DNA Technology

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda

DNA Technology

Postby Libero on November 12th, 2012, 10:36 am

It's been portrayed in the media as the dropping of a hair, cutting oneself and letting of a drop of blood, flaking a piece of skin or laying ones saliva upon a cup -- in fact so much, that it's a wonder why we even need a police force at all... afterall, the evidence must speak for itself. Each of these very items must be the dead giveaway to exactly who you are. 20...30 years later somebody we have never heard of is released from prison on the amazing technological advances that have freed them-- some of them now even aiding in political persuasion speeches. And then, yet again, many aren't freed as perhaps their case was so solid that it didn't need to be reexamined? This amazing 3-D twisted ladder I was once introduced to on the cover of Time magazine as a positive discovery for the advancement of the human race, now tells the story of your very being. Is it real science or quackery? Why don't all criminals prepare for their ultimate fate in incarceration and why aren't all of them found out, unless of course, they are first time offenders that have not yet been registered into the system with their code? :D For some reason this popped into my mind lately, in part due to the attention given by the media, movies, TV crime shows, etc. for quite a long time now. Also, I have found that some of the 'scientists' or foremost experts I have researched have also caused me to come to the conclusion that they appear to work for 'the system'. So, what's the deal? Are DNA evidence and associated forensics real or just another fear/control tactic?
Last edited by Libero on March 4th, 2013, 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: August 24th, 2012, 9:21 pm

Re: DNA

Postby Libero on November 17th, 2012, 7:36 pm

From the TruTV Crime Library on Josef Mengele:
(see this post for further explanation on my take on information contained within the TruTV website viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1466&p=2378019#p2378019)

"Dr. Josef Mengele

The freight train rumbled to an agonizing stop on the rails inside of the Auschwitz compound. The human cargo that was packed tightly into its bevy of cattle cars continued to groan and clamor, suffering as they were from a four-day journey without food, water, bathroom facilities, or even fresh air.

When the journey ended, the Jewish prisoners were led before an SS officer. His handsome face was set with a kind smile, his uniform impeccably tailored, cleaned and pressed. He was cheerfully whistling an opera tune, one of his favorites by Wagner. He carried a riding crop to indicate which direction he selected them to go in left or right. Unbeknownst to the prisoners, this charming and handsome officer with the innocuous demeanor was engaging in his favorite activity at Auschwitz, selecting which new arrivals were fit to work and which ones should be sent immediately to the gas chambers and crematorium.

Mengele occupied his time with numerous acts of extraordinary cruelty, including the dissection of live infants; the castration of boys and men without the use of an anesthetic; and the administering of high-voltage electric shocks to women inmates under the auspices of testing their endurance. He is most famous for his monstrous experiments on sets of twins, resulting in their death and mutilation. Mengele's imagination knew no bounds when it came to devising physical torments for his victims."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html


Here is one publication's opinion on the fop forensic scientists of all time. I urge you to examine the last three and the various cases they are associated with, but also take note of the the Number 1 entry and his Wiki -- the father of DNA fingerprinting and profiling, Sir Alec John Jeffreys. In the Wiki you will find this interesting tidbit:

"In 1992, Jeffreys' methods were used to confirm the identity for German prosecutors of the Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele, who had died in 1979, by comparing DNA obtained from a femur bone of his exhumed skeleton,[8] and DNA from his widow and son, in a similar way to paternity testing."

http://mastersinforensicscience.com/201 ... -all-time/


Image
Sir Alec John Jeffreys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Jeffreys


And one has to wonder if you are an out of shape criminal, should you start eating right and excercising, can you beat the DNA testing by altering it per some of the latest studies?

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN ... &RCN=34391


Look... CBS says it too. In fact, the subjects donated part of their quadriceps for the sake of science.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... tudy-says/
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: August 24th, 2012, 9:21 pm

Re: DNA

Postby simonshack on November 18th, 2012, 3:44 pm

Libero wrote:Image
Sir Alec John Jeffreys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Jeffreys


Interesting musings, Libero...

It appears that Sir Alec Jeffreys is considered the 'father' of DNA forensics /genetic fingerprinting. We learn from Wackypedia that It took him about half-an-hour to figure out how the possible scope of all this - after a "eureka moment" he had in his lab, back in 1984...

"Jeffreys had a "eureka moment" in his lab in Leicester after looking at the X-ray film image of a DNA experiment at 9:05 am on Monday 10 September 1984, which unexpectedly showed both similarities and differences between the DNA of different members of his technician's family. Within about half an hour, he realised the possible scope of DNA fingerprinting, which uses variations in the genetic code to identify individuals."


I decided to find out a little about the first cases of criminals being convicted on the basis of DNA forensics.

