# Pssst – the PCR test is fake!

I’ve spent a great deal of time between January of 2020 and now trying to understand the PCR process. I know in my family’s experience that PCR released a man who spent 15 years in prison, wrongfully accused, and got him a \$3.5 million settlement from the State of Montana not for wrongful prosecution, but rather for malicious prosecution, that is, the people who framed him knew he was innocent. PCR set him free.  It took samples from the crime scene and compared them to the man in prison, and found them to be from different people.

PCR also found the guilty party, a man arrested on drug charges who plea bargained and agreed to submit DNA as part of that bargain. His DNA matched that at the crime scene, concluding that that man, and no one else on this planet, was at the crime scene that night. He walked free due to statute of limitations. Other criminals were involved as well, who walked free on statute, certain people who remained silent knowing the man in the first paragraph above was innocent. So it goes.

It’s an amazing process. Here’s Kerry Mullis, inventor:

What kind of chemical program would be required to “FIND” a specific sequence of DNA with 3 billion nucleotides and then display that sequence to a human who was trillions of times larger than the DNA? Instead of a list of statements in BASIC or FORTRAN run on a computer and displayed on a screen, I had to arrange a series of chemical reactions, the result of which would represent and display the sequence of a stretch of DNA. The odds were long. Like reading a particular license plate out on Interstate 5 at night from the moon.

I knew computer programming, and from that I understood the power of a reiterative mathematical procedure. That’s where you apply some process to a starting number  to obtain a new number, and then you apply the same process to the new number, and so on. If the process is multiplication by two, then the result of many cycles is an exponential increase in the value of the original number: 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 becomes 16 becomes 32 and so on.

If I could arrange for a short synthetic piece of DNA to find a particular sequence and then start a process whereby the sequence would reproduce itself over and over, then I would be close to solving my problem.

He knew the limitations of his process, that he might find thousands of DNA sequences that were approximately like his original, but not the one that is exactly like the original. The man’s DNA who spent 15 years in jail was released because his DNA sequences were merely UNLIKE the ones found at the crime scene. The guilty man’s DNA was EXACTLY the same as that left at the crime scene. There is no allowance in those legal proceedings for “approximate.” It had to he exactly, precisely alike.

Suddenly, I knew how to do it. If I could locate a thousand sequences out of billions with one short piece of DNA, I could use another very short piece to narrow the search. This one would be designed to bind to a sequence just down the chain from the first sequence I had found. It would scan over the thousand possibilities out of the first search to find just the one that I wanted. And using the natural properties of DNA to replicate itself under certain conditions that I could provide, I could make that sequence of DNA between the sites where the two short search strings landed reproduce the hell out of itself. In one replicative cycle I could have two copies, and in two cycles I could have four, and in ten cycles … I thought I remembered that two to the tenth was about a thousand.

Genius resides in certain individuals given too much time to think, and who don’t react to social pressure and are not subject to peer review (which levels people and hides exceptional ability in a sea of mediocrity. Someone suggested the Galileo’s problems with the Catholic Church and Inquisition were merely an early form of peer review.) Mullis’ process was not new, but had never been assembled as he assembled it. He described the potential of his invention:

The procedure would be valuable in diagnosing genetic diseases by looking into a person’s genes. It would find infectious diseases by detecting genes of pathogens that were difficult or impossible to culture. PCR would solve murders from DNA samples in trace materials – semen, blood, hair. [And rape.] The field of molecular paleobiology would blossom because of PCR. Its practitioners would inquire into the specifics of evolution from the DNA of ancient specimens. The branching and migration of early man would be revealed from fossil DNA and its descendant DNA in modern humans. And when DNA was finally found on other planets, it would be PCR that would tell us whether we had been there before or weather life on other planets was unrelated to us and had its own separate roots. [EmPHAsis added.]

Mullis was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention, and he was truly worthy of it, perhaps one of the most important humans ever to live. But he was not without delusions, especially those widespread in science, that humans have walked on the moon, and that there exists a pathogen called a “virus.” During his life he decried the use of PCR for diagnosis of disease, as he, believing in viruses, thought that there had to be millions upon millions of them at work to make a person sick, and PCR, while a remarkable tool, cannot do basic arithmetic. It cannot count. That is what Mullis meant when he said PCR test is “qualitative, not quantitative.”

AIDS is a real disease that is rather uncommon, and most often caused by self-abusive lifestyles, malnutrition, and hemophilia. For reasons of social disruption to cause men and women to avoid one another, a “retrovirus” was invented, and absurdly said to lay dormant, even for decades, before it attacked its host. The standard test for AIDS is an antibody test, and not PCR, and it is ridiculous. It claimed that if a person had been infected by HIV and it that person’s body produced antibodies to HIV, then that person is infected with AIDS.  If you think that excessive faith in people in white lab costs is prevalent now, so too was it then. That reasoning, that logic, is absurd.

Mullis was at the center of the AIDS debate. He was working at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, which was trying to develop use of PCR to detect retroviruses in blood donations. He was writing a report for a sponsor, and began the report by stating the “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.” However, Mullis treated scientific report writing as a rigorous business. He needed not just the statement that HIV causes AIDS, but the paper written that offered evidence of this fact. There was none. (There is still no such paper.) He was told to go to CDC, but that was pointless. CDC had no paper and could not help. He finally, in the end, after a long search, confronted the French virologist Luc Montagnier, who again referred him to CDC, already a dead end. He was looking for a paper that addressed the issue of HIV causing AIDS, and he was talking to the man who had “discovered” the HIV retrovirus. “If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did?”

