Part 1: Extraction
The Claim:
According to all mainstream scientists for a few centuries, this white spaff pulled from some pulverized strawberries is the building blocks of life, literally the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It contains a string of nucleotides, too small to see with any microscope, wound into an (imagined and assumed) double helix that are an exact code for life that can be read, quantified assembled and predicted, mutated, inserted, transfected and sythetically synthesized.
You can acheive all of this by using the extremely complicated scientific inventory of : Dish Soap, Table Salt and Alcohol……
Strangely enough, as with alot of these “biological isolations”, instead of taking away components out of a mixture to be left with a purified single substance, most of the time you are actually adding stuff in… nevertheless, you may come to find that this may indeed not be a necessity.
The Method:
Take a “DNA” rich source, most use strawberries, but anything will work. Mash those strawberries up with a healthy squirt of dish soap and a tea spoon of table salt. Strain the mixture, then add ice cold Isopropyl alcohol over the top. The imiscible alcohol will settle ontop of the watery pulp and your LifeSnot will precipitate out into that layer being as it is insoluble in alcohol.
The detergent is said to be crucial, acting as a surfactant to release the DNA from being bound inside cell:
The Salt is crucial to bind to the phosphate groups of the DNA enabling it to precipitate out of solution. This extract claims that the salt helps keep “proteins dissolved” which as we will find out isn’t strictly true.
The role of adding salt, is said to be so crucial to precipitating DNA that it will not work without it, again which we will find out, isn’t strictly true.
So here we have one of thousands of Youtube videos of people extracting their MagicGoo on camera, this time with a little extra twist that this particular chef samples his meal made of soapy saline….. which funnily enough tastes….. yep… slimy and salty.
This video, when doing research, was a bit of a Red Herring as initially I was convinced that because the resultant product was slimy and salty, that the ingredients must actually be producing the end result. This inspired me to do some DIY controls (maybe I should start a Youtube channel lol)
DIY Controls
I set out with the hypothesis that the varying amounts of either salt and or dish soap were affecting the amount of SpecialSlime extracted.
So I took half a banana in each sample, mashed it up with a level tea spoon of the finest Brittany Sea Salt (Don’t do iodized table salt ‘ere mate) and added an egg cup’s worth of detergent in one and a tea spoon’s worth in the other.
Strained the ‘nanas out…..
Then added ice cold isopropyl alochol.
And wierdly the amount of GooeyGoo was almost identical in both. The glass on the right was actually the sample with less soap in. I had just poured the alcohol in. When it settled out it was roughly the same in both.
So… that was the hypothesis refuted… twas not the dish soap.
Just for laughs I tried it with Protein Powder… (Fret not, I am not coming out of the closet as a metrosexual gym bunny, I bought this VEGAN protein powder for the PCR controls I am conducting atm).
Despite it being a bit lumpier… maybe to do with the fact that it was in powder format… It still precipitated out a Gu.
Next on the list I tried to remove ingredients to see how fundamental they actually were in this whole process:
So I did one with No Salt and kept all the other ingredients and methods the same and one with No Dish Soap and kept all the other ingredients and methods the same.
Seen here is left to right: L :Positive Control Salt + Soap M: No Salt R: No Soap.
As you can tell there is not a blind bit of difference between them, so I decided to go the full hog and put no soap or salt in the last one:
Just half a banana in water.. mashed and seived.
Produced exactly the same Goopyglop as the rest of them.
Conclusion
With all of these experiments I ended up opening a whole can of worms for myself. I was doing this one on the side whilst I am conducting the PCR controls, which are taking up alot of time and brainpower (But with some great results… stay tuned ; )… ). I thought originally it was just going to be a case of; take the dish soap away and the goopy stuff goes away too….
What we have shown here with it not needing any of the main additives to work is that their stories of why they work are clearly bollocks… Salt does not “Bind to the Phosphate Backbone of the DNA so that it can precipitate out” and Dish soap is not needed to “release the DNA by breaking down the cell walls/membranes”.
I will carry on with some of these experiments when I have more time. I want to try and find something that would not contain “DNA” that may precipitate out this goop… maybe in the future I will try some things/ subscribers may be inspired (Especially by this next section) to try their own and come up with an experiment ingredient to falsify “DNA” extraction.
So What Is It?
Let’s go back to Youtube where, if we look with open eyes, they will eventually tell us the truth:
- The stuff we are actually looking at is NOT DNA. He says that it is too small to see with a light microscope. Damned right!… it is also too small for a Transmission Electron Microscope with a supposed nucleotide clocking in at a miniscule 340picometers.
- All of those fibres and green dots are ALL protein… confirming that protein definitely DOES precipitate out.
It seemed strange to me that he actively said that you cannot see the DNA in there and also stated that there was alot of protein in there but completely glazed over an explanation for what the GOO is? This is quite clearly NOT even claimed to be DNA otherwise all of the schmutz in the microscope images he would have been putting arrows galore to highlight his incredible finding.
My Hypothesis on the Jizz
I did quite a bit of head scratching on this one before finding what I believe to be the constituent ingredient of our slimy culprit. I originally thought after someone posted on ResearchGate that it could be some polysaccahride, but I believe that the MAIN compenent is not likely to be this as there are very few polysaccharides found in Saliva.
My attention turned once again to proteins when looking at the supposed contents of the nucleus and specifically the Nucleoplasm. It contains fibres of protein called “Fibrils”.
These Fibrils when they join together form what is known to be Collagen.
The most abundant protein in your body.
The Bombshell piece of evidence that leads me to believe that what we are actually dealing with is Collagen (Or Lignin in the case of plants) is the fact that it is soluble in water and at low percentages of alcohol yet precipitates in high percentages of ethanol/IPA into a GEL.
In a rather amusing coincidence ( I don’t believe in coincidences)… Collagen Fibres are also said to naturally form a “Helix Shape” in this case supposedly a “Triple Helix”.
DIY or Professional?
“But Jamie!” I hear you cry, you are comparing home DNA extraction using household products with that used in highly sophisticated modern laboratories.
Hopefully when reading this you can really and truely feel the deep belly laugh eminating through the screen:
In the most sophisticated version of RT qPCR for extracting “DNA”, the transcribing solution has both NaCL (standard table salt) and Detergent in it… however unsure as to whether it is Lavender scented or not (LOLOLOL)
The only difference between your home crockery lube and the super wizzo sciencey stuff they use in laboratories is seemingly the astonishing price tag at around $200 for a measley 50ml.
