They're "amplifying" something that they can't measure so they can measure it.
They think like genetics is like a digital code that is lossless when copied. The truth is that it creates artifacts much like you copying a VHS tape of a copy and so on. You end up with static after so many cycles.
You touch upon it in your article. I am not sure they are measuring anything more than tenuous Biochemical indications. They put a flourescent marker into a sample knowingly... then measure how much it Flouresces...and then make up a huge story around how that fluorescent marker means it is attached to dna, which is the building blocks of life... all massive assumptions that have zero evidence.
Even if this technique was 99% accurate, after so many cycles the 1% builds up to a huge amount of noise. I suppose these DNA obsessed people still think that this is the "source code" of life despite a lot of failures.
I would distinguish between PCR and RT-qPCR as they are not alike. As its inventor, Kary Mullis said, PCR is just a way to make a whole lot of something from a little bit. I've run thousands of PCR reactions, run the results out on an agarose gel, cut out the resulting band, and directly sequenced that band to confirm the actual sequence matched the expected sequence. PCR is a tried and true method.
But, RT-qPCR always struck me as half black magic and half wishful thinking. How does one ever confirm that a given fluorescent signal actually quantifies or even yields relative quantitative values of the amount of that sequence that was in the original sample. It's not possible, so of what actual use is RT-qPCR? Other than fraud?
Yes, your work has scientific value. But, even more than that, millions (billions?) of people are being harmed through this fraud. Close friends have been "diagnosed" with "covid' half a dozen times since receiving their 4 injections. As my friend said, he's never been sick as frequently as he has been the last couple years. Bright people, but so firmly entreched in the medical establishment that it never occurs to them they have been poisoned. So, your work is important toward helping humanity.
PCR itself works great- I have run thousands of reactions and run the resulting samples out on agarose gels to visually see the amplified band. I've also cut out those bands and directly sequenced them to confirm that the expected amplfied sequence is the actual sequence.
However, RT-qPCR is a different beast altogether. Unlike PCR, which can be directly confirmed, RT-qPCR is indirect evidence, in which fluorecence levels released during the amplification process are said to represent the relative amount of a given DNA sequence in the original sample. But the machine, the machine software, the reagents, and the requirement to "interpret" results, add so much complexity and unknown variability that I never found the data generated to be scientifically useful. Or believable.
Hopefully, they use PCR for tissue typing, but I don't know.
"the primer kit we used it STILL gives a disclaimer that these tests are NOT to be used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes."
Long before Kovid, anyone being tortured by the fascist lies about chronic fatigue knew the above about pcr. Desperate for a diagnosis to legitimize the illness, they would be cruelly told that their pcr test results could not be used for a diagnosis, leaving them to suffer with no support from the system.
Imagine the surprise when overnight in 2020 the pcr test suddenly became the gold standard for legitimizing every sniffle as being the deadliest plague the world has ever seen.
Many people are watching with delight, hoping to see you burn this entire house of cards to the ground 😅
PCR abuse is used to propagate all the hoaxes of "emerging pathogens" since 1999 "West Nile virus" and since HIV too cuz ihe HIV stuff is prolly a marker for getting AIDS rather than the HIV stuff being the causative "virus contagion".
Also, I'm still around, and I'm willing and able to answer any questions that anyone may have surrounding the history, events and people in our old "AIDS" dissident movement. I can also take a stab at answering any questions about the Perth Group and more technical issues such as the foundational work of its leader, the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
As for the modern-day gatekeepers, that seems to be a highly subjective issue. (Frustratingly, sometimes even the gatekeepers from our old "AIDS" dissident era are STILL hero worshipped by ignorant present-day "truthers"....??!!) However, thanks to DPL and others, it now should be clearer who the present-day gatekeepers are, and it might even be easier to make a list of who is NOT one! :-)
Great write-up Jamie! Seems like the house is rigged on multiple levels.
☞ So "Baseline Correction" means a "fraudulent head start" or "handicap" where the players always hit pay-dirt before the finish line.
☞ Do you suppose these folks know about your SS and this write-up?
☞ Do they know that you are a no-virus proponent?