I first found this book MURDER CASEBOOK, subtitled "Three vicious killers trapped by science".
Image

Sure enough, two of these - Colin Pitchfork(UK) and Timothy Spencer(USA) are said to be the very first criminals (in UK and USA respectively) to have been 'nailed' on the basis of DNA forensic evidence.

http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/pitchfork-colin.htm
http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s1/spence ... wilson.htm

But let's take a look at the third one, "Ian Simms" - whose story I found most intriguing. For brevity, I'll just list a series of fact(oid)s surrounding this case:

- Simms is serving a life sentence for the murder of 22-year-old Helen McCourt - whose body has never been found.
- Helen apparently had two jobs, one with Royal Insurance in Liverpool - and at her local pub owned by Simms.
- Simms was convicted on the basis of an earring found in his car trunk - and some carpet fibers (from his apartment) found on Helen's coat.
- Simms steadfastly refuses to meet Helen's mother, Marie, who reportedly has asked to confront him face-to-face (for almost 25 years).
- Marie has been relentlessly pursuing the search for her daughter's body, for all these years - in vain.
- Marie is actively involved with "SAMM" - a charity / fundraising-scheme supported by the British police forces.

ImageImage
Marie McCourt with two framed portraits of her daughter Helen.

Two "different" portraits of Helen published by the BBC over the years...
ImageImage

Now, without jumping to any hasty conclusions, I'm just wondering: why and how can this notorious Liverpool murder case be famously known for being one of the first "resolved" with the use of DNA forensics? No body found? Carpet fibers?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: DNA

Postby Libero on November 19th, 2012, 9:43 am

Simon,
So that it evidently the tale of the first. Here is one of the tales of the latest... The confession and 'certain' DNA match in a single abduction and killing case here in the states -- yet another one in Colorado.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3527.story

Here is what TruTV also had to say about it.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog ... index.html

Here's an additional article featuring the mom of one of the Columbine kid shooters giving note to the the Jessica Ridgeway murder and Batman shooter along with mention of her new book.

http://kdvr.com/2012/11/16/columbine-sh ... l-himself/


Oh... and here's the Unabomber's brother chiming in about the latest Jessica Ridgeway tragedy.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21929 ... -must-feel




Edit: TruTV's take on the DNA revolution that I found while searching for 'Colin Pitchfork.'

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... dna/1.html
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: August 24th, 2012, 9:21 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby brianv on April 6th, 2013, 3:03 pm

un petit bump
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: 9/11 Memorial Scams, Vicsims, Etc

Postby analucia on May 4th, 2013, 6:48 pm

The birth of a SIM

"Creepy or Cool? Portraits Derived From the DNA in Hair and Gum Found in Public Places"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -50266864/
analucia
Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 11:03 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby smj on February 11th, 2015, 5:07 am

It's hard to separate the science from the art from the religion when it comes to dna...
http://www.francofineart.com/the_double ... nument.php

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=swf8qVf3EjY

http://www.salvador-dali.org/recerca/ar ... -curiosity

Watson and Crick's clever solution for the structure of dna seems to remind some folks of this...

Image

It inspired Dali to paint some art-like stuff

http://www.wikiart.org/en/salvador-dali ... with-d-n-a

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galacida ... ucleicacid

... and it inspired Henry Gee, a senior editor at Nature, to write some science-like stuff

http://www.amazon.com/Jacobs-Ladder-His ... 039334780X

...and it has inspired children and academics all over the world to believe in fairy-tales

http://web.mit.edu/endy/www/scraps/comic/AiSB.vol1.pdf

Here's a 21st-century Calutron girl playing with beams of light 10 billion times brighter than the sun we're told...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-jE7BM902Q

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Biome ... nchrotron/
http://www.whale.to/a/wellcome_foundation.html

"On Jacob's ladder, each step is a dna landing, and the angels going up and down are the rna." Salvador Dali
smj
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby smj on February 11th, 2015, 9:22 pm

Apparently, the Royal Society has a Royal Society GlaxoSmithKline Prize and Lecture

https://royalsociety.org/awards/glaxosm ... e-lecture/
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

...and an in-your-face motto -- 'nullius in verba'.

It seems to me it should be called the Royal Society GlaxoWellcomeSmithKline Prize and Lecture

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB948069657140115932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellcome_Trust
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsl ... chives.htm

...and again
http://www.whale.to/a/wellcome_foundation.html
smj
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby Seneca on February 12th, 2015, 11:38 pm

I don't see how the last 2 posts relate to Libero's question:

Libero wrote:Are DNA evidence and associated forensics real or just another fear/control tactic?



But thanks for bringing the topic under my attention.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby ICfreely on February 17th, 2015, 7:42 am

As a person with a B.S. in biochemistry I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty; everything I was 'taught' has turned out to be unequivocally false! Upon my convocation I asked the dean for two copies of my diploma; one to shit on and another to wipe my ass with.


