral from one side of the globe to the other. First, Spain was very interested. Then there was a British wave, and even a German wave. Always after some major figure in each country would reference it. For Britain, it was Icke. For Spain, it was a woman whose name I cannot remember (but was apparently their lead anti-vaxxer). Kaufman might just be over-eager with his own theory to say no to the Icke types, but those at Icke’s level certainly seem to qualify as gatekeepers of some sort.
It was just fascinating for me to see who was using the information and to what end. That is all I can really say. Fascinating.