This gives me a cunning business idea….
Part 2: Sequencing
THE CLAIM
So here we arrive at the most scary part of the DNA and by extension Virus hoax. Full of big numbers, expensive machinery and highly specific claims of accuracy. This one is going to be a behemoth of a post, there is no way around it unfortunately… gonna leave it all in one article so it is all in one place, sit tight and enjoy.
Please watch the two videos below:
The first being an animation of what is claimed to be occurring at nucleotide level. They obviously can’t show you real pictures of what is happening and have to animate everything because:
A: Nucleotides are so small there aren’t any microscopes in existence that can see them.
B. It isn’t physically happening at all, as this is taking place in a liquid chemical state in solution. All of these strings and blobs and sequences aren’t physically there, they are just proposed hypothetical structures based on electrostatic modelling at the molecular level…. tenuous huh!
This second video shows you the setup, data input and running of the machine itself. Handy to see to orientate yourself with the process. This machine being only a slightly more complex version of a PCR thermocycler: A heating element, a few lasers, a few cameras and a flow cell….. that’s it folks….. One MILLION dollars thank you please!
The Numbers
To fully get your head around what they are claiming, let’s lay out some of the data we will be crunching today:
One ml Saliva sample from a human could contain nearly 500 distinct different microbial species (bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa and parasites) with the total count of organisms stretching into the tens of BILLIONS.
Each one of these species of bacteria, for instance the commonly occurring Streptococcus Mutans could contain genetic variations within the same sample of up to 23% of the genome. So tens of billions of organisms, with even the same species 1 of 500 potentially differing by a quarter of the entire genome.
If you thought you could “clean up” this sample and sequence a few of these species, say you were going after unicorns… I mean viruses…. You could apply antibiotics to remove all the bacterial DNA… right!? WRONG… you got the lot in there whether you like it or not.
This is obviously JUST within a saliva sample. If you are sequencing a cell culture, you have the saliva sample on top of the Cell Line on top of the Fetal Bovine Serum.
They take this sample, whizz it up into a big old DNA soup and “cut it” into very small segments, in most cases with Illumina sequencing 150 Base Pairs long and spit them out the other side.
In some of the more advanced Illumina machines they are churning out 10 BILLION reads, 150bp long.
Context summary for the sample being tested:
The inputs going into their machine are supposedly 10 BILLION short little segments that it is not known from which of the Billions of microbes they came from, all floating around in liquid chemical state in a solution so not physically there, merely hypothetically modeled to be in a sequence.
THE INPUTS
Going into this we are going to start with two massive assumptions that A: DNA and Nucleotides exist and can form these sequences and B: They can be read by an Illumina Sequencer. This is certainly not my opinion as they both come with an equally sized to this article, litany of logical flaws and methodological errors. But for sake of brevity we will continue on starting with these assumptions as a base.
Here we have all of the input variables going into Illumina Sequencing. I will deal just with Illumina Sequencing again to keep it brief. Nanopore Sequencing is almost identical in its input variables , it is much less accurate than Illumina sequencing giving back 15% higher error rates because it *attempts* through the same problematic constructions to give longer reads.
Sanger Sequencing is just a glorified version of PCR, targeting only specific sections of a genome with pre-made Oligonucleotides sequences, so the sequence MUST be known BEFORE to target something (not that this stops them claiming to be able to De Novo sequence with it (Quacks)).
Not a single one of these input variables has ever been controlled for at any stage by anyone. I.e do not Reverse Transcribe a sample and keep all other chosen variables the same to see the effect it has on the outcome.
This obviously renders the entire process of sequencing redundant as a Pseudoscience, but you know me… we are going to pull it apart.
HYPOTHESIS
The intentional choice surrounding the reagents and methods of the 29 distinct steps of sequencing is a determining factor over the sequences generated.
CHOOSING OUTCOMES
Circled in red is the Template otherwise known as the sample. Out of the nearly thirty distinct methodological procedures, some of which contain tens to hundreds of reagents (liquid chemicals) and methodological steps in their own right, ONLY the template is (partially) a “natural” input variable.
The template is only partially natural due to the many choices intentionally made depending on what someone *thinks* is in the sample. Hopefully by the end of this you will truly see how the choosing of inputs sculpts the output sequence.
If a clinical sample is thought to contain a virus, it will be put into Viral Transport Medium to “preserve” for sequencing.
It actually doesn’t preserve the cells at all as it is in 2% FBS and Nephrotoxic Antibiotics which we have shown to cause “CPE” in cell lines. Also Fetal Bovine Serum is unwittingly introducing contamination with a source of bovine genetics. Is this factored in ( I highly doubt it).
RNA ONLY
Right from the off, the moment someone has decided a sample contains a virus it is immediately treated in a different way with the type of reagents used. We then go into Reverse Transcription. Because someone *thinks* a sample contains Sars Cov 2 for instance, which is an RNA virus, this has to be reverse transcribed otherwise the Illumina Sequencer won’t be able to even sequence it.
This Reverse Transcription has it’s own quite long methodological procedure involving not only a complete set of specific reagents even to extract RNA that differs from our well known Soapy/Salty DNA extraction.
Our Reverse Transcription ALSO contains a primer set that can be specific to a sequence that you want to look for in a sample .i.e have assumed it is there.
Before our sample that someone assumes contains a virus even gets near the sequencing machine it is “amplified” using PCR. Specific Oligonucleotides are synthesized to supposedly amplify all of the genetic material of Sars Cov 2. Again this is entirely uncontrolled and the sheer fact they are putting in KNOWN synthetic sequences and then lo and behold FINDING those sequences when sequencing is… well …pretty unsurprising!!
This snaps into focus one of the largest problematic areas being, how did someone carry out the first sequence of any virus if its genome had to be amplified and targeted to “find it”. Like was it just a very fucking lucky guess? Lol.. of course not… it is all circular reasoned, benchmarked and verified against itself.
None more so evident than with Sars Cov 2. They used the “Takara Protocol” a particular set of primers, library prep, adapters and Poly T adapters to TARGET specific parts of a genome ……. that they didn’t know!!!!! How was this specific sequence targeted with oligonucleotides that require you to KNOW the sequence…. the mind boggles!!