Here's an excerpt from a lecture by developmental biologist Bruce Lipton regarding DNA:

Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief, Fall 2009. (San Francisco State University: SFSU Speaker
Archives. http://www.sfsu.edu/~holistic/Welcome.html (accessed 01, 10, 2014).

The answer is:
Oh! DNA is the blueprint for the protein
You say “that’s really cool, so that my DNA is the code for my physical body and my behavior”
And I go “Yes it is.”
You say “Yeah, that’s interesting”
Because we bought into a belief by Francis Crick, the founder with Watson – Watson and Crick; the DNA double helix
Francis Crick comes up with what is called the Central Dogma - this is what it’s called in a textbook.

In science, what does it say?
Well, you’ve heard the story
Information goes from DNA to RNA to protein

Remember? Does everybody remember the DNA, RNA, protein sequence?
Yes and no come on
[Audience] Yes.
Okay so why is it relevant?
You’re taught that, and listen to what it’s called in the book – The Central Dogma
And you say “What does that mean? So what?
I go “Nah uh, I taught it for 15 years and I never looked up the world ‘Dogma’
When I left the university I looked up the word dogma and I was completely blown away for several reasons!
Here’s the definition of dogma!
A truth, based on religious persuasion, and not scientific fact.
I was teaching religion in medical school for 15 years.
And the reality is why?
Because that belief that you read about and have heard about and is published 1958 – was never true.
It was a hypothesis!

You say “What does that mean?”
I say “It was a suggestion!”
And they expected this answer, so when a suggestion came out everybody went “Well, that sounds right.”
And it comes from a book!
Then it was 1968, then 1978, then 1988
Then it was 2, 3 generations, 4 generations
Year 2000!
Still in the book.
But guess what?
Over 40 years, we let go of the fact that it was only a hypothesis and never tested and made into a truth
It’s weird, it’s the truth!
So we accepted something that wasn’t true and is actually religious belief that you are programmed by your DNA
And in this story, the information goes from DNA, goes into RNA, which then goes into protein
And you go “Why is the arrows so big deal here?” [Referring to DNA RNA Protein]
And I go like this “Because it says information only comes from this direction”
And you go “Yeah, but what the hell does that mean?”
I go “This is you!”
You’re your body, you’re your protein
What does it say?
You, your life, your action on this planet in no way goes back up and changes your heredity
It says that your life is disconnected from your heredity
You’re given your heredity and you can’t influence it
Do you understand what I’m talking about?Lipton | Fall 2009
Your life is here, but you can’t alter your genetics

In a world where the whole damn thing is built on genetic regulation and I’m telling you the truth
Genes do not control who you are

But the problem with that is that we bought into it
And we made a model that’s called a medical model of health
And what is it?
You are a biochemical machine, and you’re controlled by genes
And you go what does all that end up?
Well I say there’s nothing spiritual about you number one,
Number two, you’re a mechanism made out of chemistry
Number three, you’re controlled by your genes

Relevance?
If you’re broken, it has nothing to do with you
But you need somebody to fix you
And the relevance comes to this:
The story as illustrated in a couple of Life magazine right here
It says “Were you born this way?”
And why is it relevant?
Because it is a belief in something called genetic determinism that you were programmed with
They still read about it in the newspapers today
“A gene has been found to have been associated with this, and a gene has been found to control this”
| Fall 2009
You heard the stories but the truth is are you genetically determined?
And the answer is no
But you believe it

And you say what’s the difference?
And I say think about it this way
As far as you know, did you pick the genes that you came with, yes or no?
[Audience goes “No”]
No, but if you don’t like the genes that you have
You want to have some different traits
Can you change the genes, yes or no?
But look at it this way
I’ve given a story that genes control your life at the same time I’m telling you didn’t pick them, you can’t change them, and they control you
That makes you a what?
You’re a victim! Of heredity!
It’s already running in your family
Cancer, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s…
It’s like you’re in the family, and the genes are coming down
And you’re going why they hell did you have to be my parents to pass this on to me?
[Audience laughter]
And the reality was because you believe it
And here’s why it’s relevant
If you’re a victim what do you need?
[Audience replies “Rescuer”
A rescuer! Hmph
So that means this
Rather than trusting that you can be involved with your own health, the first thing you do is you give up responsibility for maintaining this and tell the rescuers called the Medical People to fix you!
I don’t do it, I’m a machine!
Uh, basically what the concept is
You believe you’re a victim
And then you’re not just a victim of things on the outside of you
We get you to believe that your own selves are trying to terrorize you
That even inside your body there’s a war going on and the cells are trying to take over and kill you
You become this victim and everything you need is protection

