This is great. Very good that you could do this discussion with Sasha. I commented separately on her Substack. Encouraging that she seemed to be taking on board new information about how virologists do their isolation of ‘viruses’ and the problems with this so that was really positive. My sense was that she had maybe not fully appreciated all of this before. Plus you covered a very important aspect of unreliability of the PCR test that I was not aware of. There is no way this technique should ever have been used for mass testing.
It's kind of you to make your contents available for everyone.
As new plandemics are now in the works, it cannot be overemphasized that the test is a fraud. It is humiliating, poking in the nose goes in as close as an inch to the fear center (making the subjects more docile), and the paper ones contained at least two carcinogens and some graphene seems to have also been found in them (obviously, in hydrogel, in order to be delivered into the human body).
It was clear already three years ago that the PCR "test" was toxic and fraudulent. Its very inventor, who conveniently passed away in 2019, emphasized that it was no good for diagnosis; its objective was to take DNA samples, which it did, while apparently also "vaccinating" people with a varying selection of the same toxins as various batches of the convid injections contained...
Yet it all started with the muzzles, and in March, 2020, I kept telling people in vain that the "two weeks" were only a start, and worse was coming. Who wudda thunk?
Ray, with all due respect, your comments are terribly INACCURATE that you've made here and numerous times on your own substack with respect to Kary Mullis and the comments he made back during our old "AIDS" dissident movement! I met Mullis a FEW times back in the 1990s. I was actually THERE when Mullis made those comments. I was actually PRESENT when Mullis said those things because I helped to produce the seminar way back in 1997 where he SAID those things! Mullis was a FRAUD as a dissident (and probably a FRAUD as a "scientist", too)... He was more of a "gatekeeper" and a "limited hangout" type dissident while he was active in our old "AIDS" dissident movement.
In your profile here on substack you state that you have "Doctoral degrees in Linguistics and in Communication". If that is true then you of all people should be able to distinguish the difference between saying that PCR is "no good for diagnosis" which I assure you MULLIS NEVER SAID and what he actually said which was "it doesn't tell you that you're sick"...
Furthermore, those remarks that Mullis DID make were ONLY in regards to PCR testing for so-called "HIV", but nevertheless Mullis also FIRMLY believed that "his invention" PCR can INDEED detect "HIV" and that "HIV" exists.....
...and please read the LINKS that appear in the links I've provided above and LISTEN to the recordings I've made that are also accessible at those links above....
At the same time, I can easily imagine that Mullis was a player, but I must thoroughly read your article (and corresponding materials) before having an opinion.
I hope to continue our discussion in your comment section after your article soon.
Mullis is not the epicenter of the current problems with "Madicine."
AIDS itself is an invented illness, and the cure is deadly (AZT), and it makes no difference who say what about it; it's a fact.
The PCR test was designed for taking DNA samples, which it did. It was never meant for diagnosis, but even if it had been, how can you diagnose a "virus" that has never been isolated? Moreover, no virus has ever been isolated, although tiny particles do exist, but they have never been proven to cause illness. In the 1918 "pandemic", volunteers didn't get "infected" even after the sick coughed on them or received blood from them, questioning the very foundations of epidemiology (and Germ Theory).
However, my point about Mullis IS ALSO IMPORTANT! You really SHOULD RE-EVALUATE your opinion of Mullis! Unfortunately, Mullis STILL matters today! You yourself have been spreading erroneous opinions of Mullis for the last couple years! This IS a problem because MANY people -certainly not just you- are still hero worshipping Mullis. It's important to note that many people are also frustratingly unable or UNWILLING to see the "players" amongst the TRUE heroes in these PRESENT-DAY truther movements.
Obviously, I, too, was one such person myself back during our old "AIDS" dissident movement, based on my own ancient history of supporting Mullis. Nevertheless, these are issues that ARE INDEED IMPORTANT in today's truther movements because there are STILL "players" amongst all of us in our movements today. It may surprise and sadden some people to hear it, but unfortunately there ARE new "snakes" in our "garden" so to speak- who are once again at work and who have ulterior motives and hidden agendas in THESE movements!
-if you had it up the nose, first that makes no sense since the "virus" is supposed to be so contagious it should be in one's spit. Next, never put anything up your nose besides your pinky to pull out a bugger, the back of the nose is your brain and disinfectant on swabs and fibers can and will get into your cribiform plate and brain. That is a good way to feel sick and get a fake diagnosis of Covid. Some vids show nasty looking stuff on swabs, not sure what they really are.
-If you just had a spit test, it is meaningless as no virus has ever been found, and some people say your DNA sequence is getting in to a data base maybe sent to China. Either way, there is no meaning to it.
I have my suspicions about 23andme in that they are deeply connected to google and google can figure out your relationships from their data gathering and so fool you that dna testing found it.
Ancestry can also do a lot by just comparing relationships that lots of folks have already uploaded there.
In the world of genetics, a field that has long been considered the epitome of scientific precision, a sobering reality is increasingly emerging. Our elaborations at "NEXT LEVEL - Wissen neu gedacht" have already shown that the basic assumptions of genetics have long been outdated and that DNA tests are based on questionable interpretations...." Read in full here; https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/dna-analyse-romeo
Then there's the article "DNA Fingerprinting" by 0mar jordan
I still have issues with Jordan’s work after the pathetic takedown of Mullis using you can’t see it therefore it doesn’t exist. Not saying that Mullins was bonafide just that the takedown left me extremely wanting.
Even if one considers the existence of viruses as possible, when comparing the results between experiment and control, one must conclude that under no circumstances is it possible to make clearly delineated judgements that one result is sufficient as evidence for the virus existence claim. Especially not if this vague basis is supposed to justify the most serious encroachments on human rights.
What should come next if we accept such pseudoscience as fact? Do we flip a coin to know which result is the right one?
This is the best way to report results. Decentralized. Without orchestrating and boycotting by the "elite".