☞ What and how did they expect you you to do "whole genome sequencing"? Or is this just to throw you on your back foot?
👉So pcr is rigged and based on the fictional genome, and is more support for a "printed-out" pre-written Sars fake genome, not an actually "assembled" genome. We know all of this was starting over 10 years ago
and that Software "assembly" leaves too much to chance as the fictional genome needs to fit with all the moving fake parts they clearly had on the runway ready to take off, which includes the fake pcr.
Yes, you have to know what are you looking for so you could be able to fabricate. If the words "blinded experiments" are too hot for labs maybe some fancy words like this 》investigating complex samples with no prior sequence information《
Yes when it comes to WGS they use SIPA primers to “speculate”…
just extremely odd this doesn't seem to be the case in PCR which is just supposedly a less accurate WGS… One would have thought the process way more geared up for LESS specificity.
A few days ago I asked a group of scientists from RKI (Robert Koch Institute) to use blinding for microscopy in the sense that they should not know which sample is positive and which is negative. They replied that blinding is not necessary. :)))
Phenolphthalein's common use is as an indicator in acid-base titrations. Titration experiment is used to calculate an unknown concentration of acid (or alkali) using a neutralisation reaction.
In this titration an alkali (with a known concentration) is carefully added to the acid (of unknown concentration) using a burette. The volume of alkali used in the experiment is needed in order to perform a calculation to work out the concentration of the acid.
The acid used in this titration is hydrochloric acid (HCl, 25ml volume, unknown concentration) and the alkali used is sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 0.1M concentration).
Interesting. Yes if we could perform lots of PCR controls using this titration it would definitely uncover a lot. I get the feeling it is "Charge"based so would tie into pH as you allude to.
I've done hundreds titrations over the years, acid-base, redox, chelometric, etc. But I fail to see what connection you can make between PCR and titration. How is titration useful for thinking about PCR?
PCR is very non-specific. According to Stefan Lanka, the tests used are non-specific and depend on the concentration of any substance. A scientist from France managed to get positive NGS from PCR negative samples. Antigen tests are proven nonsense. I expect both PCR and NGS to be clearly declared as nonsense. PCR requires the use of fluorescence as an indicator of amplifying alleged "virus". Considering that experiments in virology are extremely dirty, they should not be literally equated with titration in analytical chemistry. I hope you find this helpful.
As far as I can tell, all "virus genomes" were created in silico by stitching together bits of genetic material They found. This is why They can patent these fictions. On top of that, no One has ever proven any virus exists... No isolation, purification, or any of the other Koch's Postulates.
Not certain of Your position on all that given what You have written here...
Maybe, at some point, you can relate this back to all the "genomic" research relating knowledge about various diseases and treatments... So if they aren't doing complete sequencing of DNA then what are they finding that they're tying to unique "genomic" changes? [Sorry the only practical example I can think of was something like a Growth Factor genome in cases of ischemic heart damage recovery. Cancers are the big thing they've tried to push marketing-wise but I can't off the top my head think of specific examples.]
It is the same fraud... they point at random stuff and say "that's genetic material"... there are no images of a nucleotide etc... I will link you to some great primer articles on this
I'll check it out. So... What are the spiral images of if not DNA?
And why are traits passed on? And why do the psychopaths in control inbreed? It makes far more sense to Me that there are genes and such, but maybe I will have an answer when I chech that link out tomorrow. It's bedtime for this bonzo. Haha!
I looked it over, and yes, I agree that the methodology is peculiar, to say the least. But then come the questions... How are They identifying People by Their DNA? How can mRNA change People's DNA if there's no DNA? And what is that image of that I have in the article below, if not DNA as it was purported to be?
"The focus of this paper is to take another look at DNA Fingerprinting technology as it relates to criminal investigations and to try to determine whether or not DNA fingerprinting is a valid, legitimate forensic science or just another pseudoscientific fear/control/propaganda tactic....."
