Thank you. Very interesting. Too many factors influence. It is not surprising that PCR is only for research and not for diagnosis. You simply need to completely blind the laboratory personnel with or without their knowledge. This is also the recommendation of the DFG or German Research Foundation.
Well I think it is worthwhile doing a standard control study…. Just playing kerplunk with the reagents and some positive and negative controls….. maybe able to narrow down which is the fruity ingredient like we did with FBS in the cell cultures.
1.Gel Electro is measuring the size and charge of molecules right? So how do we know there are nucleotides in these soups to begin with just from Gel Electro?
2. Has spectroscopy on primer solutions ever been done and would it find Nitrogen or Phosphorous that is said to be part of a nucleotide? I guess P and N are in many types of molecules, though you may recall these were not found in Covid shots:
I don't know if blinding was ever attempted for all of these methods. But not just any blinding, but detailed and useful. Obviously, if they don't know what they're looking for, methods turn out to be very problematic very quickly. An example is "nucleic acid" genetics and sequencing as proven useless.
Perhaps these CDC failed negative controls revealed the essence of the PCR reaction mechanism. And that is that the procedure itself without a biological sample leads to positivity. Since the fraud was obvious, they changed the conditions so that these chemicals do not react so obviously. It is interesting that the S curve for PCR has an analogy in autocatalytic reactions and in enzymology - allosteric enzymes with positive cooperativity (hemoglobin).
Is it really 4x4x4=64 tho? Aren't some 3bp seqs excluded from the set of 3bp seqs that could "uniquely identify a template" because they are way too common, e.g. AAA would be excluded because that's in every poly(A) tail, sont cannot be used to uniquely identify anything. I suspect there's more such examples. My point is I think you were being generous with 64, that's the theoretical upper limit, practically it is less than 64. That's assuming DNA RNA exist in the first place...
Thank you. Very interesting. Too many factors influence. It is not surprising that PCR is only for research and not for diagnosis. You simply need to completely blind the laboratory personnel with or without their knowledge. This is also the recommendation of the DFG or German Research Foundation.
What kind of valid research is even possible with such a flawed process as PCR?
Well I think it is worthwhile doing a standard control study…. Just playing kerplunk with the reagents and some positive and negative controls….. maybe able to narrow down which is the fruity ingredient like we did with FBS in the cell cultures.
Very well laid out. I do ponder whether there wasn't something like nanotech in the tips of the sampling device...
PCR is bunk, indeed.
Shall We solve for those moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet, pushing useless - and also deadly! - things on Us with lies?
Scoping Out the Terrain (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/scoping-out-the-terrain
Thanks Jamie, 2 questions
1.Gel Electro is measuring the size and charge of molecules right? So how do we know there are nucleotides in these soups to begin with just from Gel Electro?
2. Has spectroscopy on primer solutions ever been done and would it find Nitrogen or Phosphorous that is said to be part of a nucleotide? I guess P and N are in many types of molecules, though you may recall these were not found in Covid shots:
☞There is no mRNA in shots and probably anywhere
https://www.academia.edu/124251340/The_Moderna_and_Comirnaty_B4_5_vaccines_do_not_contain_nitrogen_and_phosphorus_energy_dispersive_X_ray_spectroscopy_so_they_do_not_contain_mRNA_Nanotechnology_in_covid_vaccines”
I don't know if blinding was ever attempted for all of these methods. But not just any blinding, but detailed and useful. Obviously, if they don't know what they're looking for, methods turn out to be very problematic very quickly. An example is "nucleic acid" genetics and sequencing as proven useless.
Perhaps these CDC failed negative controls revealed the essence of the PCR reaction mechanism. And that is that the procedure itself without a biological sample leads to positivity. Since the fraud was obvious, they changed the conditions so that these chemicals do not react so obviously. It is interesting that the S curve for PCR has an analogy in autocatalytic reactions and in enzymology - allosteric enzymes with positive cooperativity (hemoglobin).
Fantastic article Jamie.
Is it really 4x4x4=64 tho? Aren't some 3bp seqs excluded from the set of 3bp seqs that could "uniquely identify a template" because they are way too common, e.g. AAA would be excluded because that's in every poly(A) tail, sont cannot be used to uniquely identify anything. I suspect there's more such examples. My point is I think you were being generous with 64, that's the theoretical upper limit, practically it is less than 64. That's assuming DNA RNA exist in the first place...