Challenging Old Dogmas

A good discussion about concepts that are not proven and should be questioned.

https://tinyurl.com/bdey5bsf

Maybe this human genome has a certain underlying basic pattern that doesn't vary. If bones or pieces of bones are found and you're not sure if its from a human or an animal then a certain pattern of dna will tell the difference. Variations in dna pattern should point to a specific person.

Remember the OJ Simpson murder case? When his dna was found along with his wife's and her boyfriend's dna at the murder scene then it was a tell tale sign of his involvement. Unfortunately that's not how the jury saw it. So we all seem to share an inherently "human-type" pattern of dna...but at the same time we also have individual patterns that are only unique to our person.

I rest my case.

shaftless wrote:Maybe this human genome has a certain underlying basic pattern that doesn't vary. If bones or pieces of bones are found and you're not sure if its from a human or an animal then a certain pattern of dna will tell the difference. Variations in dna pattern should point to a specific person.

Remember the OJ Simpson murder case? When his dna was found along with his wife's and her boyfriend's dna at the murder scene then it was a tell tale sign of his involvement. Unfortunately that's not how the jury saw it. So we all seem to share an inherently "human-type" pattern of dna...but at the same time we also have individual patterns that are only unique to our person.

I rest my case.

This is generally out of my wheelhouse would be interesting if anyone has additional info on this.

Let's analyze the typical procedure of DNA analysis with the assumption that adequate samples were found in a murder suspect:

Laboratory Analysis:

Extraction: In the lab, DNA is first extracted from the collected sample. This process involves breaking down the cell membranes to release the DNA and then isolating it for analysis.

Quantification: The amount of DNA in the sample is measured to determine whether there is enough material to conduct further analysis. Low-quality or degraded samples may require specialized techniques to obtain usable results.

So right at this step is where the first "make or break" occurs. The integrity of the sample, so if it is not of high quality, this is precisely where 'science' begins to unravel.

No surprise here if it is understood that PCR has limitations.

Amplification (PCR): In many cases, the quantity of DNA extracted is small. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to amplify, or create multiple copies of, specific regions of the DNA to ensure there is enough material for analysis.

STR Analysis: The most common method used in forensic DNA analysis is short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. STRs are highly variable regions of the DNA that differ significantly between individuals. By analyzing these regions, a unique DNA profile (or genetic fingerprint) can be created for each person.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): In cases where nuclear DNA is limited (e.g., in old or degraded samples like bones or hair), mitochondrial DNA may be analyzed. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down maternally and can be used to identify individuals based on maternal lineage.

DNA evidence is a highly reliable tool in forensic science, particularly when it comes to identifying individuals based on their genetic makeup. However, its reliability depends on several factors, and while the scientific methods used to interpret DNA are generally sound, there are some limitations and potential flaws in the process that can affect accuracy and interpretation. Here's an overview of the reliability, strengths, and limitations of DNA evidence, especially when it comes to predicting physical traits like eye color or identifying individuals in criminal cases.

Reliability of DNA for Identification:
Highly Reliable: DNA profiling is extremely reliable for identifying individuals. Every person (except identical twins) has a unique DNA profile, making it a powerful tool for linking biological material (like blood, saliva, or hair) to a specific person.

Accuracy in Matching: Modern techniques like short tandem repeat (STR) analysis can produce highly accurate DNA profiles. When samples are collected and processed properly, DNA evidence has an accuracy rate of over 99.9%.
Challenges with Low-Quality Samples: The accuracy can be affected by degraded, contaminated, or mixed DNA samples (e.g., from multiple individuals), leading to partial profiles or errors in interpretation.

Predicting Physical Traits from DNA (Phenotyping):
Eye Color, Hair Color, and Skin Color: In recent years, advances in forensic DNA phenotyping have made it possible to predict some physical traits based on DNA. Traits like eye color, hair color, and skin pigmentation can be estimated by analyzing specific genetic markers.

Eye Color: DNA testing for eye color is fairly reliable, with accuracy rates of around 70-90% for distinguishing between blue, brown, and intermediate colors. However, this is a probabilistic estimate rather than a definitive answer.
Hair Color and Skin Tone: Similar methods are used for predicting hair color and skin tone, but these predictions are also based on probabilities and are less accurate for features that have a more complex genetic basis.

Limitations of Phenotyping: While these predictions can give clues, they are not foolproof. Traits like hair and skin color are influenced by many genes and environmental factors, so phenotyping offers probabilities rather than certainties. For instance, someone with genes for brown eyes might have lighter eyes due to mutations or other factors not captured in standard tests.

Limitations and Potential Issues:
Contamination and Handling Errors: One of the most common issues in forensic DNA analysis comes from the potential for contamination. If proper protocols are not followed, DNA samples can be contaminated by investigators or lab personnel, leading to misidentifications.

Interpretation of Mixed DNA Samples: When DNA from multiple people is found at a crime scene, interpreting which DNA belongs to the perpetrator can be difficult. Analysts must differentiate between contributors, which can introduce uncertainty.

Partial DNA Profiles: Sometimes, DNA degradation or insufficient sample quantity results in a partial profile, which can reduce the accuracy of matching.

Subjectivity in Complex Cases: In some cases, DNA analysis involves a degree of interpretation, particularly when working with complex or low-quality samples. Subjective judgment may come into play, which can introduce bias or errors in interpretation.

Chain of Custody and Sample Integrity:
Providence (Chain of Custody): One critical aspect of DNA evidence is maintaining a proper chain of custody. Any break or mishandling in this process can call the evidence's authenticity into question. For DNA evidence to be admissible and reliable, it must be proven that it was collected, stored, and analyzed in a secure and documented manner.

Flaws in Evidence Handling: If the chain of custody is not maintained, questions arise about the integrity of the sample.

This is not a flaw in the science of DNA, but in the practical handling of evidence in the field.

Misleading Public Perception (The CSI Effect):
Popular media and crime shows often give the impression that DNA evidence is infallible and can solve crimes with absolute certainty. This phenomenon, known as the CSI Effect, can lead juries to overestimate the power and reliability of forensic evidence, including DNA. In reality, while DNA is a powerful tool, it has limitations and should be considered alongside other evidence.

Emerging Issues with DNA Databases:
Familial Searching: DNA databases sometimes use familial searching, which looks for partial matches to identify relatives of potential suspects. While this can be a powerful tool for narrowing down suspects, it also raises privacy concerns and can lead to false positives if the relative's DNA partially matches but does not belong to the perpetrator.
Forensic Genealogy: This technique uses public DNA databases to trace family trees and identify suspects. While it's been used successfully in cases like the Golden State Killer, it has led to debates about privacy and the ethical use of genetic data.

Scientific Method and Flaws:
The scientific methods used to analyze DNA are generally sound, but issues arise in the application of these methods. These include:
Human Error: Mistakes in handling, processing, or interpreting DNA can lead to false results, but this is an issue with execution, not the science itself.
Overinterpretation of Results: Complex DNA mixtures or partial profiles can be overinterpreted or misused in court, which may lead to wrongful convictions if not cross-checked carefully.
Bias: In some cases, forensic analysts may unintentionally introduce bias, especially if they are aware of details about the case or have preconceived notions about the suspect.

Conclusion:
DNA evidence is one of the most reliable forensic tools available, especially when it comes to identifying individuals. However, its ability to predict physical traits like eye color or hair color is probabilistic, not definitive. While the scientific methods behind DNA analysis are highly reliable, there are potential issues with sample handling, interpretation, and chain of custody that can affect its accuracy in criminal investigations.

Recent video by Dr. Tom Cowan discussing the early research and 'foundational' papers on DNA

Rethinking DNA: Examining the Evidence featuring Dr. Tom Cowan



In this episode, Dr. Tom Cowan presents a controversial perspective on DNA, challenging conventional beliefs and examining the evidence—or lack thereof—behind the science of genetics. Known for his holistic approach and thought-provoking views, Dr. Cowan takes us through the origins of DNA research, where foundational assumptions may have led to misconceptions in biology and health science. He also critiques the scientific methods used in DNA studies, questioning whether DNA is a scientifically proven reality or more of a belief system.

Key Topics Covered:

Origins and Assumptions of DNA Science: The early studies on DNA and the assumptions that led to widely accepted beliefs, including the double-helix structure.

The DNA Belief System: Why Dr. Cowan argues that DNA’s existence is more a belief than a scientifically backed fact, with measurements and microscopy not aligning with conclusions about genetic coding.

Debunking the Double-Helix Myth: Dr. Cowan discusses why the original findings didn’t confirm a double-helix structure and how they might have been misinterpreted.

Gene Coding Myths: An analysis of studies on gene-protein coding, challenging the claim that genes directly code for proteins.

Scientific Contradictions and Missing Evidence: Common contradictions in mainstream genetic science and why they may not make sense from a holistic health perspective.

Tom reminds me of an atheist lol. He asks some interesting questions but doesn't offer any alternative explanation. Unless you can prove something is wrong by showing a "new" reality, religious people and scientists will continuing believing what they want to believe. But poking holes in something is still a valuable tool cuz it keeps the door open.

I wish Tom would sit down with a genetic scientist or a virologist and have an honest one-on-one with them asking all these pertinent questions....instead of a radio guy or a podcast talk-show host. I would PAY to see that! lol

An aside....I wonder why he keeps saying that they constantly chop things up when they centrifuge them to filter out the DNA. He makes it sound like they put everything thru a meat grinder first. DNA, being so tiny, probably should retain most of its pattern even if tissue is first cut up into pieces.

And the centrifugation process doesn't really distort anything...it just spins matter around. And depending on the mass/weight of the different elements in the test tube there will be separate....but intact....layers of material. Mind you they add a lot of chemicals and dyes...but would it really have an affect on atomic structures and their bonds? Even taking pics with x-rays. Sure it's radiation...but it's so brief it really doesn't have time to accumulate and do damage. Kinda like a dentist taking x-rays of your teeth. Nothing gets mutated from a brief second of radiation.

At least since 2010, I had observed a large number of "genetic" tests on individuals.

A lot of things in medicine that made little sense me, and this was definitely one of them.

Like everyone else, we all assumed ideas of genetics had some validity to it until you see
large gaps, contradictions and so forth.

Many years before this popularity of services such as 23 & Me, all emerging research
pointed towards epigenetics (above genes) or a weak, silent, or strong expression of
these alleged codes, such as SNP's (single-nucleotide polymorphisms).

There were a many assertions being made on these SNP's and guess what?

None of it added up.

Pardon the use of 'infected' here, but from my perspective, a lot of faith and group-think on these subjects, as very
few actually take the time to investigate the early or foundations papers.

I've been very skeptical of genes doing anything, because I never saw any real-world examples.

All the promise of 'gene therapies' where are they?  Just a dangling carrot, which is very common.

This includes 'promise' of future treatments or 'cures' that never see the light of day.

The research on the genetic code related topics is just as flimsy, if not more so than even virology.

The "emperor wears no clothes" on virology and it would seem just as true on gene coding.

So then there is Chromosomal DNA

The idea here is that chromosomes are structures within cells that contain DNA. Humans typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes, which carry the genetic information necessary for the development, functioning, and reproduction of the organism.

I do not know enough to challenge this part and this involves the basic features such as eye color, hair color, and height. These features are encoded in specific segments of DNA called genes.  How accurate is this I wonder.

The claim Tom Cowan is specifically targeting here is on gene coding.

The idea that segments of DNA that contain the instructions for making proteins, which perform most life functions and make up the majority of cellular structures.

Coding DNA: Only about 1-3% of human DNA is coding DNA, which means it directly codes for proteins.

The rest is non-coding DNA, which plays roles in regulating gene expression and maintaining chromosome structure

So far the origins and assumptions made of DNA $cience (not science) are not proving out at all.

Remember that electron microscopy is not proof of anything. While some of those black and white images on the main page, which represent exosomes and/or extracellular vesicles or alleged virus particles protruding outside of the cell cannot be differentiated.

If you take a living sample of something that is too small to see, and it is put through a process that involves severe dehydration, metallic staining, the actual morphology, shape, function is unknown.

Without a viable gold standard, it's not possible to know how accurate these images are before or after the EM process.

This was a big smoking gun, on top of other smoking guns. Images in the 90's well before the fake virus....are no different under EM, so there was no 'novel' particle.

If you go back to the early 1960's, the "corona effect" is a common occurrence as Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), it's a condition in which blood clots form throughout the body, blocking small blood vessels.

This phenomenon can be observed with a dark field microscope, also called phase contrast microscopy. This is a live blood analysis on a slide. Please note that all other medical people use sterilized blood for analysis.

In other words, totally dead matter. There's a huge difference between live blood and dead material.

There is no real science here, it's pure speculation, no proper controls, no independent variables.

Some might be thinking, how could they get away with this fraud?

Answer: the halls of academia is more political than real political offices.

Through a series of multi-decade acts, created a huge level of collusion with various alphabet 'health' agencies.
An enormous complex web, a nexus fueled by bribes, multinational corporations and a constant life-time source of revenues for the 'regulators' who protect this fraud.

Part of the early assumptions in DNA science included the belief that all DNA was coding.

However, it was later discovered that a significant portion of DNA is non-coding but still crucial for regulating genes and maintaining genomic integrity.

How true this is, I do not know.

Yeah they've been working on gene therapies for a lot of diseases for quite some time. Harder than they thot probably.

So what does Monsanto do for genetic modification of plants and seeds? They can make such things as better yield corn or plants that are drought and pesticide resistant. That sounds like maybe the genes are coding proteins differently that make the cells "stronger" somehow in these new breeds of plants. The survivability of these cells have been altered on a molecular level perhaps.

shaftless wrote:Yeah they've been working on gene therapies for a lot of diseases for quite some time. Harder than they thot probably.

So what does Monsanto do for genetic modification of plants and seeds? They can make such things as better yield corn or plants that are drought and pesticide resistant. That sounds like maybe the genes are coding proteins differently that make the cells "stronger" somehow in these new breeds of plants. The survivability of these cells have been altered on a molecular level perhaps.

A crude method is used to perform this "gene" change, it's generally called the shot-gun approach (gene-gun).

Particles from bacteria, such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens are inserted (hot into) to produce a version of an enzyme (EPSP synthase) that is unaffected by glyphosate.

So this expression if they shoot it in correctly (not sure how many random shots are required to succeed), but it's not precise.

Surviving chemical treatments like herbicides or to thrive under environmental stress, such as drought or nutrient-poor soil.

From my understanding they use preexisting things in nature and force them (via a gene-gun) which shot-guns them into the seed.