Discover more from dpl’s Newsletter
The PCR, Gene Sequencing and Genetics Fraud.
*Spoiler* It is just Proteins and basic chemical reactions.
PCR: A test designed by the (false idol) Kary Mullis who lots claim was on the side of truth in admitting his tool could not diagnose whether someone was ill or not or which virus it was. The half-truth Nobel Prize (Shill alert) winner was lying, there is no Virus or DNA.
Thanks for reading dpl’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
These tests ASSUME the following:
There is Nucleotides and DNA when they put human samples into their machines.
They heat up the sample which they ASSUME breaks apart DNA strands.
They add in Taq Polymerase which they ASSUME joins ASSUMED Nucleotides in a copied sequence called a cycle.
PCR requirements needed
Four components (reagents or chemicals) are needed for the PCR process:
• A DNA or RNA sample (from saliva, blood, hair, skin scraping, etc.).
• DNA primers: short single-stranded DNA that promotes synthesis of a complementary strand of nucleotides.
• DNA polymerase: an enzyme that aids in the synthesis of a complementary strand of DNA.
• Nucleotide solution mix containing adenine (A), thymidine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G) used to build duplicate DNA strands.
The components they are adding are: Taq Polymerase is an enzyme which is a PROTEIN. Nucleotides are mostly chemically synthesised with a complex procedure involving adding numerous Enzymes which are PROTEINS. A Nucleotide materials list (all in Red are enzymes).
This cycle is repeated over again up to 30+ times adding more and more Proteins into this soup until the sample is deemed ready for electrophoresis gels. A current is passed across a gel and the more charge a molecule has the further it travels with ASSUMED molecular weight.
Now here is the kicker.... This electrophoresis works with both ASSUMED Nucleotides and... PROTEINS. It is THE procedure to attempt to tell you what Protein you have by ASSUMED molecular weight (verified only by the fraudulent western blot). Link to below quote here.
Protein electrophoresis is a standard laboratory technique by which charged protein molecules are transported through a solvent by an electrical field. Both proteins and nucleic acids may be separated by electrophoresis, which is a simple, rapid, and sensitive analytical tool.
The Western Blot Fraud
This is when they use the "never seen, theoretical" Antibody to verify the ASSUMED molecular weight of Proteins.
They take a protein sample and CHOOSE an Antibody to bind with it, to find its molecular weight in electrophoresis. Problem is, the outcomes are quantitatively completely different dependent on the Antibody.
Investigating proteins modified with interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG 15) in young and old rat hearts using six commercially available antibodies showed that most antibodies gave different semi-quantitative results, suggesting large variability among antibodies. Evidence showing the importance of the Western blot buffer and the concentration of antibody used is presented. Hence there is a critical need for comprehensive reporting of experimental conditions to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of Western blot analysis. A Western blotting minimal reporting standard (WBMRS) is suggested to improve the reproducibility of Western blot analysis.
This is meant to be THE most accurate and modern technology opening up huge avenues of exploration in MicroBiology. Yet they admit the can't find a protein without the Antibody.
Hence it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify something not previously isolated (A Virus for instance).
The main disadvantage of Western blotting is that this technique requires a specific antibody to a target protein; thus many protein targets cannot be investigated because of the lack of specific antibodies. However, the number of antibodies available for Western blotting is expanding at a rapid pace as the production costs have decreased. A search of the internet on August 1st, 2014 showed that> 50,000 monoclonal and> 160,000 polyclonal antibodies are available from three companies for which the total number of antibodies available were listed on their websites (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Aviva Systems Biotechnology and Abnova).
They also admit that even when the outcomes are predetermined and blind tested they fail a quarter of the time due to "lack of specificity".
Just wait until they find our there is no proof of Antibodies either.
An investigation using one of the most commonly utilized commercial antibodies for the cannabinoid CB2 receptor showed that the common practice of only validating antibodies with positive controls is insufficient to ensure antibody reliability  (Sl Table). Evaluation of nine commercially available anti-CCR5 (CD195) monoclonal antibodies showed that three antibodies displayed substantial background binding to CCR5 negative cells . In an important study that investigated more than 200 antibodies against 57 different histone modifications in Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans and human cells, more than 25% of the antibodies failed Western blot or dot blot specificity tests [l2]. These investigations all show that more rigorous testing of antibodies is needed.