Gel Electrophoresis
Next up on our list of determining inputs is the rather innocuous sounding “Fragmentation and Size Selection”. This is the “cutting” up of the DNA strands with enzymes and then putting them through Gel Electrophoresis claimed to be separating out different “sizes” and therefore “lengths” of DNA into bands. This “technique” is claimed to be so sensitive it can give you exact lengths of purified DNA strands. In the case of “Sars Cov 2” Illumina sequencing they determine this number to be 150bp, a chosen number to best “amplify its regions”…
I am going to concentrate on Gel Electrophoresis because it is basically how EVERYTHING in virology is verified. Actually when you dig down into the literature, in oligo synthesis, enzyme synthesis, protein synthesis, Amino Acid Synthesis, Antibody synthesis, peptide synthesis etc etc… In fact ALL of the moving parts that are called “biochemical” molecules and how they are Identified and hence how they are synthesized to be SPECIFIC to the processes of PCR and Sequencing are totally predicted on various forms of gel electrophoresis.
The principal is exceptionally simple; Take a DC battery, a gel a bit like agar-agar, put the cathode at one end of the gel and the anode at the other… Because DNA is supposedly negatively charged it moves through the gel toward the anode and is “filtered out” by the pores in the gel. This “separation” is not to do with charge as the charge difference between size of molecules is so minuscule it doesn’t affect the distance traveled, which ultimately causes the banding, more than the determining factor of FRICTION. Yes this entire principle and hence the entire “specificity” of PCR and Sequencing is based on FRICTION of molecules through a jelly.
Above is all of the “biochemical” molecules that are claimed to work in Gel Electrophoresis… They ALL have negative charge, they are ALL so small they have never been photographed or seen as no microscope exists that will image things this small. Apart from the the lipids and polysaccharides they are essentially all identical in rough function and supposed size. Are they really distinct separate things or just assumed categories with made up functions for what is essentially just negative charge…. my thoughts firmly rest with the latter.
Here is a short video showing you the method and equipment.
Here is a pretty long and boring video on CHOOSING the right Gel, this is important because remember it is all about FRICTION and the TINIEST changes in concentration of the gel causes completely different results. Interestingly Proteins are most commonly separated with a Polyacrylamide Gel… BUT if you are looking for 150bp length DNA you also use the EXACT same equipment including the same gel… something to consider. But nevertheless give it a watch to truly see for yourself the sheer quackery and inaccuracy clearly present in this “technique”.
Here are three gels differing by a mere one percent in Gel Concentration mix with the SAME sample… Look at the HUGE difference in results… clearly completely different… This is assuming the gels are consistent and uniform across the entire tray…. which inevitably will be incredibly hard to prove.
PCR and Sequencing Specificity
The fundamental principal of PCR and by extension Sequencing specificity is that an Enzyme, usually Taq Polymerase can “recognize” where a Primer finishes so that the enzyme can then “build” the rest of the nucleotides strand and “copy and amplify” the code… Keeping in mind once again ( a running theme) that this is all in chemical liquid state, not actually physically happening.
This Enzyme however is NOT specific to the Primer sequence… largely because they claim it can do too many things for it to be chemically possible to be specific…
So…. this blob of protein (negatively charged thing identified and verified in a gel using the above technique) is NOT specific but somehow can “recognize” a primer (chemical liquid), not chemically BIND to it… just “interact” with it based on electrostatic charge “structure” (which isn’t actually a physical structure just a hypothetical modeled one in chemical liquid state)…. Tenuous? Nah mate.. not even started yet.
This Enzyme can recognize where to start its “activity” because it recognizes a Primer-Template hybrid. Unfortunately however… this primer-template hybrid containing the SPECIFIC REGION TO BE AMPLIFIED is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in chemistry to a normal Template-Template hybrid which could be any DNA fragment in the sample. They try and claim the IDENTICAL CHEMISTRY …. one is “available” and one is not… despite them both being “free” and of the same Hydroxyl group…
How is this specificity confirmed? I here you cry….. well you guessed it by connecting a DC car battery ( jokes- but it is no much more sophisticated than an AC/DC power supply with a variac on it) into a Jello. This is seen here in Kary Mullis’ paper claiming that because some bands get thicker when he changes some stuff, that means his enzyme (which he verified in his car battery jello machine) is recognizing his specific/nonspecific/identical/available/non available primer(which he verified in his car battery jello machine) …
Here’s the paper for a laugh: MULLISYOUFRAUD
So back on with the Sequencing show. They put this pre-amplfied material through a gel. Assume one of the bands contains all of the same 150bp lengths of DNA segments and then physically cut that piece of gel out….
VOILA… OUR SAMPLE IS NOW READY TO SEQUENCE
Prepping the Library
If I could draw your attention back to the video at the top of the article of the lovely Illumina representative showing us how to perform a run on her machine.
Notice the things that are programmed into the computer. She puts the exact Read length. She then chooses from a drop down menu her Library Prep and Indexing options. She then turns to camera and adds “this includes custom library prep kits”.
The Library Prep kit is essentially all of the reagents that go into sequencing the sample, we have already covered the RNA extraction, The Reverse Transcription, the fragmentation, size selection and PCR amplification. These are all part of the Library Prep. All that is left if the Sequencing Primers and the Adapters.
So as mentioned before with a very targeted sequencing such as that of “Sars Cov 2” the library kit they choose is called the “ARTIC Protocol” covering all of these reagents. This would fall under the category of a “custom library prep”. But even so in what is considered “standard” Library Prep kits available to CHOOSE what you *think* is in the sample to sequence some of the most common ones get as specific as single celled RNA sequencing with SMART-Seq.
Here really is a large part of what I would call “crafting” or “sculpting”. They are knowingly giving quite a bit of information and feeding it into the sequencer, telling it how many BP the reads are, exactly what it is LOOKING FOR… i.e RNA and Small and Single Celled.
ARTIC PROTOCOL
Let’s snap in to the ARTIC protocol for sequencing Sars Cov 2. It contains a Primer SET of more than one hundred different synthesized oligonuleotides that cover the WHOLE genome on Amplicons. So for this particular library prep they are intentionally putting in a large portion of the sequence, to find the sequence… I mean, is it any surprise that you find the thing that you put in there??!!
Lest I just jog your memory from the initial part of the methodology that this sample has ALREADY been amplified by PCR intentionally putting in the sequences they are looking for on top of the potentially specific primer set for Reverse Transcription… to then have another 120 Primer sequences chucked in there for good measure.