And you buy it
What this was all about was a thing called Lipozene
The ad says look hey you’re trying to lose weight, but you can’t do it! And you know why? It’s not your fault!
It says that it’s not your fault, it’s not your fault
Because they’re going to show you why you, where the extra weight come from
And you know what’s neat?
They tell you
But you know what’s even better?
They have a drug called Lipozene
And it says here where the beautiful part of the whole ad is
You don’t even have to change your lifestyle – just take a Lipozene
And basically what it says is this
You’re a victim of things out of your control
Lipton | Fall 2009
You’re getting fat
And you don’t have to worry about anything
Just take the Lipozene and keep your life exactly the same way it is
And then I love it because when they say it’s not your fault, it’s not your fault
But this was the chart they show
This was the chart of how stupid people have become
Because they say that it’s not your fault and then they oops go back
It’s not your fault, but it’s due to poor diet – but that’s not your fault so just forget about that
Oh! Oh! It’s due to a lack of exercise – but that has nothing to do with you, it’s not your fault
It’s stress at work, forget it
Look, you’re a victim, buy the pills
Don’t change your lifestyle, just buy the pills
And the reason is this
Because as long as you buy that you’re a victim
Then you bought that somebody has to save you in this process and it costs money
And that’s what the whole healthcare crisis is all about
And it’s interesting because if there’s not enough new diseases, they make them up every week



http://www.sfsu.edu/~holistic/documents/biology(2)-1.pdf



According to the University of Pennsylvania Medical School in Philadelphia, “Central dogma of genetics maybe not so central”:
originally posted November 5, 2010, ScienceNews.

“RNA molecules aren’t always faithful reproductions of the genetic instructions contained within DNA, a new study shows. The finding seems to violate a tenet of genetics so fundamental that scientists call it the central dogma: DNA letters encode information and RNA is made in DNA’s likeness. The RNA then serves as a template to build proteins.
But a study of RNA in white blood cells from 27 different people shows that, on average, each person has nearly 4,000 genes in which the RNA copies contain misspellings not found in DNA…
What Li and her colleagues discovered is quite common. RNA molecules contained misspellings at 20,000 different places in the genome, with about 10,000 different misspellings occurring in two or more of the people studied. The most common of the 12 different types of misspellings was when an A in the DNA was changed to G in the RNA. That change accounted for about a third of the misspellings.
And the misspellings aren’t just rare, random mistakes. ‘When DNA and RNA differ from each other it happens in nearly every RNA copy,’ Li says.”


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/65063/title/Central_dogma_of_genetics_maybe_not_so_central



"Now, if doctors were aware that medicine was not a science and that they were pulling what is undoubtedly the largest and most successful confidence trick ever tried the damage would be fairly minimal. But the problem is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of doctors believe the lie that they are taught; they believe that they are scientists, practising an applied science."--Dr Vernon Coleman


"As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Vaccines are highly dangerous, have never been adequately studied or proven to be effective, and have a poor risk/reward ratio. Most surgery is unnecessary and most textbooks of medicine are inaccurate and deceptive. Almost every disease is said to be idiopathic (without known cause) or genetic - although this is untrue. In short, our main stream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. The treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be."--Dr. Allan Greenberg 12/24/2002



I will elaborate on DNA myths & misconceptions in future posts but for now I will leave you with a MUST READ chapter from "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" by Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn entitled "The Devil's Priests."
Here's a quote to whet your appetites:

"What does a Catholic do when he decides that his priests are no good? Sometimes he directly challenges them, but very seldom. He just leaves the Church. And that’s my answer. Leave the Church of Modern Medicine."

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_docs/Confessions%20Of%20A%20Medical%20Heretic.pdf


P.S. The 'Father of DNA Fingerprinting/Profiling', Sir Alec John Jeffreys, is a fellow of the Royal Society of London (aka The Church of Modern Science).
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby HonestlyNow on February 17th, 2015, 11:50 am

*
Hear, hear!

"As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available. . . . [--Dr. Allan Greenberg 12/24/2002]

And to make note, many naturopathic practioners are treatment-based thinkers, on par with the allopathic doctors. So choose your ND wisely. What I mean is this — there's no such thing as diseases. Diseases are the domain of the medical industry. If you "treat" a disease without a medical license, you'll be up for prosecution. That's okay, let them have their diseases. Because, when you look at why your body is suffering, you'll find out there's no such thing as diseases! What's going on is that your kidneys are most likely not filtering, your adrenals are shot, and your lymphatic system is backed up. This is what is at the root cause of so-called diseases. Don't know if I should go into an explanation here, but it really is a simple matter, so simple that once you know about it, you wonder why doctors spend eight plus years in school and training to learn what they learn. And what they learn is not how to heal. (Only nature heals.)