Mullis died in August of 2019 at the young age of 74, and I suspect he was either murdered or bribed into silence. A massive hoax was on the horizon, a mere six months away, and the Mullis PCR would be at the center of it. He’s not the type to keep quiet when he is right and everyone around him wrong, witness his search for a paper showing AIDS to be caused by HIV. I like to imagine he was bought off, sent off to live out his life on the beaches of Thailand, but somehow, I don’t see that. I fear he was murdered. One way or another, he had to be silenced.

So, Kerry Mullis says in his book that PCR “… [finds] infectious diseases by detecting genes of pathogens that were difficult or impossible to culture.” Isn’t that was is being done with SARS-CoV-2? Isn’t the PCR test a legitimate way of looking for a pathogen? His book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, was published in 1998. I do not know the date of the video below, as it is shown to be 10/1/2020, after Mullis’ death. But I do know it was in the wake of the AIDS hoax, as that is why Mullis is saying that PCR should not be used to diagnose disease, somewhat contradicting himself and his book. I think that merely means he weathered AIDS, saw his beautiful process abused by monsters, and was wizened. (You had better believe that I have downloaded this video. I am surprised YouTube is letting it stand uncensored.)

So how do I title this Post “Pssst – the PCR test is fake”? The process is obviously earth-shaking in its importance, a scientific advance that may be one of the most important in human history. I’ve witnessed first-hand its amazing power when used for good. In the Covid-19 Pandemic, it is being used for evil.

We can have a whole’ nuther discussion on the existence of viruses, but that’s a sidebar.  The question here is “What is the PCR test finding in people?” The answer is “Nothing!”

There are two routes of reasoning here: Assume there is a real virus that can really make people ill. Assume it is been purified, and that a real “genome” is available for use in testing patients using PCR. [NB: None of this has been done.] Suppose you get a positive test. What does it mean? Nothing! It means you might have in you a SARS-C0V-2 virus, just as you might have in you some digesting apple from lunch, a streptococcus bacteria, inactive, or toxins like nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, and fluoride from your dental appointment. Finding any of that, no matter the means, does not mean you are sick. You are also certainly not contagious, as the “asymptomatic carrier” was just another bullocks invention done to advance the hoax along. That too is just absurd.

But suppose a second line of reasoning, that there is no SARS-CoV-2 virus, that it is just a figment of some screenwriter’s imagination. What then is the PCR test finding? Again, nothing. Mullis described amplification cycles above, and in other places said that they shouldn’t exceed 25, and that the test results degrade with increased amplifications. Take a quick look at this video:

That’s Anthony Fauci, whose face should be on a Mt. Rushmore of historic scam artists, like Joseph Smith, Trofim Lysenko, and the Wizard of Oz. He is saying PCR cycles in excess of 35 are not reliable. Elsewhere we learn that even at 35 cycles, reliability is reduced to less than 3%. What is Fauci saying here? He’s answering a question about viral load, even as we know PCR cannot count. He’s saying to keep the cycles at 35 or under and the results will be meaningful. He is doing his job, his only real job in this pandemic, boldfaced lying to advance the hoax.

Most laboratories using PCR are running 40 cycles or more, and at that level, results are not just meaningless, but meaningless garbage. What that means is that every “positive” PCR result since the very beginning is a false positive, and every negative, as I recently endured, a false negative. All results of PCR testing done everywhere in the world, if the amplification cycles are at the level recommended by WHO, are false. (Note here that post vaccine CDC recommended a lower cycle threshold of 28 for people who have been jabbed. They know what’s up, they know the test at 40 cycles is garbage.)

Now is not the time to have a discussion about the existence of SARS-CoV-2. We’ve done that here, nothing new to add. This post is about the PCR test, the beating heart of the scamdemic. This is a multilayered hoax with many other facets, including falsified death certificates and death statistics, and medical “professionals” drowning in their own ignorance and hubris, but without the fake PCR test, Kerry Mullis’s genius invention, perverted to serve evil, there is no “pandemic.”

## 66 thoughts on “Pssst – the PCR test is fake!”

1. It’s a set of endless layers of fraud on fraud. And since PCR wasn’t really designed with the intention of “diagnosing” viral contagious or other illnesses, anyway, all the Covid-19 positives are worthless no matter how many cycles have been run by labs (not to mention the fact that the Coronavirus doesn’t exist). But since the masses are too stupid to realize that, the controllers have no shame in deliberately misusing PCR testing to scare the living daylights out of the lemmings, as well as making tons of money on the side.

Like

1. “The masses being too stupid” is another kind of hubris I want to avoid, though I have often been guilty of the same sentiment. We are raised in an environment that, as Stephers noted, deliberately keeps us in an excited state, so that calm reflection and study is just not possible for most people. Instead they are distracted by fake events and by sports and entertainment, and are traveling through life merely passively absorbing the intended lies fed to them by media, sans critical thinking. They are capable if so much more, but leadership does not want that from them! Schooling dumbs them down, so in a dumbed down and distracted state they can behave like lemmings. But they are capable of more, much more, and I want to cling to that notion rather than to denigrate humanity.