Also there's this; The Amino Age and The New abNormal Doctors by Tracey Northern. "Are you confused by all this talk of ‘mRNA’, proteins, genes, genomes & DNA? The way out of the confusion I thought was to dive in, swim around and see what I can find that is solid and factual in this science-waffle being foisted on us. People with bits of paper to say they are qualified to tell us the facts are either lying or also confused.I spent 3 weeks looking into their papers and articles, methods and tests and gave myself a massive headache. It reminded me of the days I was trying to argue with shills over vaccines and what they did and did not do which actually taught me a lot about their so-called science and how they confused people with their "fancy pants" language. All the technical stuff I learned back then is being rehashed & plonked onto what we are told about RNA and DNA. This is a bit scary for some people but I promise you the truth is far prettier than the convoluted ugly theories we’ve been sold. First bombshell incoming……"
There is no such thing as SARS COV2 in nature. If you have a sample, then it comes from a gene bank.
There are not many different variants to influenza. Influenza is an escalation of the common cold aka a coronavirus. Both of these conditions cannot be spread via airborne particles, they are self induced from a variety of different reasons. One of the reasons is EMF’s.
1) guessing that the CT of detection is gonna be a function of how much HPLC-purified nucleotide sequence is added as a calibration standard (standardization sequence). The CT at which a robust signal is detected is presumed to directly reflect the so-called copy number of the target (i.e. "virus") sequence in the biological sample, based upon comparison to the CT of detection when using known amounts of standardization sequence.
2) if you got negative PCR results for the samples which produced rapid CPE but no "virus" added, isn't that what you expected?
I think that is correct, this is what they are alluding to in the small clip about channel setup from the manual. The Baseline is different to this in that it seems to adjust the entire calibration up or down.
2. Well I believe that there are no "Viruses" to measure so should be able to get Positives from the control cultures..it would be encumbered to find our what they are measuring if not a virus...
I think the fact that the CRO was scared enough to manipulate the results says a lot
The primers prolly radiate and/or absorb a certain level of fluorescence, so, every time they gotta establish a new baseline depending on which primers and how much?
So in layman’s terms so far, they make all this shit up.
correct...lol
The PCR process is pseudoscience.
They're "amplifying" something that they can't measure so they can measure it.
They think like genetics is like a digital code that is lossless when copied. The truth is that it creates artifacts much like you copying a VHS tape of a copy and so on. You end up with static after so many cycles.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/pcr-fails-logic-from-the-start-sorry
You touch upon it in your article. I am not sure they are measuring anything more than tenuous Biochemical indications. They put a flourescent marker into a sample knowingly... then measure how much it Flouresces...and then make up a huge story around how that fluorescent marker means it is attached to dna, which is the building blocks of life... all massive assumptions that have zero evidence.
Even if this technique was 99% accurate, after so many cycles the 1% builds up to a huge amount of noise. I suppose these DNA obsessed people still think that this is the "source code" of life despite a lot of failures.
For sure the kooks put too much faith in their lab shenanigans.
I would distinguish between PCR and RT-qPCR as they are not alike. As its inventor, Kary Mullis said, PCR is just a way to make a whole lot of something from a little bit. I've run thousands of PCR reactions, run the results out on an agarose gel, cut out the resulting band, and directly sequenced that band to confirm the actual sequence matched the expected sequence. PCR is a tried and true method.
But, RT-qPCR always struck me as half black magic and half wishful thinking. How does one ever confirm that a given fluorescent signal actually quantifies or even yields relative quantitative values of the amount of that sequence that was in the original sample. It's not possible, so of what actual use is RT-qPCR? Other than fraud?
Yes, your work has scientific value. But, even more than that, millions (billions?) of people are being harmed through this fraud. Close friends have been "diagnosed" with "covid' half a dozen times since receiving their 4 injections. As my friend said, he's never been sick as frequently as he has been the last couple years. Bright people, but so firmly entreched in the medical establishment that it never occurs to them they have been poisoned. So, your work is important toward helping humanity.
But if they doing everything the same but just don't adding the enzyme then nothing happens - no products form and no signal appears. AFAIK.
dunno
They seem to be getting reproducible results with this PCR methods, but who knows how much fakery they make both wittingly and unwittingly.
If they use it for tissue typing before transplant surgery, then it can't be totally fake.