[For more information, see grapegate.com and robertmorsend on YouTube. In fact, I urge you to go visit these two sites. Your health and the health of your loved ones depend upon it.]
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: DNA Technology

Postby ICfreely on February 17th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Excellent point HonestlyNow! There’s no shortage of naturopathic/homeopathic new age-y gurus capitalizing on people’s distrust of allopathic ‘medicine’ with wonder elixirs of their own. There’s a special place in hell reserved for people who KNOWINGLY peddle snake-oil silver-bullet cure-alls. The timeless proverb “Let food be thy medicine” holds as much weight today as it ever has. I can’t tell you how much of my precious time, energy and money I’ve wasted trying to help people think for themselves. It’s futile. I’ve gone from saying, “read this book” to “read this chapter” to “read this article” to “read this excerpt” to “read this quote” to no avail.

People say they don’t have the time. Well they sure seem to have plenty of time to go to the moo-vies don’t they? I’ve given up having to fight people in order to help them. If they don’t care then I CAN’T care. I’ll continue to provide insight but only to people who are open to it. Ignorance is bliss…only to the ignorant. I say, “Ignorance is piss. Relieve yourself of it. Seek relief from belief.”

My prognosis is that the misguided masses are suffering from an acute case of a) Blind Faith Disorder, b) Willful Ignorance Disorder or c) a combination of both. I can just see the commercials on TeeVee.

“Are you suffering from Blind Faith Disorder? Ask your doctor if Bli-Faix is right for you!”

“Are you suffering from Willful Ignorance Disorder? Ask your doctor if Wil-Illix is right for you!”

Note to Pig Pharma: Please be advised that if you develop, market, or distribute Bli-Faix or Wil-Illix you will be sued for copyright infringement.

Anyhow, back to the subject at hand.

In the good old days when life was much simpler my pompous poison-ivy league indoctrinated pro-fessors ‘knew’ that the DNA molecule contained all the information needed for an organism to develop and function in four chemical bases (The nucleic acid sequence was composed of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine). They had it all figured out. That is until 2011 when ‘scientists discovered’:

University of North Carolina, “Scientists identify seventh and eighth bases of DNA”

In a surprising twist, it has been recently discovered that there are actually six chemical bases, the additional two being modifications of cytosine:
“For decades, scientists have known that DNA consists of four basic units — adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. Those four bases have been taught in science textbooks and have formed the basis of the growing knowledge regarding how genes code for life. Yet in recent history, scientists have expanded that list from four to six.
Now, with a finding published online in the July 21, 2011, issue of the journal Science, researchers from the UNC School of Medicine have discovered the seventh and eighth bases of DNA.
These last two bases – called 5-formylcytosine and 5 carboxylcytosine – are actually versions of cytosine that have been modified by Tet proteins, molecular entities thought to play a role in DNA demethylation and stem cell reprogramming.”


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-scientists-seventh-eighth-bases-dna.html

Much like a big-budget brain-dead Hollywood action blockbuster there’s always a ‘surprising twist’ (double helix). Your life is on the line so be grateful to your high holy priest for working tirelessly to improve your health. Think of the children, for the love of God, think of the children.

Then in 2012 ‘scientists’ were shocked when they ‘discovered’:

Bloomberg.com, “DNA’s ‘Junk’ Now Seen as Lever Controlling Future Health”

“Many parts of DNA previously termed ‘junk’ by scientists are, instead, levers that control the genetic activity that can lead alternately to health or illness, according to reports published simultaneously today in the journals Science and Nature by the Encode international consortium.
Scientists previously thought that only genes, small pieces of DNA that make up about 1 percent of the genome, have a function. The new findings show that an underlying circuitry exists in which 80 percent of the DNA code within each human cell can contribute to disease. This may be why large studies targeting gene variants haven’t identified treatable causes for many complex maladies, the scientists said. The circuitry can be disrupted at several individual waypoints …
‘It’s like a brain in every cell,’ Stamatoyannopoulos said in a telephone interview.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/genetic-circuitry-found-that-may-help-target-complex-diseases.html


In the present tense ‘scientists’ always claim to ‘know.’ What they don’t ‘know’ they dismiss, ignore or deny. They always ‘had known’ and are shocked to ‘now know’ what they thought they ‘knew’ simply wasn’t so.