This whole pandemic is being run by psychopaths, and study of that subject by psychologists reveals that that particular group, generally, suffers lower IQ than normal people. So if we want to ridicule anyone, it is the people like Al Gore, Fauci, Gates, Biden, who even just looking at their faces appear dumber than most. (Al Gore had two weaknesses in college, where he only turned up as a legacy anyway. His two weakest subjects were science and math. Gates could not even endure college, so they had to invent the nonconformist genius label to hide his dumbassedness.)

Liked by 1 person

2. Beata says:

You are the first person I came across who suggested that Mullis probably met with un untimely demise. I thought about it soon after the PCR tests became the gold standard of covid diagnosis. My intuition told me that they got rid of him because he would talk and their entire scam would have been uncovered too soon to take hold.

Like

3. steve kelly says:

PCR , like numbers (symbols among millions of symbols), can be used for good, or for no good. What is hardest for me to fathom is how, after decades of believing lies, and finding out they were lies much later on, anyone could presume that the institutions we have put our faith in, give a rat’s behind about our health and well-being. Same way battered wives and abused children cope with the inhumane living conditions at home, I suppose. Where I’d be “walking,” most do not seem to have that “flight or fight” instinct any longer. Our instinct has been stolen. Without that we are demoted to the lowest form of primate on the planet. This is a mass disease of the mind and heart. Time to begin to heal and recover what’s been lost.

https://newagora.ca/imagine-freedom-with-max-igan-lorenzo/

Like

4. Horst says:

Germany – Monday, of course an 11th, the free PCR testing ended. Some 20 bucks now, if you want to eat out, go to university, etc. Vaccinated are fictional negative. Everybody can see how the statistics are distorted by this, same game in the hospitals. Last week, it has been announced there are more vaccinated people in Germany than known until then, admitting there are no sound statistics. It’s just insane, time to think about were this is going. My guess, Hegelian dialectic. Deconstruction of the old.

Like

5. TimR says:

Just that one bit about testing the jabbed and unjabbed at different cycle rates – in “favor” of the “miracle vaccine” no less, tipping the scales to find less positives in that group – ought to just shatter the entire storyline.

Could there be any more open and brazen admission of bad faith on the part of the “experts”? They may be able to muddy the waters over the utility of PCR itself, to argue it down into the weeds – but how could they possibly defend using different testing criteria for the two groups? What rationale would make that a “scientific” approach?

Much of the public would shut off their brains at the mention of “cycle rates,” but some clever wordsmith needs to figure out how to quickly communicate what a scam that is – and if the “experts” will do that, how can you trust them on any of this stuff.

It would at any rate be fun to see Fauci try to glibly pass that off as proper scientific procedure.

Whether PCR is absolutely critical to the hoax though, I’m not so sure. I think they also use an “antibody” test in some cases.

Which have their own issues… I came across a fascinating tidbit in that “Dissident Voice” article someone (Petra?) linked here recently. According to them, it’s been known since the 1950s (in the official journals) that antibodies are not a useful marker.

Individuals who are genetically unable to produce antibodies, nevertheless fend off flus, viruses, infectious diseases, etc (according to the mainstream, I mean.) And even develop an immunity to future infection with the same “bug”!

This would seem to pretty much invalidate the official story of antibodies, and diagnoses based on their presence, but evidently it’s been brushed aside.

Liked by 1 person

1. alexrimmer0973 says:

I would like to read the article about antibodies. It’s not peoples ‘intelligence’ that stops them seeing the scam it is their ‘egos’. In my country they have been using different tests and cycle rates all scam supposedly depending on the likelihood of some one to ‘have covid’ overseas travellers or interstate from ‘known covid zones’ have the tests more likely to come up positive (usually run at a higher cycle rate). People that are tested from a non covid zone have it run at a lower rate. The justification is that we don’t want any potential covid cases to get through and we don’t want to many false positives up the other end to inconvenience people who don’t have it.

I am yet to meet a Norm who has a problem with this. Why would they have a problem with the vaccinated being tested differently.

Liked by 1 person

1. “Vaccinated” and “fully vaccinated” seem, somewhat sloppily, to be interchangeable in government “guidelines” for travel. I hope the Normies realise that the never-ending boosters will be required in addition to the “covid positive” insurance money fleecing operations which have accompanied these travel hurdles. Klaus and Greta certainly don’t want the Normies jumping through all the hoops – either it will all be too complex or too expensive. And the unjabbed like me won’t be going anywhere any year soon.

Liked by 1 person

1. My wife and ia have plans to visit Kenya, where they accept unvaxxed tourists. We will see how long that lasts.

Like

2. TimR says:

Wow yeah… Total confirmation bias. They start already “knowing” what they should find, so they find it. Reminds me a little of the carbon dating people wanting artifact submitters to give them an estimate of when they think it’s from.

I think the article link may be in the “MM losing it” thread. The bit on antibodies is just a small aside in a lengthy piece.

Liked by 1 person

2. I had to undergo PCR for my recent hernia surgery, spit variety instead of the swab stuck up the nose. I was worried about it, fearing quarantine and not knowing how Colorado would enforce it if I tested positive. They said there was a \$1,000 fine for violation, but I assumed having that in place was the only enforcement, that I could roam freely. They would want to contact trace me, and for that, I would tell them to fuck off. I do not take my phone with me and no one ever calls me on mobile except my wife. Yesterday the fools actually asked me to rate my experience, 1 to 10. I gave it a one. Why?, they asked. “Junk science,” I replied. Fake test. Did I plan on being vaccinated? they asked. No. Why? they asked. I replied that I did not know what was in the vial, and anyway liked being alive even in spite of their East German approach to public health.