PCR itself works great- I have run thousands of reactions and run the resulting samples out on agarose gels to visually see the amplified band. I've also cut out those bands and directly sequenced them to confirm that the expected amplfied sequence is the actual sequence.
However, RT-qPCR is a different beast altogether. Unlike PCR, which can be directly confirmed, RT-qPCR is indirect evidence, in which fluorecence levels released during the amplification process are said to represent the relative amount of a given DNA sequence in the original sample. But the machine, the machine software, the reagents, and the requirement to "interpret" results, add so much complexity and unknown variability that I never found the data generated to be scientifically useful. Or believable.
Hopefully, they use PCR for tissue typing, but I don't know.
If you get covid twice, call the police!
"the primer kit we used it STILL gives a disclaimer that these tests are NOT to be used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes."
Long before Kovid, anyone being tortured by the fascist lies about chronic fatigue knew the above about pcr. Desperate for a diagnosis to legitimize the illness, they would be cruelly told that their pcr test results could not be used for a diagnosis, leaving them to suffer with no support from the system.
Imagine the surprise when overnight in 2020 the pcr test suddenly became the gold standard for legitimizing every sniffle as being the deadliest plague the world has ever seen.
Many people are watching with delight, hoping to see you burn this entire house of cards to the ground 😅
Great work! 👍
PCR abuse is used to propagate all the hoaxes of "emerging pathogens" since 1999 "West Nile virus" and since HIV too cuz ihe HIV stuff is prolly a marker for getting AIDS rather than the HIV stuff being the causative "virus contagion".
"Baseline correction" ..... Yeah right, more like the rigging setting.
Very interesting indeed, Jamie!
Yes... I still think they are able to measure *something* in the sample.. but this is a pretty big revelation that they can easily rig the outcome.
Yeah, agreed, I don't think that can be ruled out either. But I think it's definitely another important piece of this PCR puzzle.
Hi there Mia, sorry this is off topic, but are you privy to why DPL has removed the posts from his substack? And if so could you explain? Cheers.
Hi Andy, the posts being up were causing unnecessary drama for him at a time where things were a little hectic at home. So he has taken them offline.
Thanks Mia, send DPL my regards, I appreciated his perspective & especially the work he did bringing Rod Knoll & Anthony Brink to a wider audience.
Any chance you could get your articles that were on DPL's stack posted on your stack? They're too good to be in limbo.
Hi Andy, Thank you for the kind words which are in short supply these days :-) One of Mia's articles -the one on Harold Hillman- IS still available on TAM's site at the following link: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2024/02/14/why-you-should-know-about-harold-hillmans-work-on-the-living-cell/
Also, I'm still around, and I'm willing and able to answer any questions that anyone may have surrounding the history, events and people in our old "AIDS" dissident movement. I can also take a stab at answering any questions about the Perth Group and more technical issues such as the foundational work of its leader, the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
As for the modern-day gatekeepers, that seems to be a highly subjective issue. (Frustratingly, sometimes even the gatekeepers from our old "AIDS" dissident era are STILL hero worshipped by ignorant present-day "truthers"....??!!) However, thanks to DPL and others, it now should be clearer who the present-day gatekeepers are, and it might even be easier to make a list of who is NOT one! :-)
I will pass on your regards and message to DPL.
Thanks for saying so! Yes I will get my articles on my account, in the next week or so.
So when the government wanted more `cases'... (?)
Very handy technique.
I wish we could raise enough money to buy our own machines.
See what the whole genome sequencing reveals and that may bring along some serious investors
Why buy one when you can steal one?
Great write-up Jamie! Seems like the house is rigged on multiple levels.
☞ So "Baseline Correction" means a "fraudulent head start" or "handicap" where the players always hit pay-dirt before the finish line.
☞ Do you suppose these folks know about your SS and this write-up?
☞ Do they know that you are a no-virus proponent?
☞ What and how did they expect you you to do "whole genome sequencing"? Or is this just to throw you on your back foot?
👉So pcr is rigged and based on the fictional genome, and is more support for a "printed-out" pre-written Sars fake genome, not an actually "assembled" genome. We know all of this was starting over 10 years ago
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-corona-fake-dating-dossier
and that Software "assembly" leaves too much to chance as the fictional genome needs to fit with all the moving fake parts they clearly had on the runway ready to take off, which includes the fake pcr.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/shove-that-fake-genome
I’m in a pub and laughed out very loudly indeed several times reading that. Amazing
‘Baseline correction’
Sounds like the little weight the merchants used to secretly stick on the bottom of one side of the balance.
Or the weights used to balance the "foreign exchange book". :)
Thank you Jamie Andrews, for doing and funding this work.
Mind bending.
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, you have to know what are you looking for so you could be able to fabricate. If the words "blinded experiments" are too hot for labs maybe some fancy words like this 》investigating complex samples with no prior sequence information《
from this study could help:
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08563-z
They use random priming for WGS.
Well, you could just tell: cultures are infected with many type of viruses. :)
Yes when it comes to WGS they use SIPA primers to “speculate”…
just extremely odd this doesn't seem to be the case in PCR which is just supposedly a less accurate WGS… One would have thought the process way more geared up for LESS specificity.
DFG (source of money in Germany) requires blinding in experiments. It is a new rule started at the end of 2023.
Guideline 9: https://zenodo.org/records/6472827
Interesting, I guess the CROs just don't take the work if they are suspicious. But it isn't a bad idea to force blinding in science.
A few days ago I asked a group of scientists from RKI (Robert Koch Institute) to use blinding for microscopy in the sense that they should not know which sample is positive and which is negative. They replied that blinding is not necessary. :)))
It is their kryptonite because it will show their inaccuracies in predictions. They NEED to know before the test what the results *should* be.
You deserve a Nobel Prize. Well, I mean if it were something worth having.
Maybe I should give prizes, and your one would be Le Cendrier d'Or for Exposure of Scientific Fraud
Lol… cheers mate.
Maybe this simple experiment could be useful for thinking about PCR:
https://youtu.be/8UiuE7Xx5l8?si=mr93Hvfq7VavSoAH
Phenolphthalein's common use is as an indicator in acid-base titrations. Titration experiment is used to calculate an unknown concentration of acid (or alkali) using a neutralisation reaction.
In this titration an alkali (with a known concentration) is carefully added to the acid (of unknown concentration) using a burette. The volume of alkali used in the experiment is needed in order to perform a calculation to work out the concentration of the acid.
The acid used in this titration is hydrochloric acid (HCl, 25ml volume, unknown concentration) and the alkali used is sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 0.1M concentration).
Interesting. Yes if we could perform lots of PCR controls using this titration it would definitely uncover a lot. I get the feeling it is "Charge"based so would tie into pH as you allude to.
I've done hundreds titrations over the years, acid-base, redox, chelometric, etc. But I fail to see what connection you can make between PCR and titration. How is titration useful for thinking about PCR?
Do you understand what the aim of the project is? Have you seen the results from the CROs I have worked with?
Yes and yes. But how does an acid-base titration have any use in PCR?
So then you will understand I think that the PCR is measuring something else other than the unproven to exist nucleotide sequences we are told.
PCR is very non-specific. According to Stefan Lanka, the tests used are non-specific and depend on the concentration of any substance. A scientist from France managed to get positive NGS from PCR negative samples. Antigen tests are proven nonsense. I expect both PCR and NGS to be clearly declared as nonsense. PCR requires the use of fluorescence as an indicator of amplifying alleged "virus". Considering that experiments in virology are extremely dirty, they should not be literally equated with titration in analytical chemistry. I hope you find this helpful.
Have you got any more detail on the Scientist from France getting a genome sequence from negatively PCR sample please.
No. Unfortunately.
As far as I can tell, all "virus genomes" were created in silico by stitching together bits of genetic material They found. This is why They can patent these fictions. On top of that, no One has ever proven any virus exists... No isolation, purification, or any of the other Koch's Postulates.
Not certain of Your position on all that given what You have written here...
My position is that Viruses nor DNA/genetics exist. They are one in the same fraud.