I would also like to highlight the significance of the peer review process of scientific journals. When scientists submit studies that are in line with the ‘accepted dogma’ of the high priests their studies get published without scrutiny. Getting published is the name of the game in the scientific community. The more one gets published the higher/faster one rises up the ladder. With that comes generous funding for future studies. Given the fact that there are more PhD’s than there are professorial posts scientists fight tooth/nail and do whatever it takes to get published. After all, they have families to support and student loans to pay off just like everyone else. It’s understandable. When scientists submit studies that challenge the ‘accepted dogma’ of the high priests their studies are scrutinized to the hilt. They don’t get published, they lose prestige among colleagues and they risk losing their jobs. This framework gives the editors of the journals (The Cardinals as it were) dictatorial powers to make or break careers and publish whatever they deem 'appropriate.' It a) dissuades dissent from within and b) provides a false façade of consensus to unwary scientists & laymen who believe in the objectivity/evenhandedness of the 'prestigious' scientific journals. This is how every scientific field is easily controlled with an iron fist. Look into it for yourselves & you will see how prevalent it is. It paves the way for the likes of Al ‘The Nobel Laureate/Oscar winner’ Gore to push convenient lies & falsely claim that ‘the science is settled.’ Also, the editors are almost always fellows of or affiliated with the Royal Society of London. The idea of the scientific community having the freedom to objectively pursue truth and dissent at will is, I’m sad to say, purely a myth. Contrary to popular belief there is no self correcting system. Finally, there's no financial incentive for scientists to verify each other's studies. Once a study is published it is automatically assumed that the journal has thoroughly done so. Here’s a link to an article that diplomatically criticizes the peer review process:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/feature-lets-review-the-peer-review-process/2003180.fullarticle


I found this article quite amusing:

Genetic Test Kits: Predictions of the Future or Pseudo-Science Scam?

In testimony to Congress last week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) thoroughly debunked the marketing of direct-to-consumer genetic test kits, charging that the biotech companies who peddle this high-tech snake-oil scam are guilty of providing “misleading test results” backed by “deceptive marketing and other questionable practices.”
If you have purchased genetic testing from a direct-to-consumer company (ie, not through a physician)and would like to help take action to stop these abusive practices, please email the Center for Environmental Health at charles@ceh.org.
Genetic test kits promise to give consumers who pony up $300 to $1,000 or more information about how their genes will predict their future. The kits promise to tell you whether you will contract certain diseases, give you suggestions for avoiding illness, and even promise to predict the abilities of your offspring (you might give birth to the next LeBron James!).
In 2006, the GAO sent DNA samples from five donors to four genetic test kit makers (there are dozens of internet companies that market the kits). For the latest report, the agency sent samples to four more companies. If DNA testing works, samples from the same person should have returned the same results (just as two labs should find the same person from the same set of fingerprints).
But the GAO’s experiment showed that DNA testing is nowhere near ready for prime-time. The different labs found different and even contradictory results for the same person (eg, one lab said the person’s risk for leukemia was high, another said it was low, a third said it was average). The test kit companies also provided information that was contradicted by the individual’s actual medical conditions. The GAO concluded that the kits provide high-paying consumers with information that is “medically unproven and so ambiguous as to be meaningless.”
The GAO also consulted outside experts who told the agency that “there are too many uncertainties and ambiguities in this type of testing to rely on any of the results.” The GAO also had their purported DNA donors call the test kit companies for consultation about the results: one company told a woman donor that the results suggested that she was “in the high risk of pretty much getting” breast cancer, a phony diagnostic claim that outside experts called “horrifying.”
In other words, for $300-$1,000, you can receive useless and potentially harmful information based on unproven and untested pseudo-science.
Alarmingly, now even leading Universities are jumping on the DNA testing bandwagon. The UC system is asking incoming freshman to voluntarily submit DNA for testing, just for a fun get-to-know you program. A state bill has been introduced to ban such programs, but test kits have already been mailed out to new students.
If you are a student entering UC and have received but not yet sent in a test kit, CEH would like to talk to you! Contact charles@ceh.org . And If you have purchased genetic testing from a direct-to-consumer company (ie, not through a physician)and would like to help take action to stop these abusive practices, please email the Center for Environmental Health at charles@ceh.org.


http://generationgreen.org/2010/07/genetic-test-kits-predictions-of-the-future-or-pseudo-science-scam/


Limited hangout? We’re told that the direct-to-consumer DNA testing kits are garbage. If you cut out the middle men physicians (or as Dr. Mendelsohn calls them ‘The Devil’s Priests’) there will be ‘horrifying’ consequences. Doctors simply draw your blood & send it to the lab. They play no part in the actual DNA sequencing the lab technicians perform. But somehow their involvement in the process magically transforms DNA sequencing from a pseudoscience into a legitimate applied science.

I could go on and on…but I’ll stop for now. Next post I’ll touch on the murky forensic/legal aspect of DNA which was Libero’s original line of inquiry. This whole DNA psy-op is as unclear as ‘nuclear physics.’

P.S. The Nobel Laureate (Francis Crick) who bestowed upon us the ‘Central Dogma’ of DNA is, surprise/surprise, a fellow of the Royal Society of London. For over 350 years, behind every great pseudoscientific hoax there has been a FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) and/or a PRS (President of the Royal Society). NASA pales in comparison. For instance did you know that Isaac (I-sick) Newton & his collaborators helped hold back the application of the steam engine (thus the Industrial Revolution) for 100 years?