One example for open source in bioinformatics. You can upload your data and protocols. I think "zenodo" is for laboratory protocols if I remember correctly.
"Galaxy is an open source, web-based platform for data intensive biomedical research. Galaxy's goal is to be accessible, reproducible, and transparent."
Jamie, you controlled for something you did not expect, you proved Sasha can be warm, logical, and quite likable proving her brain cells are normal (to the surprise of many). This controls for her previous strange and rude comments on my ss, stating that Covid was due to a chemical agent:
and her arguments adnauseam with Massey and others. We can only make guesses what makes her tone change, she is a member of Team Enigma (members mainly involved with 4IR and Transhumanism projects), and had the honor as we did of being in the "flies on shit gang".
It seems like they are definitely employing a lot of tricks there (not just in PCR). So towards the end where you highlighted the lack of robustness of genomic tests (e.g. can't tell the difference between a human and a dog), do you think they're not ACTUALLY sequencing? Rather they're using restriction enzyme maps as a proxy or something?
Latypova appears to have changed tack in recent months, she's gone from writing;... "no virus isolated", is absolutely stupid idiotic bullshit that leads straight into a dead end" And; "the "no virus" cult diverts the conversation into a dumb fake binary argument." And; "viruses exist as a cellular communications protocol and are thus vital to normal functioning of the organism." To writing the following in a conversation with Substacker & 0ff Guardian commentor Rhys (I've worked with viruses) Jagger;
Rhys Jaggar Jul 11; "As I understand it Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza viruses were originally isolated and characterised in detail using two steps:
1. Amplify the number of virus particles".....waffle, waffle, waffle....."Is all that work lies?"
Sasha Latypova Jul 11 Author; "Yes, all of that work was lies, deceptive language (isolation is putting a bunch of materials together and growing new things), and other fraud.'
Rhys Jaggar Jul 12; "Interesting....you must have done an awful, awful lot of reading to reach that conclusion, what with all your other work, substack postings, conference calls, travelling etc etc. I don't believe you have research virology on your CV, after all.....You'll be telling me next that a guy who did his PhD on the bench opposite mine spent three years falsifying data on absolutely specific site-directed-mutagenesis"...waffle, waffle, waffle..."Do you claim that Feline Leukemia Virus does not exist????"
Sasha Latypova Author; "I have in fact researched virology. It does not take a lot of time. Once you have seen one fake, you have seen them all. I don't know what specifically the guy next to you did, but here is the deal: "isolation" in virology is a bullshit fake. We all know that. So if he did the "isolation" and proceeded from there, everything he did was fake. He believed he was doing science, and everyone around him played into that fake theater, and I am sure, they believed it too. However, that does not make it any less fake. I am sorry. You can make a bunch of synthetic chemical soup. You can "sequence" it. But it does not make that bullshit chemical soup part of nature. It remains a bullshit chemical soup, sometimes poisonous, mostly just banal and ridiculous."
Exactly what I was thinking Andy, you beat me to it. Her and Yeadon are both in Team Enigma, both changed their tone on viruses after all the shots were given. Standard "after the bombs have dropped" COINTELPRO.
If memory serves we've discussed the "contained in a conundrum & wrapped in a puzzle" Team Enigma previously.
Taking positives from Jamies interview & the comment of Latypova's I've C&P'd, hopefully the fake science of the allopathic based system is been exposed to more & more people.
"Dr Mike Yeadon" states he's going to be interviewed by English Alt. Media outlet, The U.K. column, who have refused point blank to address "no virus found" See his comments here;.. https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-positive-control/comments ...where Rhyss Jagger also appears!
This alarmed me, as in the past I have relied on sequencing results in my work as a research scientist. I am not a lab scientist and have not performed sequencing myself, but have worked with others who do perform it.
So I spent a few hours searching Google Scholar to check on your claim and implication. I found many blind evaluations of different types of sequencing. I summarize them below. The list is not comprehensive by any means or necessarily representative. The results of these studies seem to show that sequencing generally is a sound method, especially when the species or range of species represented in the species are known by the testers. That is a reasonable condition for most applications of sequencing. I didn't find a study that was exactly the same scenario as the one you mentioned, but I found one that was pretty close (specimens of different fish species). There might be others, as my search was fairly superficial.
Sequencing targets, scope, and methods varied across these studies. In some of the studies I list, the researchers focused on reliability of sequencing results. Reliability of sequencing isn't exactly the same as validity, but it does show whether sequencing results were random, arbitrary, or possibly faked, as each of these scenarios would presumably show different results from repeated tests of the same specimen by the same or different labs. The first study below is the fish study that approximates the scenario you mentioned. I ordered the rest by year of publication.
2021 98% accurate species identification of 18 commercially important fish species based on sequencing of two mtDNA polymorphic regions as tested in 3 labs in two countries (labs knew they were testing fish DNA):
2000 fairly good discrimination of singe-person vs. multi-person injection drug use of 34 syringes based on sequencing of a single STR (lab knew it was testing human DNA):
2011 perfect accuracy in identifying 7 species (including one hybrid) of catfish from sequencing of barcodes comprising 651 base pairs (labs knew they were testing catfish DNA):
2014 perfect accuracy in sex identification from sequencing (or attempting to sequence) a single gene on the Y chromosome in 48 human specimens (labs knew they were testing human DNA):
2018 perfect species (pig vs. chicken) identification via PCR sequencing in labs in several countries (labs knew both species could be represented, and followed testing protocols that covered these species):
2018 good accuracy and reliability in identifying type of bodily fluid (blood, semen, saliva, menstrual blood, vaginal secretion) from sequencing 33 mRNA markers in 16 human individuals by two independent labs (labs knew they were testing human specimens):
2020 nearly perfect identification of hair, eye, and skin color and continental/continental region of origin for 17 individuals from sequencing of 204 human autosomal and 120 Y chromosomal SNPs (labs knew they were testing male human DNA):
Mixtures of DNA seem to be the challenge in sequencing. The last study of using autosomal human DNA to identify distant or non-immediate relatives is analogous to this type of problem. In this case, autosomal DNA reflects the genetic jumbling that increases exponentially with each generation, making genealogical ancestry beyond close relatives difficult to discern.