Back to DNA
This brings us to what we know. There are some very basic Chemistry tests for lots of things that work with nearly 100% accuracy. Things to verify colorless gases like a "Squeeky pop" test for Hydrogen or turning Lime Water Cloudy for Carbon Dioxide. *Flash Back of school Labs*
The test for a Protein is called the Biuret test and involves simple chemistry where you take Copper Sulphate which is positively charged and add a sample in an Alkaline solution and if there is a Protein Present, which is Negatively charged, the solution oxidises and turns purple.
The reagent used in the Biuret Test is a solution of copper sulfate (CuSO4) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The NaOH is there to raise the pH of the solution to alkaline levels; the crucial component is the copper II ion (Cu2+) from the CuSO4.
This is an electrochemical reaction which is why electrophoresis works. It relies on the negatively charged nature of Protein and migrates according to the amount of charge. Given this charge is constant... it must be to do with quantity and not molecular weight IMO?
Gel electrophoresis of proteins is a standard laboratory technique in which charged proteins are transported through a gel matrix by passing an electric field through a solvent. It's a simple, sensitive, and rapid analytical tool. The two support matrices used in electrophoresis are polyacrylamide and agarose.
On a slight tangent. Pregnancy tests are known to be very accurate indicators said to work with the mythical antibodies. It is a biurets test where they say they add antibodies in to specify the HGC (PROTEIN). It turns PURPLE.
It is very accurate with Women BUT can be positive with MEN too (just not that many bother to try...) leading the quacks to postulate it could indicate cancer. It can interestingly also be frauded by beer... oops...
As can our illustrious PCR test... A test that is supposed to test for DNA in a very specific and complex set of chemical reactions can be defrauded by a yeasty (50% protein) drink.
A COVID-19 test done incorrectly
To understand why an ordinary glass of Coca-Cola returned positive for COVID-19, it is first important to understand how rapid test kits work.
Fast, or rapid, coronavirus tests are designed to detect specific proteins, called antigens, found on the surface of a virus or if an individual has developed antibodies, indicating an immune response.
They also sometimes cut out the electrophoresis part and replace it with fluorescence markers which they call REAL TIME PCR... But... guess what... I am sure you can by now... Fluorescence markers also work with proteins.
What do fluorescent dyes bind to?
Typically, fluorescent dyes such as fluorescein is covalently bound to amino group or thiol group of proteins. Dyes are designed to have fluorescent group and binding reaction group. Example of binding reaction groups are Nhydroxysuccinimide or isocyanates to form amide bond with amino groups of proteins.
So the PCR tests are completely top to bottom junk measuring amount of Protein in a sample (sicker people have more protein in saliva? Probably how they get some semblance of a test) But they can genetically engineer mice and put luminescene in them from Fireflys... right?
Wrong.. I haven't looked at all of the gene editing stuff (maybe another long thread lol) but where they ASSUME to edit mice they then Inject the mice with one of the *two Claimed* proteins from a firefly to be able to see it first.
To image gene expression throughout transgenic rodents, luciferin is typically injected intraperitoneally or by the tail vein. In either case, it is carried through the circulatory system and by diffusion. If this charged molecule does not readily penetrate all areas, the pattern of the luciferase signal could be influenced by the distribution of luciferin. Although luciferin readily crosses.
So Gene Sequencing MUST work right? Urm NO. This is just a more complex form of PCR where all of the ASSUMED DNA and Nucleotides are combined in a predefined template and arranged according to algorithms completely in silico in a process called alignment. See this article byfor more detail: Limitations in Genome Sequencing Technology and Data Analysis.
The fall out of this is that there is practically ZERO blinded tests of Gene Sequencing accuracy... When they have done them in an official manner they have failed miserably.
96% of Jurors in Criminal Court believe that DNA evidence is 100% reliable. Yet very few blind tests of DNA sequencing has ever been carried out. Here just 7 out of 108 labs we're able to find the correct answer.
A 2013 survey by the National Institute of Standards and Technology asl<ed analysts from 108 labs to look at a three-person mixture and determine if a suspect's DNA was present. Seventy percent of the analysts said the suspect might be in the mix; 24 percent said the data was inconclusive. Just six percent arrived at the truth: The suspect was not in the sample.