Adapters
As If there weren’t enough synthesized oligos in this brew already with all of the primers, they make some more for good measure. The Adapter is chemically bonded onto the flow cell where the LIQUID CHEMICALS (going to get tired of pointing this out) flow over. These supposedly dangle like seaweed ( if it were physically there but it isn’t) and “catch” the DNA going past. It is the front of house “primer sequence”.
I will caveat all of this with the fact that these are trimmed i.e cut out at the alignment phase as they will appear at the front of every read. They are not technically primers because they are supposedly not present in the genome of the thing you are sequencing…
Strange then that these Adapters can be CUSTOMIZED to “catch” single celled RNA.
FLOW CELLS and READ LENGTH
From the start of the protocol and the electrophoresis part we have already customized the number of Base Pairs in each read, this is then programmed into the sequencer so that it “knows” how long the reads are meant to be. The Flow Cell which is essentially the reaction plate where the magic takes place, the particular variety of flow cell is then chosen based on the exact read length…
The big zinger here is that there could have been some sort of verification that the stuff they cut out of the band in electrophoresis was indeed as long a chain as they thought it was (huge amounts of assumptions noted)…. But NO, each cluster does not represent one read… it is essentially just the computer algorithm within the sequencer which chops up the reads into the desired length.. in our case 150bp
P5/P7 Primers
WAIT! You thought we had finished with the amount of primers used! How naive! Nope we have some more, totally synthesized, totally specific sequences intentionally put into the mix. These are specific primers that can match the specific Adapters to “catch” more of the specific DNA around the clusters where they are attached to the Flow Cell…
I promise that is all for the primers.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
OK If there is one piece of information about this entire sham of a technique that adequately shows the sheer level of stupidity involved, it has to be the Poly A Tail.
When sequencing RNA viruses, presumably the first time they did it, they found that somewhere in the middle of this sequence there was a string of Adenine groups all in a row. 20 to 200 (yes TWO HUNDRED) in a row AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…..
Now instead of just binning this obvious computing glitch (what is the likelihood of 200 Adenine groups in a row?) they decided to start calling it a feature of RNA viruses called the Poly A tail. Now do you think that they could just replicate these findings with no added changes? HAHA… could they FUCK.
They synthesize an almost exact length of Thymine groups and PUT IT IN THE MIX TOO!!! Called the Poly T Adapter they literally make and insert the feature to find it…
ALIGNMENT
The flashing lights display from the fluorescent dyes they purposefully put in there has occurred and this has been spat out as some letters in the predefined length of 150 Base Pair Reads. There are up to 10 BILLION of these with the high end Illumina sequencers.
Now I am not going to bother to go into the inherent flaws within the actual running of this process of which there is a VERY long list. They are mostly revolving around errors in reading and interpreting the order of the lights, which in and of itself is quite a big problem.
Essentially most of these lead to just degradation of the data and I am not particularly interested in these inaccuracies. Just like the high cycle threshold claim of inaccuracies with PCR, whilst legitimate, is rather superficial and doesn’t touch any of the mountain of logical flaws/impossibilities and “sculpting” of outputs that we are covering here.
Nevertheless here is some areas to investigate if this is of interest.
This part of the process could most certainly be an article in itself as it is the part of the method that contains the most obvious ability to figuratively generate fraudulent data. This is not, by the way, my opinion by any stretch of the imagination, this is the admission of any intellectual honest geneticist and certainly the opensource software alignment programs maker’s’ like MEGAHIT.
The premise is fairly simple. You take the reads, in our case 150 Base Pairs long and you try and “stitch” them together into contigs to then match them against a database of known genomes. The two biggest problems are A: How this is assembled and B: The genomes they are being referenced against have ALL been built with the logical flaws and “sculpting” of inputs i.e Circular Reasoning (referencing against itself- read my article entitled Benchmarking Reality for more).
Whilst the mathematics that goes on under the hood of these software programmes is quite complex and certainly data heavy, the terminology and basic principles are quite easy to understand. Reads of 150 Base Pairs are split in Kmers which are at the start and end of the reads. These have a CHOSEN value, usually around 21. This represents an “Overlap”. So the computer programmes try to find these Kmers that overlap reads. They join the reads that have an overlap to form a Contiguous sequence (Contig). The Contigs represent a genome and can be compared to the genome database to “identify” something in the sample.
The real bread and butter of the manipulation occurs in these Kmer sections as these computer programmes employ a thing called the De Bruijn Graph method of alignment. This takes the sequence within the Kmer and slides the sequences around to try and force the reads to overlap.
The very fact that these computer programmes are heavily manipulating the overlaps means that THESE CONTIGS ARE NOT NATURAL. As soon as there is an admission that these sequences in ANY way are artificial that means they CANNOT be used to identify anything in nature. End of story.
This is a short but very good video demonstrating how these artificial contigs are generated. You can try this program out for yourself here : De Bruijn Graph
Again for the sake of this article becoming book length, purely because of the sheer amount of problems with all of these methods I will just list all of the problems that knowingly arise with the De Bruijn Graph assembly that give artificial results.
No more is this alignment process shown as being fabricated nonsense than if you start to compare the same datasets using different alignment programs as they did here in this Published paper.
They performed a whopping 6648 De Novo assemblies with all of the well known assembly programs.
Despite the HUGE number of attempts they had they had to admit that in MOST cases they were not able to “assemble” I.e replicate the previously known (invented) genome.
The number of Base Pairs in contiguous alignment varied Massively for 29k right the way down to 1100.
The total fraction of the genome found, varied by TEN FOLD across different assembly programs
So given this, it is probably no surprise that when sequencing Sars Cov 2 with Nanopore that more than half of the assembly is errors or manipulations.
I guess now the threshold for accurately assembling a genome is just 50% coverage… noted.
FORCING THE WRONG CONTIGS
Whilst learning about the process of sequencing and alignment, one piece of faulty logic stuck out like a sore thumb to me. The implications of this means that not only do these sequences not occur in nature but they can’t possibly be from a single organism, in fact the contigs aligned in the method currently used specifically FORCE the WRONG reads together.
This is easiest to explain if we take a simplified best case scenario, where complete single contigs from one distinct biological entity are sequenced from start to finish splitting them into short reads.
In this instance, quite clearly the reads from one distinct biological source of the DNA should NOT OVERLAP.