All tools have limits within which they can be used meaningfully. People can use tools in ways beyond these limits and make claims that are unfounded, and still others can lie about using a tool when they haven't. The cases of crazy results that you and Sasha discussed might fall into one of these categories, and seem to highlight the limits of meaningful use of genetic sequencing, or at least some very narrow commercialized versions of it.
Indeed, many critics of virology contend justifiably that sequencing of material (such as hypothesized viruses) that has not been isolated is meaningless and susceptible to bias and manipulation. In other words, for a meaningful sequencing result, the tester must first know with confidence what is being sequenced. So when customers send in specimens from one species to commercial testers who are expecting another, it should not be surprising that the results could be nonsense. This outcome underlines the meaningful limits of sequencing, as defined by testers, or the particular brand of it used in a given case.
I share your concerns about what PCR and genetic sequencing results really represent in virology and biology generally. I am considering arguments and evidence that DNA may not exist and that sequencing may not be what its proponents say it is. (I have yet to read the sources that Rod Knoll listed in a comment here.) However, many critics of virology offer simplistic, glib explanations that do not account for much or most of the evidence, including results such as those I summarized above. I am trying to account for sequencing and other results on bloodborne virus transmission without invoking exogenous viruses (including some studies in which there was no possible way foul play could have produced the key results). That is, if these viruses don't exist, most research on them has to rely on biological, chemical, and/or perceptual mechanisms that don't require most researchers to engage knowingly in deception or manipulation, but still produce results at least somewhat consistent with the idea of viral transmission.
I support the mission of your project. Transparency, replication, and uncensored debate are all critical in science, and I look forward to learning what you find in your studies.
Hi Devon, Thanks for putting in the effort to have a look for yourself.
I would say that all of the studies you cite are not benchmark tests or could be described as a blinded study for one large reason: the outcomes are arbitary... that is the point.. Are they actually identifying different "variants" of species of fish? It is circular reasoned... they are accurate because they accept rhe aribtary accuracy as an identification....
The reason why you will never find a study exactly like the one I describe is because the outcomes are VERY obvious.. if they couldn't identify between a horse and a fish it'd be bloody obvious...
The Input variables determine the outcomes... you have to programme, for instance illumina with the exact type of Flow Cell, Exact type of Indexing and the exact type of primers for the thing you are LOOKING for... without knowing roughly what you are looking for it is random guesswork....
There are thousands of logical problems with sequencing that I will be highlighting in the project with our data and experimentation which is currently undergoing.
It seems to me that in developing a test for anything -- not just in biology but in any context -- the developers must know what they are looking for and what its distinguishing characteristics are. Otherwise, they won't be able to recognize it when they (or the test) encounter it. Is there a test that can identify things that its developers have never encountered before?
The studies I listed are blinded studies. Labs did not know the particular outcomes of interest (species, SNPs, STRs, alleles, etc.) when they received and tested specimens.
You wrote "Are they actually identifying different "variants" of species of fish? It is circular reasoned... they are accurate because they accept rhe aribtary accuracy as an identification...."
As an example, let's focus on the 2021 study of identifying the species of fish specimens (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996920310607#s0010). The title of this article is "Validation of FASTFISH-ID: A new commercial platform for rapid fish species authentication via universal closed-tube barcoding" by Naaum and colleagues and it was published in Food Research International. The authors developed and validated a new system based on PCR and limited sequencing for identifying the species of a fish specimen. They intend the system to be used for monitoring the exploitation of endangered/threatened species of fish and checking for the mislabeling of fish products for consumption.
To assess their system, Naaum and colleagues bought fish fillets from stores in Boston, USA, and selected fish fillets from their own collection that had not been used in developing their genetic reference library. They prepared samples of the different species and sent the specimens and the new system to two labs in the UK and one in Canada. Those labs were to follow the protocols of the new system and compare their results with the reference library. After the labs had made their estimates of the specimens' species, the authors unblinded everything and assessed the accuracy of the labs' estimates. They found the accuracy rate was about 98%.
Where is the circular reasoning here? If the authors did not validate their system correctly, how should they have done it?
They knew that these were all fish and they gave them an exact very small number of just 18 to choose from.
The very fact that the flesh of these fish is easily identifiable by eye alone kind of makes this a bit pointless... I mean telling the difference between salmon and cod could be done by a child.
But interms of actual "dna" sequencing... they have chosen these fish and made primers specifically to LOOK for the chosen fish then made the labs use these primers... it doesn't mean they are finding genetics and identifying them.. it could be any type of property they are picking up on..
Of course I am not stating that these tests are completely random... they get some semblance of feedback for instance largely telling if people are sick or not with PCR... My hunch is it is very dilution based, the sheer viscosity probably combined with pH and polarity... they quite sensitive cameras used to pick up the fluorescence and I think if you designed primers the right way and calibrated it I have no doubt it can be used to differentiate between fish.... that you could tell apart with the naked eye anyway.
Your description of what Naaum and colleagues did is not accurate.
As I noted initially, the labs knew all specimens were fish. It is not a trivial task to identify a fish species. Fish are a superclass within the animal kingdom that, per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), "... account for more than half of vertebrate species. As of 2016, there are over 32,000 described species of bony fish, over 1,100 species of cartilaginous fish, and over 100 hagfish and lampreys." People harvest over 101 wild and cultivated species commercially in substantial amounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercially_important_fish_species).