In numerous legal jurisdictions there are NO validations of DNA accuracy. In others such as U.S, they REFUSE to publicly disclosure their internal verifications of accuracy.
Last fall, commission member Barry Scheel< voiced his concern about the method at a hearing of the DNA subcommittee. Before Scheel< made his name disputing DNA as O.J. Simpson's lawyer, he founded the Innocence Project, which has used DNA to exonerate hundreds of wrongfully convicted people. He said he opposes the use of cuttingedge DNA forensics in court because he doesn't think they have been sufficiently proven. Scheel< had been demanding the Office of Chief Medical Examiner make public its internal validation studies on LCN, which it has refused to do. At one point, after an otherwise subdued hearing, he yelled to some of the subcommittee members: ''YOU ARE ALL FUCKING LYING!''
Also see the following article: The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing, How a proven tool may be anything but.
In one case an independant legal firm who deal specifically with cases of wrongful DNA. In this case he said the lab technician was party to the knowledge of the trial which skewed his judgment so handed blinded samples to 17 different labs... only 1 reached the same decision.
Greg Hampiklan, a biology and criminal justice professor at Boise State University and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, was a defense expert in the trial and felt sure the analysts had reached their conclusion because of unconscious bias: They knew a great deal about the case, including that the detectives believed Robinson was guilty. To test his suspicions, Hampikian and cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror of University College London sent the DNA data to 17 other analysts and asl<ed them to interpret it without any information about the case. Only one agreed with the original analysts.
They have taken a basic test like the "Squeeky Pop" test for Hydrogen and fed it into a computer like an DAW, sampled the squeak and made Beethovens Fur Elise by pitching the sampled notes up and down... and then convinced you not only is this real music but indeed the foundations.
"But my genetics were sampled by 23andMe" and they got my cousins correct. All of these companies are funnily enough owned by large Infomatics companies as well as Google.. These are just databases of info YOU feed them online.
Virologist: "We know we have isolated a virus because we can identify them by their genome sequence" Me: "Nah mate, You genome sequenced my Pet Lizards spit and thought it was a Jewish man". See this article: Man sends lizard saliva to 23andMe for DNA testing, exposing total fraud of company’s claims of human ancestry.
And you thought this pet Chihuahua "Snoopy" was a man with Native American Indian ancestry. See this article: Another DNA Testing Company Reportedly Gets Fooled by Dog DNA.
Or this Labrador that they "couldn't tell the difference" between a human. See this article: Report: A DNA Testing Company Could Not Tell the Difference Between Human and Dog DNA.
Virologist: Ah but those ancestry gene sequences are not FULL genome. Me: Well you FULL sequenced this lady with Chinese parents and said she was European. See this article: Sample swap of my genome from Dante Labs ?
And if you want to read about just how conceptual and lacking in evidence there is for the "building blocks of us" DNA this is fantastic. See this article: DNA DISCOVERY, EXTRACTION AND STRUCTURE. A CRITICAL REVIEW.
Here is the proof they are just testing for proteins in pregnancy tests.... I haven't looked into Hormones much, but to me they seem very very theoretical (non existent). Also have always found the word very "Witchcrafty".
The first modern pregnancy tests were developed based around an immunoassay (a method of detecting particular proteins) using a reaction between an antibody protein and its respective antigen protein. This allows the calculation of the amount of hCG protein in a sample.
Also see the following article: Five Main Nucleic Acid Gel Electrophoresis Steps.
This is the Gel mix of Agarose from Electrophoresis varying by a single percent. Notice the wildly different results not only in range but completely different bands and weighting... They CHOOSE the Agarose mix based on what they *think/Assume* is in the sample.
For the sake of accuracy here is them admitting it is exactly the same sample in ever so slightly different mixes. Dear oh dear.... Quackfest!
This work was done by Jamie Andrews and a link to his twitter account has been provided in the article. It has been published in dpl’s substack but under a separate newsletter created for Jamie’s work. It has been published here with the approval by the author.
Subscribe to the #thegatekeeperclub telegram group for more updates.
Thanks for reading dpl’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.