Now here it states and I have had this corroborated numerous times that the sequencer DOES NOT know the Kmer value used in alignment to find Overlaps input into it. I.e If the sequencer knew the Kmer value when sequencing and went forward and backward like a bleed margin by the Kmer value, you could then stitch the contigs together 100% of the time with 0% errors.
Considering the FACT that NONE of the alignment programs work this way, they MUST be fabricating a sequence not found in nature.
BOOOOOOM Through pushing Chat GPT it finally turned over its hand to agree that it is a statistical certainty that the sequences generated are fabricated and therefore there is no proof they exist in nature.
I made this quick graphic to try and illustrate the point more clearly.
Genome 1 and 2 represent the complete contigs (60 Base Pairs) of 2 distinct biological entities, lets call them bacteria, lol. The different colours of sequences represent the Reads (20bp) The Yellow section represents the Kmer (5 bp).
So in our first example, just sequencing our bacteria using a best case, pure example of having the genome of one individual bacteria. Note the boxes in red represent an attempt at an overlap using the De Bruijn Graph method. In this case the Original sequence of the bacteria WILL NOT be assembled as there is clearly no overlap.
In our second example introducing a second bacteria. Here we can clearly see that if using the De Bruijn graph method that not only will neither the first nor second bacteria will be aligned in order, but because the first and second bacteria share an exact or similar kmer , they will be forced into a completely fictitious contig.
Here we have proved that this method of alignment CANNOT sequence a single celled organism on it own. The rescue device that is employed is that because there are numerous of these micro organisms that when a kmer is found to match between two reads that this must be representative of a “species” of micro-organism.
If this were the case then there should be little need to manipulate the reads with the De Bruijn Graph method. If they exist in such high quantities i.e Billions of Micro-organisms in a single sample, 10 Billion short reads, you should expect to find alignment easily. Yet chat GPT agrees it would be “Very Hard” to make any contigs if these reads weren’t manipulated. No Shit.
If one used a high Kmer value and no De Bruijn Graph manipulation it would be virtually impossible to make ANY contigs at all.
CONCLUSION
When dealing with specifically “viral” sequencing, which is the main reason why we are here, certainly RNA viruses which are 95% of supposed pandemic causing, I think I have adequately shown that every single minute step of the method is synthesized, manipulated and chosen to sculpt the output.
Certainly in the case of the Primers, literally putting in the sequences they are supposedly looking for, not once but FOUR times with HUGE genome coverage, they are clearly CREATING the sequences they are LOOKING for. None more so obvious than with the Poly A Tail/Poly T tail Adapters.
Some of the evidence that would add weight to this is the fact that if you do not carry out just ONE of these steps being Reverse Transcription, you could apparently NOT be able to sequence even a pure sample of Sars Cov 2 if it were not.
Just to show you THEIR explanation for supposedly why… RNA and DNA are IDENTICAL in chemistry apart from one oxygen extra on RNA. Now all of the binding happens to the Hydroxyl group (OH) which BOTH RNA and DNA have… but somehow an enzyme can Electrostaticly (The chemistry is identical and doesn’t react just “Interact”) “SENSE” the difference of its “structure” (not that it is physically there as it is a chemical in a liquid state). How do they know this? You guessed it… verified by our beloved Car Battery and Jello method…(TBC).
Here we have it, the extremely tenuous excuses as to why the sequences are only produced if they try and produce them. This is a clear decision making process that Sculpts the output through numerous choices made based on what a geneticists THINKS is in the sample.
Really, not even the geneticists are confident in the alignment process as even the mainstream consensus is that there is an “error rate” and list of problems as long as your arm. The real damning evidence rests with the fundamental principle of stitching small sequences together that A: Cannot possibly be from the same Micro- organism and B: Cannot be considered Natural as the De Bruijn Graph method knowingly fabricates sequences.
If Genetic Sequencing CANNOT show that a sequence is present in nature then it CANNOT be used either by itself or PCR to show that someone has any Micro-organism in them, causing an infection or otherwise, especially a “virus”.
HOW TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS
I have laid out in this article the myriad variables that serve as sculpting inputs into the sausage machine. Considering a high read count Illumina run is almost $2000 per sample, if we were to try and control for every single variable in this method, I have no doubt that the test would be creeping close to the million dollar mark. I think this approach, whilst giving us absolute proof as to which of these variables is having the most influence on outputs, is wholly unnecessary.
To me, I think it is clear the areas that could potentially have the most influence, that being the Reverse Transcription, PCR amplification, the Library Prep and the Alignment. These are the variables that we have chosen to try and control. The Alignment is much more in our control given that part of the project is someone very capable of handling the Alignment programs and data sets.
When conducting our controls we use blinded independent and accredited Contract Research Organizations (CROs). So the way we have tried to get them to alter these input variables is by commissioning them to LOOK for specific things in the dish. For our negative control we have told them just to DNA sequence a cell line and they have treated it one way. For the first of our test cultures we have told them we have found a “virus” in our culture due to CPE present from a clinical sample and want it RNA sequenced to sequence this specific virus.
This is the blueprint of the way I think it is best to control this methodology if any others are interested in conducting their own studies.
Watch This Space.
Part 3: Forensics, Gene editing and Ancestry.
If I had a pound for every time someone has read the irrefutable and unanimous evidence of the failed contagion studies I put together and said “Yeah… but what about my kid who got chicken pox at school and they all had it” I would be a very rich man. The fragrant disregard for the attempt at controlling all variables in a scientific manner is replaced by vague and misremembered anecdotes. Of course not ALL the kids got sick, it NEVER works like that, the ones that got sick were spread out over a longer time period than remembered.
This is now the type of (lack of) thinking that I get presented with when discussing genetics: “DNA doesn’t exist!? But then how do you explain they spliced the genetics of a frog into a rabbit so it can jump higher, how did they do that if it doesn’t exist hey?!” Herein we are presented with the same mountain of assumptions and logical inconsistencies that come with blind belief in a subject.
If you really want to believe that any of these downstream practices of anything to do with genetics from Forensics to CRISPR to Ancestry, that they work in the way that they claim, to the ridiculous levels of accuracy, FIRST you are going to have to show me the thing they claim they are measuring.
A nucleotide is 100x smaller than a virus, it has never been photographed EVER because it is so small, it is not a physical thing, it is a chemical that is claimed to be held together by hypothetical electromagnetic forces. The person who claimed to discover them Albert Kossel, supposedly found them in all sort of weird animal offal, like the thymus of calf. This paper is not published ANYWHERE online, has anyone seen it? AI didn’t even know where it is, oh and when you do find it, it will be in German.
So if you are going to claim these downstream methods work, then there is a lot of digging you gotta do before we even have a rational debate on our hands. Nevertheless, I am going to write this article to thoroughly debunk all of these things. Hopefully after the first few you will see that they are all just a cheap magic trick, a sleight of hand, that when you see that the card was tucked up the magicians sleeve the whole time, should leave you feeling cheated… but hopefully wiser.
FORENSICS
The real world implications of this one are massive. Crime scene genetics has incarcerated hundreds of thousands of people. So surely the science behind it has been RIGOROUSLY tested right? You know, where they give forensic testing labs samples that they know the outcome of so as to test the real world accuracy. Well if I said ‘NO!” you might be as surprised as Barry Scheck the lawyer on OJ Simpson’s Dream Team in charge of forensics that there had never been (before his intervention) ANY internal verification of accuracy done on forensic genetics.
Yes… Shock horror… a man swears… in front of a whole room, in a professional setting. Maybe this is just what people do who are passionate about the truth rather than new age woo woo grifters whose sole interest is to concentrate on their public image ; ).
So watch these two presentations on the frailties of Forensic analysis, the first from Greg Hampkian who is co-owner of the Innocence Project (with Barry Scheck) exonerating people they believe were imprisoned based on incorrect Forensic analysis.
In this second presentation by Geneticist and Microbiologist Dane Krane, pay close attention to the last 5 minutes. He makes the clear statement that Genetics labs REFUSE to do testing blinded. They demand to know all of the information about a sample BEFORE it is tested. He describes this like a Kid wanting to see the Answers to a test before sitting it! That is exactly what this is. They want to be able to MOLD the inputs of the Sequencers so that the outputs give the answer they have PRESUMED.
I stumbled across this article, linked in the picture, a couple of years ago and it rocked my world. Up until then, I (stupidly) had thought that whilst viruses and everything about their “scientific”verification was akin to witchcraft, I still believed in the genetics part. This single article rubbished the entire thing before my eyes. Literally Jaw hits floor stuff.
It documents Barry Scheck and Greg Hampkian’s efforts to bring some kind of accuracy testing by the government agencies such as NIST. They, after some cajoling FORCED them into doing a blinded accuracy study. They took a sample of 3 different suspects, they knew which was the perpetrator and asked 108 different labs to find it.
The results were SHOCKING….. the claim that DNA genetics analysis is 99.8% accurate was SLASHED to just 6% getting the correct answer!!!!! The worst thing about it… if they had just taken a wild guess, they would have been right 33% of the time… so the genetics test was WORSE than just randomly guessing.
Below is a link to the 60 page NIST report where this occurs.
Ascld Lab Jan2015 Coblebutler
1.05MB ∙ PDF file
Inspired by this cacophony, Greg and Barry started to represent people on behalf of The Innocence Project, taking on cases of what they felt was wrongful conviction based on forensic evidence. What they started to uncover was just as shocking. Such as this “partisan” analyst that skewed his data so much that only 1 other lab out of 17 agreed with his findings… Again a LESS than 10% return on accuracy!!!!
Chimeric Rescue Devices
So it is no wonder that they never conduct accuracy tests with known outcomes in Genetics testing.. because they fail…badly. So what happens then when they start to do things like Maternity and Paternity tests.. but when they know who they are.
Well… a case like Karen Keegan’s occurred that apparently genetics testing revealed that two of the three children she gave birth to… weren’t hers…. LOLOL.
In steps the wonderful rescue device of “Genetic Chimerism” to make up for the abject failure, once again, of genetics testing.
Or this one where a suspect that exactly matched the DNA database was in jail at the time of the crime…. in steps our rescue device once again “CHiMerA”
ANIMALS
OK OK so humans all have very similar “genetic codes” (supposedly), it might be difficult to tell them apart (its not like it is important in a criminal case or anything). But surely you can do the bare minimum and be able to tell completely different animals apart from each other? Well……what were you expecting?
Here this news channel sent in multiple human samples to test them as if they were Dogs. Not a single lab came back and said that the sample was human and more than half of the labs claimed they were different breeds of dog!!
Or try this HILARIOUS video of a guy sending in a sample from his pet lizard which came back that they thought it was an Ashkenazi Jewish male.
In fact it was getting so common that these genetics companies were getting fooled that they now want as much proof as they can get before doing the test. They want a picture of the dog, they want to know what breed you think it is, they also want a video of you taking the dogs saliva. Why go to such extreme lengths if your tools are so accurate?
GENE EDITING/GMO
I used to play this game on Twitter where a nameless/faceless troll would sway forward holding some science paper claiming proved the existence of a virus. I would read it, immediately jumping of course to the methods section, find the part that was the trickery, usually running a Mock control rather than a real one or some such other nonsense, underline it, screenshot it and send it back. I got so proficient at this, I was managing to do this whole process in sub 3 mins with a record time of 2 mins 15 seconds.
After a while you have read all the papers and don’t even need to bother looking and if you haven’t, you can just tell where the trick is before, knowing their methods. Once you see it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Think of it a bit like Penn & Teller sitting on a stage watching a Magic Trick… they just know the card was up the blokes sleeve all the time, because there are only really a few different methods of carrying off what is essentially the fraud of magic.
So I am Penn Jillete and we are going to walk through all of the Gene Editing Magic Tricks and show you where the fraud is. Once you see it… it is very obvious:
Here are the 4 main methods of Magic Trick they are going to pull:
- Viral Resistance (Fucking Lol)… I mean start with a dumb one right! Do I need to explain how this trick works? They take something that doesn’t exist with a group of observable effects that are caused by the chemicals they are adding and claim all sorts of fanciful stuff… Of course your “genetically altered” wheat is resistant to your dangerous wheat virus just as much as it is resistant to Leprechaun attack.
- Fluorescent Light Display… Just like our PCR fraud, why does a biochemical reaction that lights up mean that you can ascribe anything to the said light? A: Of what use is making a rats knackers glow in the dark? B: When you even take a fleeting glance at the methods, they are PUTTING in all of the synthetically made Glowing chemicals at some point in time…. why would you think that putting a fluorescent dye into a rat would make it NOT glow, is the question?