Liked by 2 people

6. TimR says:

I have a question about PCR, as a layperson, if anyone can explain this simply… Something that’s always bugged me about it.

We’re all familiar with the sort of exponential growth Mullis describes – 2 to the power of x, and how rapidly that becomes an astronomical sum. But it’s a concept that usually breaks down quickly in Nature, as opposed to in the abstract realm of numbers. That is, physical objects or matter have actual physical constraints on their “infinite” replication… The suggestion with PCR seems to be, that operating at such a tiny scale, and using chemical reactions, somehow these constraints are not an issue. Nevertheless it seems intuitively (again, as a layperson) like there would still be constraints… Difficulties in multiplying these code sequences in such extraordinary numbers. It’s never mentioned quite how this issue is bypassed, or why it’s a non-issue…

To a certain extent it gives me pause about the whole concept, and makes me wonder if it isn’t a somewhat “fantastic” sci-fi concept… Like the atomic bomb, a potentially useful fictional “superpower” seeded into the popular imagination. Similarly to that concept, we see how it’s been fed into TV shows and pop culture – the “atomic bomb” of crime-solving, the advanced “fingerprint.” (MT, I don’t mean this as any slight on your personal experience, I leave it out of my speculation. I’m just reflecting on the concept in general.)

Maybe it’s exactly as billed. Then again, maybe it’s a process of matching and magnification, with actual utility, but has been exaggerated for effect and misdirection.

Like

1. Yeah, I have the same questions, but Jimmy Bromgard did not do the crime. He is a decent man.Ronald Tipton lived but one block away. Other factors come into play that I cannot discuss. All I can say is that Tipton was clever. I cannot say why.

Like

1. TimR says:

My parenthetical inoculation apparently didn’t take..! 😂

Like

2. alexrimmer0973 says:

No real scientist is talking about amplifying for ever. Most say 25 is too high. It’s easy to double something small 25 times. Give up on that reasoning.

My wife worked with PCR for a long time in the lab and as a court reporter (forensic scientist), it seemed to work well for that. I do have my doubts about the whole human genome project and DNA in general. I mean how often do we get the whole truth but I believe at low cycle counts (with the correct procedure) strands of what we call DNA or Rna can be multiplied and identified.

Like

1. TimR says:

Yes there seems to be something to it. Just curious if anyone has ever seen a less “black box” style of explanation.

Like

1. Precisely … the people behind the pandemic have seized on PCR as a black box. Why did these two little words not come to me as I was writing? My goal was to simplify things, to stop treating the process as some magical procedure that only few in white lab coats can understand. Black box works exactly. Sigh. Face palm.

Like

3. Hope Springs says:

There are limits to the number of cycles you can run PCR. Limits such as the number of nucleotides in the reaction. Yes, they could run out, but you tend to supply an excess to what is necessary. The enzyme will denature and stop working after a time (from memory, anyway). Factors like this absolutely limit your reaction. However, within these limits, the things as described really are happening. PCR is real. It is not fake. Yes, it can be manipulated (cycle number at which you chose to interpret your results for instance). It is very much subject to contamination. It certainly does nothing to prove that a short length of DNA (or RNA) which it identifies is the causative agent of disease. But it is not fake! Unfortunately, this blog somewhat discredits itself (to me) by continuing to suggest so. I do like this blog, and have found much here that is enjoyable and thought-provoking, however I just wanted to add my two cents here.

Like

1. Hope Springs says:

I just properly read the post–I was probably incorrect in saying the blog itself is suggesting PCR is fake…more comments discussion musings on it’s possible fakeness. Anyway, it’s really not fake, just open to manipulation and mis-use.

Like

4. lumi911 says:

TimR, this is a great comment, an awesome comment!

If you can’t properly understand Nature, sure enough you can figureitout in a Computer. Climate models, anyone? 🙂

Seeing the first reader worrying about the quality of this good blog on the grounds that the theory of DNA is questioned, indicates to me that we are on the right track! 🙂

Like

1. Hope Springs says:

I can assure you I am not worried–I make my own assessments about each thing I read, here and everywhere else. However, I do that based as much as possible on my real world experience, and in my real world experience, performing plenty of PCR myself, and also giving it a lot of thought at the time, I am personally convinced it is real. So I suppose it becomes a little tedious to have a bunch of people saying this is fake, that is fake, when I know it isn’t. It’s not interesting–I feel it is not going to lead to understanding of what it going on. And I’d like to get to the root of what is really going on in the world, and I don’t think that is accomplished by deeming things fake that aren’t fake, just because we don’t understand them. I understand the tendency–there is much that I suspect to be fake in the world. And I hate hate hate the idea of “just trust the experts.” But some things in this world are in fact real whether we understand them or not. I think I’ve said something like this before, but science is up to some really nasty stuff, and is not just all fake. It is misused and mis-represented, but it has some really unsettling capabilities, and refusing to see that is I think not a great way to get to the truth.

I was trying in at way to answer TimR’s question: In PCR you just set up a very controlled and unnatural situation with an excess of reagents. You control the inputs, keep it very clean, add only a single enzyme (the things in biology that mediate reactions), put lots of excess of the necessary components, time it just right, and voila–it works like a little factory. As a person performing PCR, you look at a reference gene sequence, that has been uploaded online by some scientist around the world (and many many have often uploaded like sequences from like sources, helping, I think, to confirm the reality of that…), choose (within certain parameters) your primers (short sections of DNA flanking your sequence of interest), and perform the reaction. You then take your product (which, yes, looks to the eye no different than it did before the reaction–a tiny plastic tube with a bit of clear liquid in it) and you add some dye which attaches to DNA, pop the liquid into a flat sheet of vegetarian jello (agarose gel), run a current through it and the DNA runs a certain distance based on its size through the gel. Concurrently you have run a little reference set of DNA bits of known lengths. You compare your product to the reference “ladder” to get the size. And if it matches your desired sequence, that is your first (most basic) confirmation that you have what you are looking for. You can also sequence the product, but this is much more complex. Do this enough times, for different target sequences and you will begin to see that it is real. There is a lot of room for wrong assumptions, mistakes, etc, but the underlying process is not fake.

Like

1. I think we might be talking past one another here, HS. No one (well, maybe a couple of commenters) is saying that PCR is not real, and I have stated repeatedly that it has done amazing things in my life, so I bear witness to its being real.

The “fake” comes in the form of layered lies, one that virologists have purified and have a complete genome for SARS-CoV-2, something not even proven to exist. One layer up, the PCR test as used world wide uses 40+ amplification cycles – I would bet in your work you use far fewer, maybe less than 20. Mullis said that results degrade after 25 cycles, and if you go to the link below you’ll find a paper by Jaafar et al that measured degradation of results at various cycles, at 30 cycles 80% reliable, at 35 cycles, less than 3% reliable. and at 40+ cycles, complete garbage.

So let’s be clear with one another, PCR is real, but as used in the Covid game, is merely being used to simulate a pandemic. As I’ve repeatedly said, the PCR test IS the virus.

Like

1. Hope Springs says:

Yes, I did take a more careful read and see that you obviously do understand PCR to be real. And I think I was just trying to answer TimR’s question about how could the huge degree of amplification be possible in the lab, though it doesn’t really seem to occur in nature. I am very much with you on the PCR test being used to prop up the pandemic, by misuse and manipulation. However, I do believe that the tests are often reading the sequence as advertised (when not blown out to a ridiculous cycle number to generate false positives), and that there is something to it. I’ve known of too many people in my personal life who seem to have a positive test correlated with sickness. I was immediately suspicious of this pandemic when I first heard of it, based on two things: PCR test as the diagnostic, and knowing that governments/media etc. very much will lie! However, I just think total dismissal of the possibility of viruses (again, I’m very much with you that they are not exactly as advertised) even being a thing is just wrong and leads to a dead end in understanding what is going on here. I guess what I’m trying to say is this: from my perspective, I can definitely smell a rat, as can you and the commenters on this blog. I just think you might be going in the wrong direction in figuring out exactly the nature of that rat…

Like

1. I’ve come so long and far in this business, but am slowly leaning towards the idea that if viruses were real, all life on earth would be imperiled. We probably would not be here. How are flocks of birds, pods of whales, herds of cattle, sheep and bison able to resist such a diabolically clever pathogen? I think the notion of a “virus” stems from a failure to understand disease, and snake oil salespeople who took over the practice of medicine more than a century ago. We are still in the medical dark ages. It is still a prison planet. If it ever ceases to be so, I do not see a particular purpose for Earth. No one would be tested.

Did you ever happen to read Watership Down? If so, you know about the colony of rabbits that has food delivered daily, that has ceased to be vital, and spends their time discussing art and philosophy, fancy overpraised art hanging on the walls of their den. . They are in essence, college professors, pompous and overfed. Planet Earth without our constant battles to remain free and independent, to avoid slavery, would be a boring place.

Like

2. Smj says:

How does real time qPCR amplify something that has never been isolated?

Like

7. So you knew your source was suspect, you went nowhere else to find evidence of truth or falsity, just ran to POM to throw it on the wall? I do not care for this. If when you return here you find the comment gone, this is why.

Like

8. TED BAKER says:

Psssst. DNA is fake.

Like

1. That I do not accept. I think there is something underlying this, but they have overblown its usefulness and their ability to make it understandable, and are now using it to enslave us. But what happened in my life with PCR, since I am nobody, could not have been choreographed. PCR released and innocent man, ID’d the guilty one, all of us nobodies.

Like

1. Smj says:

Thing is though if you believe in dna you must also believe in viruses and that kitchen blenders are legit molecular biology tools. Did they use the pcr do catch mr. pitchfork?

My argument is basically the following: Airplanes are real spaceships ain’t. Loran is real gps ain’t. Blood typing is real and dna ain’t.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

“Thing is though if you believe in dna you must also believe in viruses…”

I disagree here.

When observed in vivo under magnification, you can see how cells’ nucleus gets split in two, thus producing two functional cells from a single one. Whatever it is that is being copied, it is done successfully or we’d have no life on this Earth. Leaving the shape and visualization of DNA molecule out of discussion, we’re apparently different from each other as humans and different from other species. Considering the fact that the same aminoacids are found present in all organic life forms, there has to be a thing or two about the sequence of these constituents which make a difference between species.

Virus is a fictional entity. Germs follow their own life cycle and none of their forms is neither poisonous or contagious. Do germs have their own amino-acid sequence which determines their form and function? Probably so, as I already mentioned above.

Of course, you’re welcome to doubt (mainstream) theories about the genetic material and its integrated information. But if you’re going that far out, completely abandoning their idea, I’m wondering what do you believe in this case to be true? Any original thoughts on what makes a difference between species since all life is made from the same base material?

“Airplanes are real spaceships ain’t.”

Airplanes are space ships, buddy. It’s only your perception which defines the difference here. When an airplane flies to, say 10k feet altitude, that’s a lot of space between an airplane and ground below, right? So for an airplane to go higher, you only need more efficient engines and design. What is the difference between space defined at 10k feet and 1000 miles, from the same point of observation? Any original thoughts?

I’m not saying we’ve landed on Moon, though.

Like

1. lumi911 says:

“Considering the fact that the same aminoacids are found present in all organic life forms, there has to be a thing or two about the sequence of these constituents which make a difference between species.”

(I assume you meant DNA where you wrote aminoacids because you’re then talking about their sequence.) The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The sequence could be irrelevant. DNA could be mere nutrients, as Stefan Lanka argues. Nothing to do with genetic information. Consider that in the beginning of genetics, it was thought that proteines were the carriers of genetic information, because they are much more complex than DNA.

“for an airplane to go higher, you only need more efficient engines and design. What is the difference between space defined at 10k feet and 1000 miles, from the same point of observation?”

If you mean 10k feet or 1000 miles of vertical distance from the ground, the difference is a fundamental one between aerodynamic flight and mere gravity. SMJ is right: there are no spaceships.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

“The sequence could be irrelevant.”

Right, could be. You can’t know for sure, so you also can’t dismiss it. If you knew with certainty, you’d be probably looking at the essence of life.

Aerodynamics has less influence in less dense atmosphere. Also, gravity diminishes with the distance. So for once, you’re right.

“SMJ is right: there are no spaceships.”

Smj is definitely wrong, any airplane is a ship moving through space, hence the word space-ship. It’s your own perception or belief telling you that earth-bound space is real while more distant space is a fairytale. You have no real argument to back up your statement about outer space being unreal, but your feelings. So instead of accepting an option you’re clueless about the proportions of the observed Universe, you’ve gone into complete denial of any distance (or space defined by it) beyond that which is reachable by an albatross.

Do you guys even know why any airplane can fly? I mean the real mechanics of flight?

Like

1. Smj says:

Are you familiar with the Hershey chase experiment?

And airplanes don’t fly in space. They fly in the atmosphere of course.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

Now you’re going to redefine the word to make me believe you? Airplanes don’t fly through space, but through atmosphere? What is atmosphere if not a spherically shaped space? You’re joking, right?

Like

1. Smj says:

You’ve redefined the term airplane. Note the word ‘air’. Spaceships on the other hand operate in space. Please not the word ‘space’. Spaceships either orbit(which is not flying, orbiting is falling) or they propel themselves in a vacuum which is another can of worms.

Like

2. lumi911 says:

Let’s not get into wordplays … Space is commonly understood as outer space, beyond the atmosphere, the space between celestial bodies. Airplances fly in the troposphere and stratosphere, mosttly lower stratosphere, but not beyond, because they can’t. SMJ uses the commonly accepted definitions of the terms, and you, for some reason, don’t.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

OK, so now we’re on the same page about the meaning of space as a measure of distance from Earth’s viewpoint… What makes you think travel through space with no atmosphere is not feasible? Lack of dense gas mixture around? Or is it that empty claim of zero pressure (so-called vacuum) which somehow annihilates Newton’s 3rd law of motion?

Like

2. lumi911 says:

I didn’t say travel through space is not feasible. I said there are no spaceships. We haven’t built any yet, that’s why. Unmanned space probes travelling to Mars, Venus and the Moon (but no landings) – that is all the achievements of mankind, in my opinion. And I don’t want to diminish it. These achievements are phantastic. Even satellites are.

The topic is interesting, but I’d now like to keep the discussion focussed on PCR and DNA. Thanks.

Like

2. lumi911 says:

Ehm … you msut be confusing me with someone else. I certainly don’t claim outer space is unreal, or a hoax. Quite the opposite. IIRC, you posted a great comment the other day to debunk the laughable claim of a geocentric universe. Your comment had a definition of outer space as distance that was perfectly clear and made perfect sense. I don’t think we’re in disagreement on that point.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

What is it that convinced you about the impossibility of flying through more distant space? What is the reason for such belief?

Like

1. lumi911 says:

See above at 10:28 AM, a minute ago.

Like

1. MiniMe says:

It wasn’t me who started this “spaceships aren’t real” thing. I called Smj out on it and got two replies instead. I agree, this thread is about PCR, so let’s stay on the topic.

Like

2. Smj says:

Mini you can go to the fakeologist discord if you want to discuss uniform circular motion and/or the last magician’s mechanics in a vacuum with me. I didn’t want to sully this thread.

Like

3. Smj says:

Any thoughts on the hershey chase experiment?

Like

2. Ayokera Kimura says:

Difference is that there’s no air pressure at 1000 miles, according to what ms science says, and you cannot get propulsion by letting a gas expanding at zero external pressure.

Like

1. lumi911 says:

See reply below at 6:23 AM, a couple minutes ago.

Like

2. Rastus R. Rasputin says:

Not to mention flight control surfaces (ailerons, rudder, etc) are useless without atmosphere.