The authors did not give the labs a list of fish to choose from. The labs uploaded their sequencing results to a site that ran an algorithm on those results, comparing them to a reference genetic library. The algorithm determined the species estimate. The labs seemingly did not know how many or which species were included in the specimens they received nor how many specimens of each species there were (the numbers of specimens varied across species and labs; see Table 1).
It seems that it would be impossible for even the most experienced fish expert to identify any species from specimens the labs received. The samples sent to the testing labs were presumed DNA specimens, not simple fish flesh. The authors described how they prepared them:
"DNA extractions for FASTFISH-ID were carried out according to the method described by Tagliania et al. (2016). Briefly, a 1–2 mm3 fish sample was collected with a sterile biopsy tool (EMS-Core Sampling Tool, Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) or another suitable instrument, and then added to 100 µL 200 mM KOH, 2 mM EDTA pH 8.0, 0.2% Triton X-100 in 0.2 ml PCR tubes (Genesee Scientific, San Diego, CA). The sample was then incubated at 85 °C for 15 min in a PCR thermocycler (iCycler, Biorad, Hercules, CA) and then added to 300 µL 100 mM Tris-Cl pH 8.0 in a 1.5 ml low-adhesion Eppendorf tube (USA Scientific, Ocala, FL). Two microliters (2 µL) of the resulting lysate were used for PCR amplification as described below. ... DNA samples for the validation study extracted and tested as above [my note: as described in the preceding quoted sentences] were shipped blinded to the participating laboratories (UK1, UK2, CA) dried on punches made from Whatman No 1 filter paper (VWR, Radnor, PA). Briefly, 40 µL KOH-prepared fish DNA were dried overnight on 4 mm circles made with a conventional office holepunch. Filters were shipped in 0.2 ml PCR tubes marked only with sample numbers." Despite the chemical and heat treatments of these tiny specimens, the blind assessments still identified the specific species quite effectively.
The FastFish system is a commercial system (https://www.fastspecies-id.com/home-1) marketed as being able to identify any species of fish (https://www.fastspecies-id.com/competitive-advantage). The system involves comparing test results with a reference library that includes, in part, the Reference Standard Sequence Library for Seafood Identification (https://www.fda.gov/food/reference-databases-and-monitoring-programs-food/reference-standard-sequence-library-seafood-identification-rssl). This library itself includes "... more than 1040 seafood specimens of Vertebrates (labeled V) and Invertebrates (labeled I, or I(C) for crustaceans)." The FastFish manufacturer claims that the system can identify fish species that the system developers themselves never sequenced. Furthermore, the FastFish manufacturer is legally liable for its product, and if it were not highly accurate, the manufacturer might be vulnerable to lawsuits from wronged customers who suffered damages as a result of using the system.
The two primers Naaum and colleagues used focused on two particular genetic regions that exhibit high inter-species variation among fish. The primers themselves are not species-specific. They did not make, as you wrote "... primers specifically to LOOK for the chosen fish" they included in the blind validation. The system determines (estimates) the species based on the sequences that bind with the primers and comparisons of the sequences with the reference library.
It is logically possible that the system Naaum and colleagues evaluated is distinguishing species very accurately on the basis of something other than genetic material. Whatever that something else could be, though, it enables highly accurate species identification in blind evaluations, acting as if it were genetic material.
This study is just one of likely hundreds or more such blind validations of genetic sequencing.
Where is the circular reasoning in Naaum and colleagues' evaluation? If they did not validate their system correctly, how should they have done it?
Is there a test, in any field, that can identify things that its developers have never encountered before or are not expecting the test to identify?
This is great. Very good that you could do this discussion with Sasha. I commented separately on her Substack. Encouraging that she seemed to be taking on board new information about how virologists do their isolation of ‘viruses’ and the problems with this so that was really positive. My sense was that she had maybe not fully appreciated all of this before. Plus you covered a very important aspect of unreliability of the PCR test that I was not aware of. There is no way this technique should ever have been used for mass testing.
Thank you for your kind words Howard.
Jamie,
It's kind of you to make your contents available for everyone.
As new plandemics are now in the works, it cannot be overemphasized that the test is a fraud. It is humiliating, poking in the nose goes in as close as an inch to the fear center (making the subjects more docile), and the paper ones contained at least two carcinogens and some graphene seems to have also been found in them (obviously, in hydrogel, in order to be delivered into the human body).
It was clear already three years ago that the PCR "test" was toxic and fraudulent. Its very inventor, who conveniently passed away in 2019, emphasized that it was no good for diagnosis; its objective was to take DNA samples, which it did, while apparently also "vaccinating" people with a varying selection of the same toxins as various batches of the convid injections contained...
Yet it all started with the muzzles, and in March, 2020, I kept telling people in vain that the "two weeks" were only a start, and worse was coming. Who wudda thunk?
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-wudda-thunk
Ray, with all due respect, your comments are terribly INACCURATE that you've made here and numerous times on your own substack with respect to Kary Mullis and the comments he made back during our old "AIDS" dissident movement! I met Mullis a FEW times back in the 1990s. I was actually THERE when Mullis made those comments. I was actually PRESENT when Mullis said those things because I helped to produce the seminar way back in 1997 where he SAID those things! Mullis was a FRAUD as a dissident (and probably a FRAUD as a "scientist", too)... He was more of a "gatekeeper" and a "limited hangout" type dissident while he was active in our old "AIDS" dissident movement.
In your profile here on substack you state that you have "Doctoral degrees in Linguistics and in Communication". If that is true then you of all people should be able to distinguish the difference between saying that PCR is "no good for diagnosis" which I assure you MULLIS NEVER SAID and what he actually said which was "it doesn't tell you that you're sick"...
Furthermore, those remarks that Mullis DID make were ONLY in regards to PCR testing for so-called "HIV", but nevertheless Mullis also FIRMLY believed that "his invention" PCR can INDEED detect "HIV" and that "HIV" exists.....
Please TAKE THE TIME now to review my analyses of Mullis which are based on Mullis' WRITTEN work as well as the things he said when he was "posing" as a so-called "AIDS" dissident. See: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc
...and please read the LINKS that appear in the links I've provided above and LISTEN to the recordings I've made that are also accessible at those links above....
At the same time, I can easily imagine that Mullis was a player, but I must thoroughly read your article (and corresponding materials) before having an opinion.
I hope to continue our discussion in your comment section after your article soon.
Mullis is not the epicenter of the current problems with "Madicine."
AIDS itself is an invented illness, and the cure is deadly (AZT), and it makes no difference who say what about it; it's a fact.
The PCR test was designed for taking DNA samples, which it did. It was never meant for diagnosis, but even if it had been, how can you diagnose a "virus" that has never been isolated? Moreover, no virus has ever been isolated, although tiny particles do exist, but they have never been proven to cause illness. In the 1918 "pandemic", volunteers didn't get "infected" even after the sick coughed on them or received blood from them, questioning the very foundations of epidemiology (and Germ Theory).
Ok, that's all very well, but we can beg to differ about some of those issues. The "design" and purported "origin" of the PCR test need to be critically examined (See: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/ ) and IMHO, so should all such claims surrounding so-called "DNA" itself (see: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ ). I also certainly would question your insistence that it's a "fact" that "it makes no difference who say what about ('AIDS')", and that is based on my many years of experience as a longtime participant in our dear old, now-deceased "AIDS dissident movement" (see my "bio": https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about ).
However, my point about Mullis IS ALSO IMPORTANT! You really SHOULD RE-EVALUATE your opinion of Mullis! Unfortunately, Mullis STILL matters today! You yourself have been spreading erroneous opinions of Mullis for the last couple years! This IS a problem because MANY people -certainly not just you- are still hero worshipping Mullis. It's important to note that many people are also frustratingly unable or UNWILLING to see the "players" amongst the TRUE heroes in these PRESENT-DAY truther movements.
Obviously, I, too, was one such person myself back during our old "AIDS" dissident movement, based on my own ancient history of supporting Mullis. Nevertheless, these are issues that ARE INDEED IMPORTANT in today's truther movements because there are STILL "players" amongst all of us in our movements today. It may surprise and sadden some people to hear it, but unfortunately there ARE new "snakes" in our "garden" so to speak- who are once again at work and who have ulterior motives and hidden agendas in THESE movements!
I had the pCR test when I had Covid. So you are saying they vaccinated me with that test? Can it be proven? This is agregious.
-if you had it up the nose, first that makes no sense since the "virus" is supposed to be so contagious it should be in one's spit. Next, never put anything up your nose besides your pinky to pull out a bugger, the back of the nose is your brain and disinfectant on swabs and fibers can and will get into your cribiform plate and brain. That is a good way to feel sick and get a fake diagnosis of Covid. Some vids show nasty looking stuff on swabs, not sure what they really are.
-If you just had a spit test, it is meaningless as no virus has ever been found, and some people say your DNA sequence is getting in to a data base maybe sent to China. Either way, there is no meaning to it.
I have my suspicions about 23andme in that they are deeply connected to google and google can figure out your relationships from their data gathering and so fool you that dna testing found it.
Ancestry can also do a lot by just comparing relationships that lots of folks have already uploaded there.
Hmmmmm🤔
"The illusion of Accuracy in Genetics;
In the world of genetics, a field that has long been considered the epitome of scientific precision, a sobering reality is increasingly emerging. Our elaborations at "NEXT LEVEL - Wissen neu gedacht" have already shown that the basic assumptions of genetics have long been outdated and that DNA tests are based on questionable interpretations...." Read in full here; https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/dna-analyse-romeo
Then there's the article "DNA Fingerprinting" by 0mar jordan
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13k2Pl848yUW-VAB5c0WLTe69WAu6CDtZ2bC1gsUr2jk/edit?tab=t.0https://docs.google.com/document/d/13k2Pl848yUW-VAB5c0WLTe69WAu6CDtZ2bC1gsUr2jk/edit?tab=t.0
Two great resources… thank you Andy
Yeah that’s a whole other avenue.
I still have issues with Jordan’s work after the pathetic takedown of Mullis using you can’t see it therefore it doesn’t exist. Not saying that Mullins was bonafide just that the takedown left me extremely wanting.
Ever seen an electron? You can’t see them so …
Even if one considers the existence of viruses as possible, when comparing the results between experiment and control, one must conclude that under no circumstances is it possible to make clearly delineated judgements that one result is sufficient as evidence for the virus existence claim. Especially not if this vague basis is supposed to justify the most serious encroachments on human rights.
What should come next if we accept such pseudoscience as fact? Do we flip a coin to know which result is the right one?
This is the best way to report results. Decentralized. Without orchestrating and boycotting by the "elite".
One example for open source in bioinformatics. You can upload your data and protocols. I think "zenodo" is for laboratory protocols if I remember correctly.
"Galaxy is an open source, web-based platform for data intensive biomedical research. Galaxy's goal is to be accessible, reproducible, and transparent."
For laboratory work there is protocols[dot]io
For example, amplicon based WGS for sars-cov-2 is published there (artic illumina and nanopore)
I watched this and it's great. Thanks, Jamie.
Thank you
Ok, are we going to have another go , without bagging sources, I hope so.
Let's do it right, this time.
It's an important message, keep on the straight and narrow please!
Good work, and good luck to both of you.
Keep rockin’
Michael.
Thank you Jamie, that was great to listen/watch. Awesome work, very admirable! Please keep going!
Thank you for your kind words of support Harri
Tremendous Presentation! Genomic Grift "In Silico" Bamboozle!
Jamie, you controlled for something you did not expect, you proved Sasha can be warm, logical, and quite likable proving her brain cells are normal (to the surprise of many). This controls for her previous strange and rude comments on my ss, stating that Covid was due to a chemical agent:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-superchem
and her arguments adnauseam with Massey and others. We can only make guesses what makes her tone change, she is a member of Team Enigma (members mainly involved with 4IR and Transhumanism projects), and had the honor as we did of being in the "flies on shit gang".
Have you looked at genomic sequencing as well?
It seems like they are definitely employing a lot of tricks there (not just in PCR). So towards the end where you highlighted the lack of robustness of genomic tests (e.g. can't tell the difference between a human and a dog), do you think they're not ACTUALLY sequencing? Rather they're using restriction enzyme maps as a proxy or something?
See: https://odysee.com/@BIOLOG%C3%8DA_y_CONCIENCIA:e/The_Human_Genomic_Revolution_Pastpresentfuture_2019_15_Feb_2024:4?t=1317 (~22 min in).
Thoughts?
Jamie,
Have you read this?
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-superchem
Latypova appears to have changed tack in recent months, she's gone from writing;... "no virus isolated", is absolutely stupid idiotic bullshit that leads straight into a dead end" And; "the "no virus" cult diverts the conversation into a dumb fake binary argument." And; "viruses exist as a cellular communications protocol and are thus vital to normal functioning of the organism." To writing the following in a conversation with Substacker & 0ff Guardian commentor Rhys (I've worked with viruses) Jagger;
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/avian-flu-virus-h5n1-no-proof-for
Rhys Jaggar Jul 11; "As I understand it Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza viruses were originally isolated and characterised in detail using two steps:
1. Amplify the number of virus particles".....waffle, waffle, waffle....."Is all that work lies?"
Sasha Latypova Jul 11 Author; "Yes, all of that work was lies, deceptive language (isolation is putting a bunch of materials together and growing new things), and other fraud.'
Rhys Jaggar Jul 12; "Interesting....you must have done an awful, awful lot of reading to reach that conclusion, what with all your other work, substack postings, conference calls, travelling etc etc. I don't believe you have research virology on your CV, after all.....You'll be telling me next that a guy who did his PhD on the bench opposite mine spent three years falsifying data on absolutely specific site-directed-mutagenesis"...waffle, waffle, waffle..."Do you claim that Feline Leukemia Virus does not exist????"
Sasha Latypova Author; "I have in fact researched virology. It does not take a lot of time. Once you have seen one fake, you have seen them all. I don't know what specifically the guy next to you did, but here is the deal: "isolation" in virology is a bullshit fake. We all know that. So if he did the "isolation" and proceeded from there, everything he did was fake. He believed he was doing science, and everyone around him played into that fake theater, and I am sure, they believed it too. However, that does not make it any less fake. I am sorry. You can make a bunch of synthetic chemical soup. You can "sequence" it. But it does not make that bullshit chemical soup part of nature. It remains a bullshit chemical soup, sometimes poisonous, mostly just banal and ridiculous."
Exactly what I was thinking Andy, you beat me to it. Her and Yeadon are both in Team Enigma, both changed their tone on viruses after all the shots were given. Standard "after the bombs have dropped" COINTELPRO.
Really great.
If memory serves we've discussed the "contained in a conundrum & wrapped in a puzzle" Team Enigma previously.
Taking positives from Jamies interview & the comment of Latypova's I've C&P'd, hopefully the fake science of the allopathic based system is been exposed to more & more people.
"Dr Mike Yeadon" states he's going to be interviewed by English Alt. Media outlet, The U.K. column, who have refused point blank to address "no virus found" See his comments here;.. https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-positive-control/comments ...where Rhyss Jagger also appears!
There are more layers to this onion and more peas in the pudding that need to be considered. Nothing is a straight line in this game.
Good to see people coming around.
In the interview, you implied that geneticists have not done blind validations of genetic sequencing (I didn't watch the video, but read the transcript at https://bailiwicknewsarchives.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024.10.25-jamie-andrews-interviewed-by-sasha-latypova-transcript-with-kw-notes.pdf). You gave the specific example of the problem of species identification when the tester didn't know the possible species of the given specimens, and how there were no blind evaluations of this situation.
This alarmed me, as in the past I have relied on sequencing results in my work as a research scientist. I am not a lab scientist and have not performed sequencing myself, but have worked with others who do perform it.
So I spent a few hours searching Google Scholar to check on your claim and implication. I found many blind evaluations of different types of sequencing. I summarize them below. The list is not comprehensive by any means or necessarily representative. The results of these studies seem to show that sequencing generally is a sound method, especially when the species or range of species represented in the species are known by the testers. That is a reasonable condition for most applications of sequencing. I didn't find a study that was exactly the same scenario as the one you mentioned, but I found one that was pretty close (specimens of different fish species). There might be others, as my search was fairly superficial.
Sequencing targets, scope, and methods varied across these studies. In some of the studies I list, the researchers focused on reliability of sequencing results. Reliability of sequencing isn't exactly the same as validity, but it does show whether sequencing results were random, arbitrary, or possibly faked, as each of these scenarios would presumably show different results from repeated tests of the same specimen by the same or different labs. The first study below is the fish study that approximates the scenario you mentioned. I ordered the rest by year of publication.