- Breeding Program…At the heart of nearly all of these commercial agricultural uses of genetech is a selective breeding program. They never gene edit say a pig with cow genetics so that the pig is twice the size and makes cow milk right? What they do is take NATURALLY occurring attributes to a breed that are considered RARE or Profitable. They do a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors diversion in a petri dish THEN just selectively breed the desired attributes.. This has sod all to do with gene editing.. it is just hereditary traits (which obviously exist and will be covered a bit later)
- Stats Padding… This is kind of a combination of the essence of the 3 above. They take a variety of lets say a crop like wheat and they claim to gene edit it to make it more resistant to some pest. They obviously selectively breed it to find the more hardy species. But this one is just the ASSUMPTION that this plant has actually become resistant to this pest or is a confirmation that it is by using pseudoscientific instruments such as Gel Electrophoresis. They still water and fertilize and spray pesticide on the crops… It is not as if they can make a plant that just grows without touching it. They continue to create this artificial environment with all of the Agro-chemicals that go into it… Maybe in the case of fruit, in a poly tunnel for increased growing season. As you will see they can’t even make a frost resistant species of Orange to grow a couple of degrees out of latitude… They have taken just “naturally” occurring things and make stat padding claims that in reality is just statistics fraud.
Glowing Rat’s Knackers
This is the one I get asked the most about. “But they can make a Mouse glow!!!”, I mean wow! They claimed in the 50s we’d all be in flying cars by now but instead modern tech has made a rat glow if it chews on a glow stick.. guess that will have to suffice.
This one is so dim it hurts.. Linked into the pictures is the paper where they gene edit a mouse supposedly to express some sort of fluorescence.
The problem is… this doesn’t fluoresce on its own… no of course not…they have have to inject Luciferin into the mouse before it’ll glow..
AND LUCFERIN NATRUALLY GLOWS!!!!
I mean really…. this magic trick is like pulling the coin from behind a child’s ear…. it should be insulting to your intelligence.
ANIMAL EDITS
So I asked AI for all of the supposedly real world and tangible gene edits that occur in Animals.. So let’s go through them and hunt for the magic trick.
- Hornless Cattle: Well this is most certainly a number 3, breeding program, they take Holstein Cattle which have claimed “rare” polled (hornless) varieties and when the offspring are polled after they do some smoke and mirrors in a test tube… Hey presto! hornless. It seems to me there may be an added part to this that how do they know that the hornless variety is not just a case of being diseased/injured/poisoned during gestation like a deformity?
- Virus Resistance…. lol
- Sex determination… Ok maybe I should have added another “magic trick” to the roster… they don’t actually do it…lol. They admit everywhere you look that they don’t use this commercially as the practice of sexing semen has a 90%+ return rate already…
The way that it works… is quite simple that the Female sperm are just slightly bigger…
4.Viruses again….
- Muscle Meat. Well it even says that this is not used commercially. It involves a breeding program,they are stat padded results given that “more Meat” could be just generated fro pumping them full of steroids in the feed.
- AquaAdvatage Salmon. This is a Breeding Program with Stat Padding. They selectively breed for varieties which grow all year… and then keep them in tanks where they control the temperature to simulate it being summer all year… This one is VERY dumb.
- Virus resistance…
- Goat Spider Milk… Ok this one is very strange…apart from sounding like an Amateur Psychedelic Rock Band… why? ….ok I don’t care whatever..Yes this is Stat Padding… They confirm this supposedly very specific protein by using Gel Electrophoresis (Covered in Part 2 just how janky it is)…. I can guarantee they haven’t done a control to show that these bands aren’t present in normal goat milk…not that the proteins are something or… whatever this is just weird…
PLANT EDITS
- Oelic Acid is a pretty arbitrary chemical verified in the typically loose manner. It is part of a breeding program and Stat Padded.
- Herbicide Resistant Soybeans… where they just reduce the amount of herbicide they spray on them… lol… yes plants will be better if you spray them with less poison.
- Fragrant Rice… OK they do a whole load of funky stuff to make Basmati or Jasmin Rice… which already exists…they do this… surprisingly with a Breeding program… shock horror.
4.Increased Yield and Nitrogen use are Stat Padding and a breed
- Tomato flavor and virus resistance should be self explanatory.. flavor is subjective.
- Potato Cold Storage and Blight . Cold Storage sugar accumulation is it even good to do this? Like chemical preservatives.Resisting Blight isn’t used commercially which you would have thought it would if it worked.
- Wheat reduced Allergenicity and Improved Grain Quality.. Grain Quality is a breeding program. Allergenic is pretty subjective I highly doubt they are making people eat it in controlled studies with non GMO wheat? lol
- Mushrooms with preservatives….
- Sweet Potato starch quality is subjective
- Cucumber Virus resistance.
X-gal
So I got asked by a subscriber on Substack to address his work that he did with X-gal which turns blue supposedly only in the presence of a specific enzyme.
So firstly we have a completely synthetic chemical not found in nature. It turning Blue could be ascribed to ANY invented reason for why it applies to the mechanism for it doing as such. There isn’t much really further to be said other than that. However looking into the plasmid insertion opened up a huge rabbit hole for me… so thank you ( I think lol)
When they insert a plasmid they use numerous methods but they all revolve around essentially the same thing which is using a charge either electrical or chemical (Calcium Ion) to open up pores in a cell to let the plasmid in. As you will see this has a MASSIVE effect on a cell and will be my reason to why the X-gal turns blue in the “Gene altered” dish, nothing to do with the stuff that is meant to go in it.
I want to focus on Electroporation. Literally using an electrical charge of high voltage (1000+ V) to supposedly open up pores in a cell… This coincidentally is ALSO used in “cloning” where they take an egg and insert some piece, usually skin cell and ACTIVATE the egg into growing by giving it an electrical shock to mimic the chemical charged Calcium Ion “shock” that the sperm induces.
Now this area intrigued me… An egg WILL NOT GROW if it is not electrically activated to do as such… nothing to do with the supposed DNA inside the cells this must be CHARGED.
As you will come to see in this channel and in my work alot of the pathways that I am heading down ALL end up in what is essentially CHARGE based formation whether that be in how Nucleotides supposedly binds.. how the enzymes facilitate reactions in PCR, how they measure literally anything ( All proteins, enzymes, amino acids etc etc) in things like Gel Electrophoresis, it all leads back to the same place. So when I heard that is literally how life starts it was well… a bit shocking… (oh fuck off I am allowed to do a cheesy pun every now and again).