Maybe, at some point, you can relate this back to all the "genomic" research relating knowledge about various diseases and treatments... So if they aren't doing complete sequencing of DNA then what are they finding that they're tying to unique "genomic" changes? [Sorry the only practical example I can think of was something like a Growth Factor genome in cases of ischemic heart damage recovery. Cancers are the big thing they've tried to push marketing-wise but I can't off the top my head think of specific examples.]
Well… We can see genetic material in the e-mic… Never seen the genetic material of viruses, though.
Who knows, though.
It is the same fraud... they point at random stuff and say "that's genetic material"... there are no images of a nucleotide etc... I will link you to some great primer articles on this
Try this https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
I'll check it out. So... What are the spiral images of if not DNA?
And why are traits passed on? And why do the psychopaths in control inbreed? It makes far more sense to Me that there are genes and such, but maybe I will have an answer when I chech that link out tomorrow. It's bedtime for this bonzo. Haha!
I looked it over, and yes, I agree that the methodology is peculiar, to say the least. But then come the questions... How are They identifying People by Their DNA? How can mRNA change People's DNA if there's no DNA? And what is that image of that I have in the article below, if not DNA as it was purported to be?
A Post to Be Viral (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/a-post-to-be-viral
DNA Fingerprinting, A Closer Look by 0mar Jordan
"The focus of this paper is to take another look at DNA Fingerprinting technology as it relates to criminal investigations and to try to determine whether or not DNA fingerprinting is a valid, legitimate forensic science or just another pseudoscientific fear/control/propaganda tactic....."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13k2Pl848yUW-VAB5c0WLTe69WAu6CDtZ2bC1gsUr2jk/edit
Also there's this; The Amino Age and The New abNormal Doctors by Tracey Northern. "Are you confused by all this talk of ‘mRNA’, proteins, genes, genomes & DNA? The way out of the confusion I thought was to dive in, swim around and see what I can find that is solid and factual in this science-waffle being foisted on us. People with bits of paper to say they are qualified to tell us the facts are either lying or also confused.I spent 3 weeks looking into their papers and articles, methods and tests and gave myself a massive headache. It reminded me of the days I was trying to argue with shills over vaccines and what they did and did not do which actually taught me a lot about their so-called science and how they confused people with their "fancy pants" language. All the technical stuff I learned back then is being rehashed & plonked onto what we are told about RNA and DNA. This is a bit scary for some people but I promise you the truth is far prettier than the convoluted ugly theories we’ve been sold. First bombshell incoming……"
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/06/30/the-amino-age-and-the-new-abnormal-doctors/
‘The CT indicates the point at which the targeted sequence starts to amplify exponentially’
Cue the internal thresholds 😆🤦♂️
There is no such thing as SARS COV2 in nature. If you have a sample, then it comes from a gene bank.
There are not many different variants to influenza. Influenza is an escalation of the common cold aka a coronavirus. Both of these conditions cannot be spread via airborne particles, they are self induced from a variety of different reasons. One of the reasons is EMF’s.
Not an expert exactly, but
1) guessing that the CT of detection is gonna be a function of how much HPLC-purified nucleotide sequence is added as a calibration standard (standardization sequence). The CT at which a robust signal is detected is presumed to directly reflect the so-called copy number of the target (i.e. "virus") sequence in the biological sample, based upon comparison to the CT of detection when using known amounts of standardization sequence.
2) if you got negative PCR results for the samples which produced rapid CPE but no "virus" added, isn't that what you expected?
I think that is correct, this is what they are alluding to in the small clip about channel setup from the manual. The Baseline is different to this in that it seems to adjust the entire calibration up or down.
2. Well I believe that there are no "Viruses" to measure so should be able to get Positives from the control cultures..it would be encumbered to find our what they are measuring if not a virus...
I think the fact that the CRO was scared enough to manipulate the results says a lot
The primers prolly radiate and/or absorb a certain level of fluorescence, so, every time they gotta establish a new baseline depending on which primers and how much?
Not sure what the official reason is for the necessity of baseline correction but you could be correct.
Sounds similar to doing a tare of a set of weighing scales ; )
Yes, that is a good analogy.