2021 98% accurate species identification of 18 commercially important fish species based on sequencing of two mtDNA polymorphic regions as tested in 3 labs in two countries (labs knew they were testing fish DNA):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996920310607#s0010
2000 fairly good discrimination of singe-person vs. multi-person injection drug use of 34 syringes based on sequencing of a single STR (lab knew it was testing human DNA):
https://www.academia.edu/download/44648143/Short_tandem_repeat_methodology_for_geno20160411-8140-108edtj.pdf
2008 >99% haplotype concordance within and between several labs for cancer-associated genes (labs knew they were testing for particular human genes):
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2796078/
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/66/4/2468/526729/Haplotype-Analysis-of-the-HSD17B1-Gene-and-Risk-of
2010 perfect concordance between two labs on genotyping of 32 polymorphic insertions in 10 human individuals (labs knew they were testing human DNA):
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201022.pdf
2011 perfect accuracy in identifying 7 species (including one hybrid) of catfish from sequencing of barcodes comprising 651 base pairs (labs knew they were testing catfish DNA):
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/2926/Final%20Dissertation_LLW.pdf?sequence=2&ts=1430752562874
2012 98-99.9% concordance within and between labs on human genotypes based on 3.1 million SNPs (labs knew they were testing human samples):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044483&type=printable
2014 perfect concordance between two labs sequencing 15 canine STRs from 5 dogs (labs knew they were testing dog DNA):
https://www.academia.edu/download/84164138/j.fsigen.2013.07.00220220414-1-1a9z04b.pdf
2014 perfect accuracy in sex identification from sequencing (or attempting to sequence) a single gene on the Y chromosome in 48 human specimens (labs knew they were testing human DNA):
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/224296974.pdf
2015 good accuracy in predicting geographic ancestry of 17 human individuals from sequencing SNPs and STRs (labs knew they testing human DNA):
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/212520
2016 perfect concordance in sequencing 28 SNPs of duplicate samples of 11 Blastomyces fungi:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12879-016-1847-x.pdf
2018 perfect species (pig vs. chicken) identification via PCR sequencing in labs in several countries (labs knew both species could be represented, and followed testing protocols that covered these species):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206609&type=printable
2018 good accuracy and reliability in identifying type of bodily fluid (blood, semen, saliva, menstrual blood, vaginal secretion) from sequencing 33 mRNA markers in 16 human individuals by two independent labs (labs knew they were testing human specimens):
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/247312v1.full.pdf
2020 nearly perfect identification of hair, eye, and skin color and continental/continental region of origin for 17 individuals from sequencing of 204 human autosomal and 120 Y chromosomal SNPs (labs knew they were testing male human DNA):
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/11/12/1398/pdf
2022 one sequencing kit identified nuclear family kin well, but more distant kin only very poorly:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355030621001337
Mixtures of DNA seem to be the challenge in sequencing. The last study of using autosomal human DNA to identify distant or non-immediate relatives is analogous to this type of problem. In this case, autosomal DNA reflects the genetic jumbling that increases exponentially with each generation, making genealogical ancestry beyond close relatives difficult to discern.
All tools have limits within which they can be used meaningfully. People can use tools in ways beyond these limits and make claims that are unfounded, and still others can lie about using a tool when they haven't. The cases of crazy results that you and Sasha discussed might fall into one of these categories, and seem to highlight the limits of meaningful use of genetic sequencing, or at least some very narrow commercialized versions of it.
Indeed, many critics of virology contend justifiably that sequencing of material (such as hypothesized viruses) that has not been isolated is meaningless and susceptible to bias and manipulation. In other words, for a meaningful sequencing result, the tester must first know with confidence what is being sequenced. So when customers send in specimens from one species to commercial testers who are expecting another, it should not be surprising that the results could be nonsense. This outcome underlines the meaningful limits of sequencing, as defined by testers, or the particular brand of it used in a given case.
I share your concerns about what PCR and genetic sequencing results really represent in virology and biology generally. I am considering arguments and evidence that DNA may not exist and that sequencing may not be what its proponents say it is. (I have yet to read the sources that Rod Knoll listed in a comment here.) However, many critics of virology offer simplistic, glib explanations that do not account for much or most of the evidence, including results such as those I summarized above. I am trying to account for sequencing and other results on bloodborne virus transmission without invoking exogenous viruses (including some studies in which there was no possible way foul play could have produced the key results). That is, if these viruses don't exist, most research on them has to rely on biological, chemical, and/or perceptual mechanisms that don't require most researchers to engage knowingly in deception or manipulation, but still produce results at least somewhat consistent with the idea of viral transmission.
I support the mission of your project. Transparency, replication, and uncensored debate are all critical in science, and I look forward to learning what you find in your studies.
Hi Devon, Thanks for putting in the effort to have a look for yourself.
I would say that all of the studies you cite are not benchmark tests or could be described as a blinded study for one large reason: the outcomes are arbitary... that is the point.. Are they actually identifying different "variants" of species of fish? It is circular reasoned... they are accurate because they accept rhe aribtary accuracy as an identification....
The reason why you will never find a study exactly like the one I describe is because the outcomes are VERY obvious.. if they couldn't identify between a horse and a fish it'd be bloody obvious...
The Input variables determine the outcomes... you have to programme, for instance illumina with the exact type of Flow Cell, Exact type of Indexing and the exact type of primers for the thing you are LOOKING for... without knowing roughly what you are looking for it is random guesswork....
There are thousands of logical problems with sequencing that I will be highlighting in the project with our data and experimentation which is currently undergoing.
Thanks again
Thank you, Jamie, for your quick response.
I don't understand your comment fully.
It seems to me that in developing a test for anything -- not just in biology but in any context -- the developers must know what they are looking for and what its distinguishing characteristics are. Otherwise, they won't be able to recognize it when they (or the test) encounter it. Is there a test that can identify things that its developers have never encountered before?
The studies I listed are blinded studies. Labs did not know the particular outcomes of interest (species, SNPs, STRs, alleles, etc.) when they received and tested specimens.
You wrote "Are they actually identifying different "variants" of species of fish? It is circular reasoned... they are accurate because they accept rhe aribtary accuracy as an identification...."
As an example, let's focus on the 2021 study of identifying the species of fish specimens (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996920310607#s0010). The title of this article is "Validation of FASTFISH-ID: A new commercial platform for rapid fish species authentication via universal closed-tube barcoding" by Naaum and colleagues and it was published in Food Research International. The authors developed and validated a new system based on PCR and limited sequencing for identifying the species of a fish specimen. They intend the system to be used for monitoring the exploitation of endangered/threatened species of fish and checking for the mislabeling of fish products for consumption.