Flight control surfaces need something (air pressure at speed) to push off of…just as you indicate with jet engine. 🙂

Imaging trying to swim using arms and legs in a vacuum. One will not move an inch.

Like

2. They used PCR in its intended use, comparison of samples from the individual and the crime scene, and picked a man sitting in a trailer in White Sulphur Springs, Montana as the pitchfork guy. He was arrested and charged. After that his ex wife chimed in that they had lived in our neighborhood in Billings at the time, so I asked a friend to check old phone books at the local library, and sure enough, he had lived one block away. At the time of the crime, police had no evidence, none, no fingerprints, nothing. It was a horrendous crime that had to be solved for sake of public confidence, so they framed an innocent kid, which 15 years later made the kid a millionaire. Pitchfork would have walked free except for submission of DNA sample as part of a plea bargain for drug charges. It was sent to the national database, and lit up a match. You cannot tell me this is happenstance or based on fairy dust. Something real is going on.

Liked by 1 person

1. In the end, pitchfork walked free, statute of limitations. My only solace is that everyone who knows him knows what he did, a scarlet R on his forehead. He lives in utter shame. In prison, he’d have taken a few beatings, might not have survived long. Outside, he is alone and shunned. This is my hope, anyway.

Like

1. Smj says:

I was referring to Colin Pitchfork and sir Alec Jeffereys. I don’t think jeffereys used pcr to find mr. pitchfork.

Like

2. lumi911 says:

Mark, but how do you know the PCR and DNA database match were the actual means by which they identified the culprit (assumed he really is the one)? As you wrote four days ago on this page, PCR is a black box operated by white coats. There is zero transparency and zero verifiability. It’s like asking an Oracle, incidentally the leading database company. They could have found certain corroborating circumstantial evidence pointing to the bad guy without telling anyone about it, and then simply present the DNA argument to the public to promote the PCR DNA method, and make the innocent guy a millionaire to underline how it was all a great injustice and how lucky we are as a society to have such amazing tech to allow restoration of Justice with scientific accuracy.

The BGH in Germany (Supreme Court), without questioning the science, has ruled that a matching “genetic fingerprint” is only circumstantial evidence because it’s only a biostatistic probability.

(“ein solches Gutachten enthält lediglich eine abstrakte, biostatistisch begründete Aussage über die Häufigkeit der festgestellten Merkmale bzw. Merkmalskombinationen innerhalb einer bestimmten Population”)

The BGH also criticized the black box character of the test and ruled the test providers need to make the basis for the calculations of probability fully transparent in order for a third party (the Court) to verify its plausibility.

https://www.strafrecht-bundesweit.de/strafrecht-blog/bgh-dna-spuren-sind-lediglich-ein-indiz/

Like

1. Valid point. I base my conclusions on my innocent involvement and the fact that in 1987 no one in Billings Montana, a hot prairie town with no military bases and a place of no significant importance, could have foreseen PCR. The perp, though very drunk, probably high on meth, was so well planned out that he left no fingerprints. There was no (known) connection between him and my family. Police had nothing to go on, nothing. It appeared a random crime. (In retrospect, ” random” made no sense, by the way. The guy knew the layout of the house. I was so horribly naive!)

In that scenario, you want to inject intrigue? I suppose it is possible. I suppose someone doing conviction database scans in 2001 said “this one might be useful, and oh, by the way, maybe 12 years down the road, since we know who did it, we’ll out the real bastard.

Occam says no. But just this thread has humbled me. Not that I needed it. Or wanted it. Events played out before my eyes, I encountered many people, some sinister, most just stupid and bungling, like me.

Like

2. lumi911 says:

The question is what exactly you mean by DNA. Do you mean the various mononucleotides that are linked into polynucleotides, forming strands?

Or do you mean the length that these strands can grop up to? Tens or hundreds of thousands of bases, called kilobases? Or even “gene-length” megabases? How is their length measured, by the way, using kitchen blenders? Is the kitchen blender an excuse for never encountering really long strands when “sequencing” DNA?

Or do you mean the phantastic arrangement of double-strands as double-helices? That have become the icon and idol and symbol of it all? The easily digestable and recognizable visual manifestation of genetics?

Or do you mean the interpretation that the “information” which the sequence of bases is purported to represent is meaningful for building of “gene products”, mostly proteines?

The entire DNA story is based on an analogy to computer data as in bits and bytes. So let me spin this analogy further and ask a question. If, as claimed, DNA is information (and not just random variation), if it is the Signal of Life (and not just the Noise of Nothing Meaningful): then where and what is the processor that interprets that data? Because, you see, data has no meaning unless there is a processor.

Do you think they will come up with as much as a processor in the organism (human, animal, vegetable) and explain its inner workings? Or would it fit the bill to enthrone Science the All-Knowing and Almighty as the Infallible Interpreter of DNA?

Like

1. Points well made, all beyond my ability to explain. It’s a good thread. I hope others chime in to answer you.

Like

9. Ayokera Kimura says:

“Or is it that empty claim of zero pressure (so-called vacuum) which somehow annihilates Newton’s 3rd law of motion?”

Newton’s 3rd law of motion actually disproves the notion of propulsion from a free expanding gas.

Like

1. lumi911 says:

This seems to be in reply to MiniMe yesterday at 9:54 AM (at maximum comment nesting depth). Please see niels nielsen’s answer, on the paged linked below, to the question of how propulsion works (regardless of whether in space or in the atmosphere). It’s very clear. It’s got to do with the engine (or pressure tank) and the pressure and the nozzle.

Vacuum thrust, and how it is proven
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/442811

Like

1. Ayokera Kimura says:

“It’s very clear”
actually it’s a mess, and most importantly, it’s bogus.

“That gas presses hard against the walls of the rocket motor, generating high pressure inside it, but the motor has a nozzle at one end of it through which the gases can escape.”

I hope we can see how a rocket is basically nothing more than a solid container, with a gas inside, and a valve.
They say you can propel the container by opening the valve and letting the gas escape (expand), irrespective of the external pressure (resistance).
Their explanation is
“That high pressure accelerates the gases to great velocity in the nozzle.”

Unfortunately that’s completely wrong.
A gas is a bunch of loose unconnected molecules buzzing around at some velocity at any instant, therefore inside the container each gas molecule has its own velocity before you open the valve. Opening the valve and letting the molecules exit the container cannot change their previous velocity, unless they have something to interact with. Without interactions their inertia before and after the expansion must stay constant (Newton 1).
At zero external pressure there’s nothing for the molecules to interact with, so there’s no way their velocity can change during the expansion.
Since acceleration is a change in velocity, no acceleration is involved in the free expansion of gas molecules, and since force=mass x acceleration (Newton 2), there is no force involved either.
If the “action” of letting a gas expand without interactions releases zero force, then the same amount of force must be released in the “reaction” (Newton 3).
According to Newton 1,2,3 the container is not going to move.

Like

1. lumi911 says:

You may believe what you want. But I’m not willing to discuss what I see as a distraction from the topic of this page. I’ve done so before and it was a mistake.

Like

1. Rastus R. Rasputin says:

If that were the (simple) case, I can hook you up with some very nice Mormon ” Missionaries”…

Because that is ALL they sell…”belief” and more importantly, ‘faith’.

Isn’t that what modern Doctors have become? Modern day Wich Doctors operating on “faith’?

The priesthood class of Doctors…I know what I’m talking about. My sister is God incarnate.

Like

10. lumi911 says:

Mark, I read the page on Jimmy Ray Bromgard at Innocence Project, the first link in your article. It appears, as pointed out, that Bromgard’s defense was woefully inadequate and there was no evidence to speak of. In dubito pro reo was not applied. I conclude the trial was rigged.

See the case against Jens Söring for another example of how a trial has been rigged in the USA. As with the Bromgard case, there was considerable public interest. Söring was totally innocent of the double murder of the wealthy Haysom parents, which was probably committed by the daughter Elizabeth Haysom and her drug buddies, something that didn’t fit in with the self-portrayal of the American upper class, to put it mildly. Söring spent 33 years in US prison and was then released without acquittal, compensation or anything of the sort. The lesson I learnt from reading about the Söring trial is that a trial in the USA can be totally rigged, with the leading police officer, the prosecutor and the judge fully on board with it and receiving promotion for compliance. This is a rotten system.

I cannot access the content of the second page you linked to (451, unavailable for legal reasons, because I’m in Europe).

To me, the Bromgard case is not proof of the super hero DNA PCR science, but of a rotten criminal justice system. The true perp may or may not have been identified by other means, with DNA/PCR black box magic presented as the Savior of Justice to sell it to the ever unsuspecting public.

Like

1. The second link was to the arrest of Ronald Tipton, the guy who did it. He lived but one block from us. He was set free by the US Supreme Court, citing Statute of Limitations. Our system of justice imprisoned an innocent man for fifteen years, and let a guilty man walk.

As to DNA evidence, it can be and is misused, and portrayed as a gold standard on TV. With Bromgard, it did not have to be precise, as it merely said he did not do the crime. Ronald Tipton was a loser living in a trailer in White Sulphur Springs, Montana, arrested on drug charges. He plea bargained, part of the deal that he would submit his DNA … it was run through the national database and hit on the crime against our family. Thankfully the evidence had been preserved, as they usually routinely trash evidence. I have no doubt that Tipton did it, and that PCR exposed him.

Like

1. XS says:

If you will allow me to be professory….

The PCR now being used to search for DNA of a (non-existent) virus is realtime-PCR or quantitative-PCR (qPCR).

That’s not quite the same as a PCR-based test as used in forensics. In this research PCR is used to accumulate target DNA to have enough to search for a mach. This search is done after the PCR. PCR itself is not designed to look for a mach.

When the results are not completely clear it is the laboratory technician who must then determine whether a match has been adequately demonstrated. That’s where matching becomes arbitrary and unreliable.

With the realtime-PCR method, DNA can be detected during the PCR. Labeled probes bind to a specific piece of DNA and are undetectable when the probe is intact. Once the polymerase chain reaction is initiated, the probe is degraded and the label becomes visible. Fluorescent labels will emit light of a specific wavelength.

The more DNA is converted, the stronger the signal. That signal is plotted graphically against the threshold cycle (threshold, denoted by Ct value), the cycle in the PCR process at which the excitation of light released from the label exceeds the detection limit.

Like

1. XS says:

I’m sure that when you run enough (to much) cycles qPCR will find something but that does not mean it found the target DNA.

And even if the target DNA is found, that doesn’t mean it’s from a virus.

And if it does come from a virus, assuming viruses actually exist, that doesn’t mean it’s from a current infection.

Using qPCR to detect an infection is a layer cake of steaming BS.

Like