A Case Study of British Sabotage - Leibniz, Papin, and the Steam Engine -by Phillip Valenti.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/papin_steam_engine.pdf

The Royal Society of London has done as much, if not more, harm to the advancement of REAL SCIENCE as the Vatican has. A turd by any other name…
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby ICfreely on February 23rd, 2015, 9:12 pm

The more you look into DNA Profiling/Fingerprinting the sillier it gets. They’re confidently faking it up as they go along and continually ‘making big strides’ a la NASA. It’s not worth elaborating on. In one word – Bullshit!



DNA Identification - Some Lingering and Emerging Evidentiary Issues (1997)

“The road to judicial acceptance of DNA identification evidence has been rocky. An initial period of enthusiastic acceptance gave way to widespread apprehension that the vanishingly small probabilities said to be associated with a matching type in an unrelated individual were exaggerated (National Research Council, 1996). At the same time that these concerns were being addressed, the technology of DNA typing has been making major strides. Thus, the road to judicial acceptance has been paved with good intentions, contradictory contentions, and new inventions.”

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/genlaw/97-promega7.htm


FBI resists scrutiny of 'matches' - A crime lab's findings raise doubts about the reliability of genetic profiles. The bureau pushes back. (2008)

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20


DNA's Dirty Little Secret - A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison. - Michael Bobelian (2010)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html


UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE? A LOOK AT DNA FORENSICS (2010)

“Scientists are starting to question this assumption that 10-13 loci are enough to rule out the possibility of a random match to DNA other than the suspect. In other words, if 10-13 loci are not enough to make a definitive barcode, then a 10-13 loci DNA profile can actually match more than one individual.”

http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/blog/index.php?/archives/925-Unreliable-evidence-A-look-at-DNA-forensics.html


Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility – William C. Thompson (2012)

“The rhetoric of infallibility proved helpful in establishing the admissibility of forensic DNA tests and persuading judges and jurors of its epistemic authority. It has also played an important role in the promotion of government DNA databases.4 Innocent people have nothing to fear from being included in a database, promoters claim. Because the tests are infallible, the risk of a false incrimination must necessarily be nil. One indication of the success and influence of the rhetoric of infallibility is that until quite recently concerns about false incriminations played almost no role in policy discussions. For example, David Lazer’s otherwise excellent edited volume, DNA and the Criminal Justice System, which offers a broad assessment of ways in which DNA evidence is transforming the justice system, says almost nothing about the potential for false incriminations. The infallibility of DNA tests has, for most purposes, become an accepted fact— one of the shared assumptions underlying the policy debate.”

“In the case of Josiah Sutton, for example, the laboratory reported an RMP of 1 in 690,000 (the frequency of Sutton’s profile) when the probability of a random match to the mixed evidentiary sample was approximately1 in 15. (Also, because Sutton was one of two men who were falsely accused of the crime, the chance the lab would find a coincidental match to at least one of them was approximately 1 in 8.)”

“Do innocent people really have nothing to fear from DNA evidence? It should now be clear to readers that this claim is overstated. Cross-contamination of samples, mislabeling, and misinterpretation of test results have caused (and will continue to cause) false DNA matches. Coincidental matches and intentional planting of evidence create added risks of false incrimination. These risks are magnified for people whose profiles are included in government DNA databases. We know less than we should about the nature and scope of these risks, and we have done far less than we should to minimize and control these risks.”

“At present there is no generally accepted method. The approach laboratories typically use is to compute the frequency of genotypes at loci where the two profiles match and simply ignore loci where they do not. This approach has been strongly criticized for understating the likelihood of a coincidental match (and thereby overstating the value of the DNA evidence), but it remains the most common approach in cases of this type and is currently used throughout the United States.”


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2214379


DNA Evidence: Brave New World, Same Old Problems By Ken Strutin, Published on October 14, 2013

http://www.llrx.com/node/2425/print


MODELING SUSPECTS' FACES USING DNA FROM CRIME SCENES (2015)

“In the past few years, researchers have made big strides toward being able to reconstruct people's appearance from their DNA. Parabon NanoLabs isn't the first company to think to offering such services to police. Biotech companies Identitas and Illumina both offer eye and hair color guesses from DNA samples. Parabon NanoLabs seems to be unique in offering an illustrated face estimate. Outside experts say the illustrations are not likely to be accurate, however, based on the research that's been done about the genetics of human faces. Greytak counters that because of proprietary research, Snapshot illustrations are more accurate than one might think—and anyway, they need only to be close enough to jog the memory of a witness. Snapshot hasn't yet been validated by outside groups, which researchers Popular Science talked to believe should be the next step.”
“Greytak says Parabon NanoLabs often validates Snapshot with its clients, who are federal and state law enforcement agencies. The agencies send Parabon NanoLabs DNA samples from people they know. The company generates a face illustration, then the agency sends the company photos of the actual person for comparison. It's a step many agencies go through before deciding to buy Snapshot for a case, Greytak says. Depending on how voluminous and fresh DNA samples are, a Snapshot illustration may cost up to $5,000 per suspect.”
“So how likely is it that police will start reverse-engineering faces for all the DNA they find on a crime scene? Will Snapshot become, as Greytak hopes, "a key step in investigations"? The answers might depend on the service's cost and how much police trust its science, but not on its legality.”
“Curious whether there might be restrictions on reverse-engineering suspects' faces, Popular Science contacted David Kaye, a law professor at Pennsylvania State University who specializes in scientific evidence. "Leaving aside the question of whether this can be done accurately, I don't see any issue, frankly," he says. Police are generally allowed to figure out as much as they can from a crime scene, he adds.”