To assess their system, Naaum and colleagues bought fish fillets from stores in Boston, USA, and selected fish fillets from their own collection that had not been used in developing their genetic reference library. They prepared samples of the different species and sent the specimens and the new system to two labs in the UK and one in Canada. Those labs were to follow the protocols of the new system and compare their results with the reference library. After the labs had made their estimates of the specimens' species, the authors unblinded everything and assessed the accuracy of the labs' estimates. They found the accuracy rate was about 98%.
Where is the circular reasoning here? If the authors did not validate their system correctly, how should they have done it?
They knew that these were all fish and they gave them an exact very small number of just 18 to choose from.
The very fact that the flesh of these fish is easily identifiable by eye alone kind of makes this a bit pointless... I mean telling the difference between salmon and cod could be done by a child.
But interms of actual "dna" sequencing... they have chosen these fish and made primers specifically to LOOK for the chosen fish then made the labs use these primers... it doesn't mean they are finding genetics and identifying them.. it could be any type of property they are picking up on..
Of course I am not stating that these tests are completely random... they get some semblance of feedback for instance largely telling if people are sick or not with PCR... My hunch is it is very dilution based, the sheer viscosity probably combined with pH and polarity... they quite sensitive cameras used to pick up the fluorescence and I think if you designed primers the right way and calibrated it I have no doubt it can be used to differentiate between fish.... that you could tell apart with the naked eye anyway.
Your description of what Naaum and colleagues did is not accurate.
As I noted initially, the labs knew all specimens were fish. It is not a trivial task to identify a fish species. Fish are a superclass within the animal kingdom that, per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), "... account for more than half of vertebrate species. As of 2016, there are over 32,000 described species of bony fish, over 1,100 species of cartilaginous fish, and over 100 hagfish and lampreys." People harvest over 101 wild and cultivated species commercially in substantial amounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercially_important_fish_species).
The authors did not give the labs a list of fish to choose from. The labs uploaded their sequencing results to a site that ran an algorithm on those results, comparing them to a reference genetic library. The algorithm determined the species estimate. The labs seemingly did not know how many or which species were included in the specimens they received nor how many specimens of each species there were (the numbers of specimens varied across species and labs; see Table 1).
It seems that it would be impossible for even the most experienced fish expert to identify any species from specimens the labs received. The samples sent to the testing labs were presumed DNA specimens, not simple fish flesh. The authors described how they prepared them:
"DNA extractions for FASTFISH-ID were carried out according to the method described by Tagliania et al. (2016). Briefly, a 1–2 mm3 fish sample was collected with a sterile biopsy tool (EMS-Core Sampling Tool, Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) or another suitable instrument, and then added to 100 µL 200 mM KOH, 2 mM EDTA pH 8.0, 0.2% Triton X-100 in 0.2 ml PCR tubes (Genesee Scientific, San Diego, CA). The sample was then incubated at 85 °C for 15 min in a PCR thermocycler (iCycler, Biorad, Hercules, CA) and then added to 300 µL 100 mM Tris-Cl pH 8.0 in a 1.5 ml low-adhesion Eppendorf tube (USA Scientific, Ocala, FL). Two microliters (2 µL) of the resulting lysate were used for PCR amplification as described below. ... DNA samples for the validation study extracted and tested as above [my note: as described in the preceding quoted sentences] were shipped blinded to the participating laboratories (UK1, UK2, CA) dried on punches made from Whatman No 1 filter paper (VWR, Radnor, PA). Briefly, 40 µL KOH-prepared fish DNA were dried overnight on 4 mm circles made with a conventional office holepunch. Filters were shipped in 0.2 ml PCR tubes marked only with sample numbers." Despite the chemical and heat treatments of these tiny specimens, the blind assessments still identified the specific species quite effectively.
The FastFish system is a commercial system (https://www.fastspecies-id.com/home-1) marketed as being able to identify any species of fish (https://www.fastspecies-id.com/competitive-advantage). The system involves comparing test results with a reference library that includes, in part, the Reference Standard Sequence Library for Seafood Identification (https://www.fda.gov/food/reference-databases-and-monitoring-programs-food/reference-standard-sequence-library-seafood-identification-rssl). This library itself includes "... more than 1040 seafood specimens of Vertebrates (labeled V) and Invertebrates (labeled I, or I(C) for crustaceans)." The FastFish manufacturer claims that the system can identify fish species that the system developers themselves never sequenced. Furthermore, the FastFish manufacturer is legally liable for its product, and if it were not highly accurate, the manufacturer might be vulnerable to lawsuits from wronged customers who suffered damages as a result of using the system.
The two primers Naaum and colleagues used focused on two particular genetic regions that exhibit high inter-species variation among fish. The primers themselves are not species-specific. They did not make, as you wrote "... primers specifically to LOOK for the chosen fish" they included in the blind validation. The system determines (estimates) the species based on the sequences that bind with the primers and comparisons of the sequences with the reference library.
It is logically possible that the system Naaum and colleagues evaluated is distinguishing species very accurately on the basis of something other than genetic material. Whatever that something else could be, though, it enables highly accurate species identification in blind evaluations, acting as if it were genetic material.
This study is just one of likely hundreds or more such blind validations of genetic sequencing.
Where is the circular reasoning in Naaum and colleagues' evaluation? If they did not validate their system correctly, how should they have done it?
Is there a test, in any field, that can identify things that its developers have never encountered before or are not expecting the test to identify?
Thanks for the Wikipedia entry... lol....
Really.. the labs didn't know the initial pool of 18 fish to chose from? Where does it explicitly say they didn't?
They molded the input variables specifically to a CHOSEN set of very constricted parameters.
It is a cheap magic trick..... you may fall for it...and you are more than welcome to believe it.. I don't... cheers.
I've said my piece, and it seems you've said yours. Thank you for the discussion.