So I did some digging to see if you could just shock an egg into growing without anything added it to it and lo and behold you CAN… it even has a name which is Parthogenesis.
So eggs will grow and develop supposedly without a full set of “DNA”… They have even managed to get FEMALE only cells to grow into a full term mouse… *This doesn’t bode well for us lads in the age of the independent modern woman*
Now they CLAIM that in humans, Parthogentically activated eggs will theoretically not go to term.. However they admit that they haven’t really tried. The sheer fact that it can even grow into embryonic stages to me completely shoots down the genomic/chromosome theory of Genetics.
Now I don’t expect you to watch all of this because it is mainly just here for the laughs… but there are some serious peer reviewed papers out there and companies showing you how to make electroporation devices to either transfer plasmids or Activate cloned Eggs…… out of Barbecue Lighters …….LOLOLOL
HEREDITARY TRAITS
As with the start of this article…the number of times I get told that patterns of disease equates to showing evidence of transmission or even existence of viruses I’d be on a yacht by now…With hereditary traits it is exactly the same thing. Of course it is apparent that children look like their parents to a greater or lesser degree. This does not however mean that this was definitely determined by the stringy jizz you can get from a strawberry with dish soap and salt.
It is not incumbent to provide an explanation when falsifying claims so I have no need to theorize how hereditary traits occur. I think it is a fascinating subject though and if and when I have the time it would be cool to explore some theories.However again the fact that eggs can be started without fertilization and animals can be born that have NO paternal “genetics” this is kind of a massive problem.
Epigentics is the new massive rescue device that has been systematically rolled out. It is the “Immune System” to genetics. It operates as an allegory for the influence of your terrain on your “inherited traits”. They claim that your genetics are in a constant state of flux according to outside influence. Even admitting that increased sun exposure over long periods of time will literally change your genetics to have darker skin over generations.
So this to me is a clear indication that this is a large determining factor in why you have the appearance of your parents… the literal terrain of your mother is yours for at least the first 9 months of development. The paternal side is a little harder to see, but again when an egg can be grown without paternal “genetics” where really do we stand? Also it doesn’t mean if it is anything “inside” the sperm affecting appearance that it is the stringy jizz inside a strawberry that is the cause.
ANCESTRY
We have seen above just how ropey these companies like 23 & ME are that when people said in hooky samples they have an immense amount of trouble telling… so how do these companies get a semblance of being correct?
All of these genetics companies are either directly owned or have umbrella companies that are huge bioinformatics companies like Google or YouTube etc. They have ALL your information already… when they purchase genetics mapping companies they then get access to records, they have to “for legal reasons” right. So basically if you pay tax, vote, have a passport, basically do ANYTHING to do with the government, they know who you are. This goes for ALL adopted children and foster parents etc…
It is one large data scam, they already know… but I do get again the same thing “oh I found my long lost cousin through ancestry.com it MUST have been from the genetics”. Well.. as above with the gene editing scam there are EXACTLY the same types of silly magic tricks employed in Ancestry.. I will list a few below to get you started and then use this video of “10 Bizarre Genetics stories” and see if you can figure some of them out.
- They Completely make it up… Oh did you know that this black man living in deepest darkest Congo is actually 5 % Irish? Cue some completely irrational made up story.
- Both signed up to the database suddenly “find each other”… this is a classic… they both have all of their details that match to a tee(Place of birth, relative ages, shared family member etc etc)… they just need to update the database to show that they are indeed related….
- Reverse Confirmation. This is a little how Forensic Testing works.. If you believe in it 100%, the interrogation comes round and they say “We have a 100% match putting you at the crime scene”. The man thinks that he has been caught and fesses up. The “DNA” evidence was only verified by the confession, this can happen with Ancestry “oh you have dissimilar genes when we tested”… then all of a sudden Betty points at the Postman….
- Confirmation Belief. Slightly different in that maybe you take two people that have NO relatives left to confirm whether something is true or not… The Genetics of two people “Match” and they just ASSUME that they are related.
CONCLUSION
We have seen how when actually rigorously tested the supposedly 99% accuracy of Genetic Forensic analysis is actually closer to 10% accurate. In fact so inaccurate that it is WORSE than a guess and therefore may ONLY be used in a fraudulent manner to convict.
Clearly I wouldn’t be recommending getting your dog’s pedigree checked using this stuff unless for comedy purpose alone, closer to that of the game Guess Who: “Does your dog wear glasses and have a mustache?”
Hopefully I have explained adequetly how the cheap magic tricks of Gene Editing/GMO work. Once you see it, it becomes very apparent. They never pick anything useful that would clearly be demonstrably favourable and clearly be a result of actually changing its genetics. I live in the South of France, it is just a few degrees off of frost latitude hence you cannot grow Citrus fruits outside here. Just a few degrees of Latitude South in Valencia Spain and the crop is bountiful. Yet Genetic Editing CANNOT possibly do this at the moment. It can make a synthetic chemical turn blue in a petri dish or light a rat’s knackers up (after injecting it with fluroscent dye )though.
So show me a genuinely useful adaptation to a plant or animal that is not carried out by selective breeding and we can have a conversation. The rescue device of “ethics” is always rolled out as if they *could* but deem it ethically irresponsible… So just give me them Frost Resistant GMO oranges that I can grow here in S.France and I’ll be happy. OR just do as the Romans did and use underfloor heating.
Finally, is your long lost cousin actually your long lost cousin or just a dupe that didn’t want to feel like he was scammed $100 by ancestry.com… or maybe that 10% Chinese genome when all of your relatives have never left Bracknell is a bit of a far fetched story.
Ultimately I believe they are measuring something. The results of the PCR and genome sequencing are CLEARLY not RANDOM. You would have to be an UTTER UTTER Nutjob to believe that…. In fact that is so easily disproved by focused testing that you REALLY have to question the motives of any CRETIN who would suggest that… (Cheers Mike). I think that if you had two samples side by side you could differentiate between the two… but then even if you chose a simple metric of pH you could do this at a point in time.
Hence you could easily make a test at home that gave the semblance of showing diseased symptoms…well they already have in the form of the Rapid Antigen Tests which I showed in my Control studies to be basic viscosity and polarity of the liquid that it was testing for.
As for now though.. I am VERY comfortable in saying that the whole of genetics is a scam just the same as virology, filled with statistics manipulation and slight of hand magic tricks… You have been rumbled by Penn Jillete.