http://www.popsci.com/new-service-reverse-engineers-faces-dna-samples-crime-scenes


DNA 17 – The New DNA Profiling Standard (2015)

http://www.sciencenutshell.com/dna-17-new-dna-profiling-standard/


DNA error
[url]
http://dnaerrors.freehomepage.com/[/url]
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby Seneca on February 24th, 2015, 10:24 am

ICfreely wrote:As a person with a B.S. in biochemistry I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty; everything I was 'taught' has turned out to be unequivocally false! Upon my convocation I asked the dean for two copies of my diploma; one to shit on and another to wipe my ass with.


Here's an excerpt from a lecture by developmental biologist Bruce Lipton regarding DNA:

Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief, Fall 2009. (San Francisco State University: SFSU Speaker
Archives. http://www.sfsu.edu/~holistic/Welcome.html (accessed 01, 10, 2014).


Because you give such a long quote, I was wondering if you were endorsing Bruce Lipton.
Can you clarify this?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Postby ICfreely on February 25th, 2015, 12:48 pm

I specifically chose Lipton’s lecture because he explains in layman’s terms the DNA---> mRNA ‘Central Dogma’ fallacy & its psychological ramifications on people who believe it. I agree with that portion of his lecture. I also specifically chose that poison-ivy league’s findings to demonstrate that even though they half-heartedly acknowledge their high priest’s dogma is incorrect they, in true elitist fashion, blame the mRNA for making ‘mistakes.’ In reality it is Crick’s faithful followers who are mistaken. Ideally when a hypothesis is falsified you toss it aside & move on. This helps narrow the field & advance the cause. However, if you maintain blind faith in a falsified hypothesis you regress. There should be no room in science for dogmatism. It’s revolting! But we all swim in the same waters. Every aspect of society is corrupt & science is no different.

Lipton’s blueprint-building analogy is right on. Blueprints don’t build. Contractors build & their choice of building materials makes a big difference. In other words, you are what you eat. You can actively participate in your own well being. You can make the most of what you’ve been given. Moreover you’re not just a building/machine, you’re a living soul. How you feel & what you believe has a tremendous impact on you. “Your genes control you & it’s out of your hands” is tantamount to “It’s God’s will.” Either way you become a passive follower of a shepherd who will lead you to slaughter. The current trend towards genetic therapy quackery is based on Crick’s dogma. They will produce an endless stream of ‘treatments’ with ‘side’ effects to ‘correct’ genetic ‘mistakes.’ That’s why the central dogma is still taught!

Lipton is also absolutely right about the fallacy of the nucleus being the control center (brain) of the cell. The brain is the control center of the body. If you remove the brain the body immediately dies. However, if you remove a nucleus from a cell the cell continues to live & function normally. The only difference is that it cannot replicate! Therefore the nucleus a) IS NOT the control center (brain) of the cell and b) IS the reproductive center (gonad) of the cell. This is not a theory; it’s a demonstrable & repeatable fact. It’s old news. Despite this fact they still teach the ‘nucleus is the control center of the cell’ bullshit to this day. Why? Because it lends credence to Crick’s dogma – Genetic Determinism!

I part ways with Lipton on evolution. Natural selection is obvious. So is adaptation. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is tautological nonsense. ‘Transmutation of species’ is an absolute falsehood. It’s not a matter of a missing link – it’s a missing chain. We haven’t been able to find evidence let alone prove any species has transmuted/evolved into any other species. Evolution is a religion.

I don’t fully endorse anyone to anyone. We’re all unique & what works for one person may not work for another. The only thing I suggest is for people to think for themselves & make informed decisions. I have hundreds of sources that I’d be more than glad to share with anyone. I don’t think this is the appropriate thread to do so. IMHO nature heals & allopathic treatment is useful only in emergency situations. My line of thought is similar to Dr. Stewart's.

Dr. David Stewart, Ph.D.
http://www.thewholedog.org/WhyEssentialOilsHealandDrugsDont.pdf
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Next

Return to Worldwide media deceptions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests