 | By Tam on January 30, 2025 |
CONTENT:INTRODUCTIONDNA Paternity testing involves the comparison of a number of repeats of specific sequences (aka “alleles”) located on a precise region of specific chromosomes (aka “loci”). These repeats are known as "Short Tandem Repeats" (“STRs”). DNA samples taken from the parent and child are being tested from 15 to 25 STRs (depending on the lab’s protocols and kit’s brand used) and if half of the number of STRs repeats of the child are the same as the parent’s STRs then it is considered to be a match i.e. first degree relative. Per genetics we all have these STRs, and we get half of our chromosomes/DNA from our father and the other half from our mother. We subsequently get two different variations of repeats of STRs. Sometimes we get same number of repeats from both parents and this is known as “homozygous allele”. The DNA test consists of four procedures: - DNA isolation: extraction of DNA from the sample
- Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): Amplification (i.e. multiplication) of isolated DNA
- Gel Electrotherapies / Bioanalyzer: Separation of DNA fragments by size
- DNA Paternity Report: analysis, comparison and probability calculation
(1) DNA ISOLATION
The method is already discussed in the PCR article and it consists of 4 main steps: - Cell “lysis” (i.e. break down of the cell): Cheek’s or blood cells will be mixed with various enzymes and a buffer solution (a cocktail of alkalizing and acidic chemicals) and centrifuged multiple times.
- “Precipitation” (of the DNA from the solution): synthetic alcohol will be added to the substance obtained from the previous step, the new solution will be incubated and centrifuged.
- “Wash” (of the DNA): to remove any remaining cell debris, synthetic alcohol will be added (again) and the solution will be centrifuged once more.
- Resuspension (of the DNA): the isolated DNA will be mixed with a buffer or molecular grade water.
Go to:
(2) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
The Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) concept, procedures and a critical review are already covered in the PCR article, here is a short summary: PCR ingredients: - Isolated DNA
- Water
- PCR buffer solution containing Tris-HCI (Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane hydrochloride) and KCl (Potassium chloride).
- DNA polymerase: an enzyme that synthesizes DNA strands by attaching artificial nucleotides aka dNTPs. Taq polymerase is the most known and used enzyme.
- MgCl2 (Magnesium chloride) and (NH₄)₂SO₄ (Ammonium sulphate).
- dNTPs: synthetic nucleotides made from various chemicals. Polymerase attaches these dNTPs to a single strand of DNA to create a new double strand.
- DNA Primers: Primers are short, single-stranded synthetic DNA sequences (aka oligonucleotides) that get attached to a specific region of the single strand of DNA and serve as a starting point for DNA synthesis/amplification. For the DNA test, primers containing SRT sequences are used. Originally, the sample would be split depending on how many STRs it will be tested for e.g. if the sample will be tested for 15 STRs then the sample will be mixed with all the mentioned chemicals plus with one of the STR primer. With the introduction of Multiplex PCR, the sample is mixed with multiple primers at the same time. As a result, several types of STR sequences will be multiplied by performing just a few or even one PCR process.
PCR process (automated and performed by thermocycler instrument): - Denaturation: The mixture is heated up at 94-98°C for 15-30 seconds. This step will “denature”, i.e. split, the DNA into two single strands.
- Annealing: In the annealing stage the temperature will drop to 50-65°C for 20-40 seconds. This temperature allows the primers and the polymerase to bind to the region we are interested in amplifying.
- Elongation/Extension: During this step the temperature will rise to 72-80°C for 20-40 sec. During this temperature, the polymerase gets activated and starts attaching free floating dNTPs to the single strand of DNA. This step results in the creation of two new pieces of double strand of DNA.
- The above three steps will be repeated 20-40 times aka cycles (the number of cycles depend on DNA kit and thermocycle’s protocols).
Go to:
(3.1) GEL ELECTROPHORESISGel electrophoresis is the original technique used for DNA testing. Nowadays it is used only as confirmation of presence of the DNA in the sample. Gel electrophoresis splits long fragments of DNA from short ones by the use of electric current and a porous agarose gel. DNA is negatively charged, therefore, when an electric current is applied to the gel, DNA will migrate towards the positively charged electrode. The multiplied DNA obtained from PCR is loaded on one side of the agarose gel which is submerged in a buffer solution facilitating electricity conduction. Electricity will make the DNA travel from negatively charged electrode towards the positive. Because gel is sticky and porous, longer-heavier fragments will have more difficulty in travelling while short-lighter fragments will travel faster and longer distances in the same time interval. Fluorescent dye will be added at the beginning or at the end of the process, and this dye will make the DNA visible with the application of UV light. On the left side of the gel a DNA base pair ladder solution will be loaded which is used as a reference to estimate samples’ base pair length. Go to:
(3.2) BIOANALYZER – DNA CHIPBioanalyzer is the automated version of gel electrophoresis. A DNA chip will be “loaded” with [PCRed] DNA, a gel and a fluorescent dye that binds to the DNA and it will be placed into a Bioanalyzer. The intensity of fluorescence and the mitigation time (travel time) will be recorded by a software which accompanies the bioanalyzer. The software will translate the mitigation time and the corresponding fluorescence intensity into base pair length. This method is more expensive than gel electrophoresis but it offers a more precise resolution and determination of the size of the DNA fragments. Upon the completion of the process, the software will provide the following report indicating the number of repeats obtained for each STR.  Imange source: video, 15:30 More information on DNA bioanalyzer:
(4) DNA PATERNITY REPORTOnce an analysis is done for all STRs, the person who ordered the DNA test will get the following Report: - STR match: Child’s allele matches to the father’s allele on the same location.
- Paternity Index (PI): indicates the strength of genetic match between possible father and child based on ethnicity (higher PI = stronger the match). PI get derived from Yale’s databased called “Alfred”.
- Combined Paternity/Direct (CPI/CDI) Index: derived from multiplying all PIs together. CPI indicates how likely it is for the tested father to be the biological father of the child when compared to a random individual with with a similar racial background. In the image the father is 53,730,050,000 more likely to be the father of the child than a random individual.
- Probability of paternity: 99.9% = all STRs match (plus high CPI), 0% = more than two STRs don’t match.
More about DNA paternity report: How to Read and Understand Paternity-Test Reports Note: Commercial online DNA tests use different technology and comparison methodology which are covered at the end of the article SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL DNA TESTS
CRITICAL REVIEW DNA paternity test is based on tons of theories, hypotheses and claims. While hypotheses and claims are assumptions and suggestions, per the scientific community a theory is a proven hypothesis, it’s almost identical to a fact but not really a fact. Scientific theory is supported by data and experiments, it has gained scientific consensus and there is no other acceptable alternative theory at the current moment. In reality, scientific theories, especially molecular theories (including “molecules” themselves), remain hypotheses because they’re based on models and mathematical/physical/statistical formulas applied on byproducts obtained from boiling/heating chemically treated dead matter. In other words, the methods applied have nothing to do with reality or nature and the stories we are taught, have never been observed happening because they are deduced from numerical formulas. We also need to consider that governments and other (non-taxable) bodies fund studies and experiments that promote-support only specific theories/models/agendas (e.g. EU Horizon 2020). Anyone who wants to study something that is not eligible for funding will need to use his/her own means of financing. Basically, science is controlled, shaped and directed by the funding bodies. Last but not least well-known scientific journals publish articles and studies that are based on and support the current accepted theories and agendas; anything contradicting or questioning the established consensus is simply rejected or/and ridiculed (e.g. Harold Hillman experiments and findings, Climate The Movie, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism). Having the mentioned at the back of our minds let’s examine each component of DNA test separately.
DNA THEORY- All cells and tissue of an organism contain identical Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
- DNA has a double helix form, and its main components are four nucleobases: Adenine (A), Cytosine (C), Guanine (G) and Thymine (T).
- DNA, specifically the sequence of the nucleobases, is the blueprint of everyone’s makeup.
- The nucleobases pairing is based on Chargaff’s base paring rule: T always pairs with the A and G with C.
- Each parent provides exactly 50% of his/her DNA to his/her offspring. During mitosis and meiosis [cell splitting], the loose floating DNA in nucleus gets packed up into chromosome’s shape.
- During DNA replication:
- Helicase enzyme “unzips” the DNA
- Primase enzyme creates a primer (short complementary sequence) and
- a third enzyme, DNA Polymerase, starts attaching free floating nucleotides only in one direction (5’ to 3’) and only after the primer.
- Then another enzyme removes the primer sequence, and
- the Polymerase enzyme fills up the gap left.
- Finally, a fifth enzyme comes in, Ligase, which “seals” the newly created [double strand] DNA.
DNA THEORY - CRITICAL CHECKPOINTSDNA, being the carrier of heredity if a form of 4 letters sequence with specific paring rule, is nothing more that several unproven and never observed hypotheses. I already discussed the so many issues in my DNA article, so here I will make a summary of some already mentioned critical points plus some additional issues with genetics: - DNA is isolated by vigorous spinning of dead matter mixed with various, some being toxic, chemicals. My personal description of this procedure is a “chemical wash of dead tissue” or how to generate a byproduct from dead tissue. A proper isolation or extraction is the removal of the subject of interest from the rest of the matter without chemicals, spinning or heat treatment. This critical point applies not just to DNA but to all molecules and elements that have been “discovered”.
- The extracted DNA almost never gets observed under a microscope, and when it does, the amount of chemicals to prepare the sample for the electron microscope needs a separate discussion. You can read more about electron microscope’s issues in Mia’s article Why you should know about Harold Hillman’s work on the living cell).
- Double helix form is proposed by applying mathematical models on few DNA x-rays (specifically on “DNA salt” of a calf thymus aka NaDNA). Math is a form of a language, quantitative one, mathematics don’t exist in nature; in addition, applying a mathematical or physical formula on few static photographs of an invisible item, can tell very little about the actual form and structure of anything [natural and how it is in its natural state].
- Only two x-ray pictures of the “DNA salt” were used to determine [reminder: through mathematical formulas] the DNA structure and form. Since then, we find few pictures of DNA online, which are of unknown source and extraction process.
- The DNA form is based on DNA hypothetical molecular structure and DNA’s hypothetical molecular structure is based on the hypothetical form.
- DNA replication is based on DNA form and structure (as suggested by Watson and Crick), no one has ever observed replication happening in vivo or in vitro. All suggestions are based on examining, quantitatively, a toxic broth with some “isolated” dead matter before and after certain procedures (chemical treatment, centrifugation, heating and boiling).
- Isolation of nucleobases is as questionable as DNA isolation. Different parts of different animals were used for each nucleobase isolation. If you apply different chemicals on different parts of various organisms of course you will get different substances, you can get tons of new substances this way but per molecular science this is called isolation.
- The nucleotides are supposedly invisible. It is very interesting that something invisible can be isolated and separated from other invisible particles, being placed in molecular and physical structures and on top being claimed that their molecular pairing is based on a specific rule, Chargaff’s base paring rule, and it is this rule that separates humans from plants, trees, frogs and each other.
- Erwin Chargaff by isolating nucleotides concluded that the quantity of A is similar to T and quantity of C is similar G. Chargaff never suggested a pairing mechanism based on these quantities.
- The idea that there are so many enzymes within the cell and nucleus and each act differently, active only when there is a task for them [otherwise they’re inert] and being almost immortal are quite big claims for invisible and brainless liquids. One separates, another attaches, several creating new nucleotides, they are not consumed or permanently altered by their activity, very impressive transparent liquids. Per molecular science there are 1,300 enzymes within human cells i.e. molecular science has “isolated” and assigned a role and function to 1,300 “enzymes”. Per molecular science, the effect of chemicals and heat don’t alter or affect the matter under investigation in any way, especially in vitro. It feels like enzymes are some kind of “molecular scapegoats” used to explain how scientists got their results without really knowing why and how they got these results. It feels like “ohh it must be an enzyme”, let’s isolate it (with typical procedure: chemical washes, spinning and boiling), document and analyse the precipitate and the gases the boiling/burning produced and based on the analysis postulate molecular structure and even the function. This is actually a short summary of the molecular process for isolating/discovering of all cellular enzymes (of molecules in general).
- Enzymatic activity is deduced from measuring byproducts generated from mixing matter of interest with enzymes. No one ever observed enzymes cutting, zipping, synthesizing or attaching to anything. Per chemistry, if you mix acids with bases, you will get a reaction. Generally, if you mix different materials and products, you will create a new product or a byproduct; so why do molecular scientists ignore basic common sense i.e. that they create new products or byproducts with their methods (?) and instead claim that they have isolated molecules? Not only that, but they claim that they can even create synthetic copies of the isolated by-products (e.g. nucleotides).
- The main person behind the discovery of the most well-known enzymes is Arthur Kornberg. If you read any of his publications on enzymes and DNA synthesis you will realise that these experiments are full of toxic chemicals, measuring byproducts and radioactivity, statistics, assumptions and suggestions. He is behind the idea of enzymatic synthesis of DNA, discovery of Polymerase and Primase enzymes, the need for primers for DNA synthesis, and many assumptions and suggestions on how DNA replicates in vitro and proposing that similar “processes” must also happen in vivo. Arthur Kornberg won Nobel prize in 1959 for postulating the “The biologic synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid”, i.e. in vivo synthesis of DNA by the never seen enzymes. When a postulation/hypothesis/suggestion/whatever gets a Nobel prize:
- It automatically becomes irrefutable; who dares to question the Nobel prizes?
- Nobel prize is a form of approval “stamp”, making whatever got it almost identical to a scientific fact and who ever got it automatically becomes a reliable person-source for any other claims this person makes and
- Once the postulation/hypothesis/suggestion/whatever gets a Nobel, it becomes an irrefutable basis for further “discoveries”.
- The above is a just a brief description of how the majority of branches of science operate, building up new hypotheses on previous hypotheses which supposedly are proven and approved.
- You won’t find much on discovery of DNA replication direction. Few names will pop up e.g. Watson and Crick, Arthur Kornberg, Meselson and Stahl but no actual publications by anyone with experiments on establishing the direction of replication. The direction of replication is an absolutely unproved suggestion, a suggestion which simply fitted the hypothetical structure of DNA and its hypothetical replication mechanisms.
- Gene theory (i.e. DNA sequences carrying hereditable information) cannot be proven because gene theory derived from chromosomes. Chromosomes form only during mitosis and meiosis. Capturing “chromosomes” means stopping the process of splitting which leads to immediate death of the cell. Studying dead cells can tell very little on how nature operates. In short: DNA was never ever isolated from chromosomes.
- Alfred Sturtevant in 1913 proposed that a linkage between two genes [physical characteristics] depends upon the distance between the genes on the chromosome. His idea was that if two characteristics got expressed often together in the offsprings (e.g. colour of eyes and hair) then the distance between these two characteristics-genes on chromosomes must be close so they got passed and expressed together. This suggestion became the basis for mapping the genes on chromosomes. Although you will read that his proposition was later confirmed by experiments but as already mentioned tons of times, the experiments are nothing more than chemically washing and boiling dead matter, mathematical formulas, statistics and very rarely microscopic images of dead tissue and artefacts resulted from the mentioned procedures. In addition, Alfred Sturtevant based his gene mapping on Thomas Hunt Morgan’s experiments which were performed using highly inbred fruit flies. Looking carefully into Morgan’s experiments one will see that they don’t represent reality. Morgan’s experiments actually reveal negative effects of inbreeding. More about chromosomes and genes (and Mendel & Morgan’s experiments) will be discussed in future articles.
- You will not find any foundational publication on how specific dyes can stain specific nucleobases, which is how supposedly they identify their presence in the sample. Let’s not forget that nucleobases, natural or synthetic, are invisible so it is impossible to validate that a specific dye colours a specific nucleobase.
- We assume that we get 50% of characteristics from each of our parents, but do we really? While it sounds very logical and plausible, how can we prove it? Did Mendel or anyone else ever prove such a claim? Mendel produced almost consistent results based on experimenting with large number of pea plants. Results from a small number of plants ended up with considerable fluctuations and inconsistencies. Mendel’s experiments were never re-performed and as a result never confirmed. Many refer to Thomas Hunt Morgan fruit flies experiments which supposedly confirm Mendel’s suggestions of inheritance. But as already mentioned, Morgan’s experiments contained highly inbred [and as result unhealthy, dysfunctional and infertile] fruit flies. For some reasons molecular scientists cannot grasp the fact that humans, animals and plants are not the same and inbreeding of plants is not the same as inbreeding animals or humans.
- I’m not dismissing the idea that heredity might be in the nucleus, and it might be passed through chromosomes, but I suspect that heredity is not exclusive to the nucleus, most probably it’s in all types of tissue of the body and it is definitely not expressed thought a sequence of just four components labelled A, T, C, and G.
Go to:
PCR HYPOTHESES- A machine called a thermocycler, which performs the “Polymerase Chain Reaction” process, can generate millions of copies of DNA by simply heating for half an hour a mixture of DNA sample with tons of chemical, synthetic analogues of DNA and an enzyme.
- DNA synthesis in vivo requires involvement of several enzymes but for PCR/thermocycler/in-vitro only one is needed, Polymerase. Polymerase enzyme is obtained from Thermus aquaticus bacteria, this enzyme acts identically to enzyme/s in the living cells. A cell’s cytoplasm generates the nucleotides for in vivo DNA synthesis while synthetic nucleotides are created using chemicals and heat. Polymerase “considers” natural and synthetic nucleotides to be identical.
- PCR temperatures varying between 50°C to 98°C are vital for DNA synthesis in vitro, while the maximum recorded temperature of living organisms (other than certain bacteria and yeast) do not exceed 47°C.
PCR – CRITICAL CHECKPOINTSSince DNA itself is under serious questioning, this makes PCR i.e. “DNA multiplication” rather unfeasible. I already cover many issues of the PCR process in my previous article, below are the key points from the article and few additional remarks: - None of the PCR claims have been ever observed happening, as a result they are unproven.
- Cell cultures need conditions as close to their physiological environment as possible to stay alive and multiply, it also takes them approximately 24 hours to divide but for generating DNA you only need tons of toxic chemical and temperatures between 50°C- 98°C for ½ -1 hours. Basically, for things we can observe, we try to imitate the environment that they live/multiply/ thrive in, but for DNA this common sense approach doesn’t apply.
- PCR is based on the concept that a transparent but extremely intelligent liquid, called an “enzyme” binds and copies DNA. There are just too many issues with this claim:
- How on earth do enzymes isolated from from E.coli or T. aquaticus bacteria which are used for PCR have any similarity to enzymes of human’s cells? And per the same science, in vivo, multiple enzymes are needed to synthesise DNA but in vitro synthesis, only one is needed, a bacterial one.
- To obtain the bacterial enzyme the bacteria is crushed, chemically treated, heated and centrifuged. So when they mix DNA with an enzyme in the thermocycler they actually mix a byproduct obtained from chemically washing a body’s tissue and a byproduct from chemically washing and boiling a bacteria.
- The attachment of synthetic nucleotides happens at 72-80°C, a temperature that is supposedly damaging to DNA, and let’s not forget the broth of chemicals used in the PCR. The thermal limits of survival of majority of organisms is 60°C and with most not above 40 °C. Do we know any organism, other than certain bacteria and yeast, whose regular temperature is above 42°C? 65°C causes 3rd degree burns i.e. absolute death of the tissue, while a fever of 47°C and above leads to a body’s death.
- If you search for videos of the PCR process, all you will get are illustrations and animations with the enzyme looking like a Pacman since scientists have never, ever seen DNA being formed, or any of the natural or PCR procedures ever happening:
 Image source: Taq Polymerase: what is it and its applications - Molecular science went even further and came up with an anatomical structure of the invisible e.coli polymerase:
 Image source: DNA Polymerase–Four Key Characteristics for PCR - The below illustration is polymerase's “structure” that supposedly attaches nucleotides based on Chargaff’s base paring rule:
 Image source: Structure of Taq DNA polymerase - “It has been well reported that Taq [polymerase] often has contaminating bacterial DNA, possibly carried over from the expression vector system or other sources used during polymerase manufacture...”, “Rodent DNA has also been found as a contaminant...” (source: Taq Polymerase: what is it and its applications). Assuming that DNA is real, and PCR replicates DNA then there is a chance that sequences of DNA other than of the sample will get copied too (if the contaminants contain primers’ sequences).
- Another big issue with PCR is that it is assumed that natural substances can be substituted with chemicals. All DNTPs (synthetic nucleotides) which are used in PCR but also for synthesis of primers are made out of chemicals including petrochemicals like benzene and formaldehyde.
 Image source: Telegram ChatGPT JWGPT Bot - In the real world, when we want to ferment food, we use bacteria or fungi to perform the fermentation, we don’t introduce the enzymes these microorganisms produce. I know that I compare different things, but molecular enzymes theory is derived from fermentation, specifically from ferments. By adding isolated “ferments” to various matter, biochemists observed acceleration of fermentation or generated byproducts different than the one without the external ferments (i.e. different from letting the matter to ferment/spoil on its own). Based on the mentioned but also on experiments with sugar, biochemists suggested that “ferments” not only ferment/degrade matter, ferments also can synthesize original matter from its byproduct/s. Enzymes are the foundation of molecular biology, without the enzyme theory the current molecular science wouldn’t exist.
- No proper control experiments are performed to consider or to eliminate the effect of each chemical and each step, neither microscopical observation is ever performed before and after each chemical/step. The chemicals used are quite toxic and damaging to the environment but per PCR concept they are a vital part in creating more DNA.
- Primers are made of synthetic nucleotides and get attached on their own at 50-65°C to the single strand DNA but single nucleotides need an enzyme, polymerase, to get attached at around 72°C. This really doesn’t make any sense, and there is no official explanation of why a sequence of synthetic nucleotides doesn’t need an enzyme but single synthetic nucleotides do. The same science claims that in vivo there are two different enzymes that perform these tasks, one synthesizes-attaches primers and another generates the rest of the sequence. It is Arthur Kornberg, again, who discovered that significant radioactivity is generated by adding primers to a chemical broth. He has associated this radioactivity with DNA synthesis. Just a reminder that both “discoveries”, primase and primers, were made by Arthur Kornberg.
- Let’s not forget the Covid pandemic where RT-PCR got established as a golden standard for detecting Sars-Cov-2 virus. “Sars-Cov-2 RT-PCR test” was originally tested for its efficiency on patients with atypical pneumonia symptoms who [1] got negative results for several known viruses and [2] positive result to Sars-cov-2 virus . The primers which triggered positive result were constructed based on sequence of SARS-related virus (“…We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak...”) Basically, the primers were constructed based on various old SARS sequences because when the RT-PCR was trialling for Sars-cov-2 virus, Sars-cov-2 sequence wasn’t yet known (!!!). Sounds ridiculous but it is true. Essentially a “Sars-cov-2 RT-PCR test” tests people for something that doesn’t exists (if we assume DNA is real and PCR multiplies it). When RT-PCR hit the market one of the main “side-effects” of this novel way of testing was the masses getting a positive result while experiencing no symptoms. Rather than questioning RT-PCR as a test [and the whole concept behind it] we got introduced to the idea of someone being an “asymptomatic carrier” of a deadly virus. Rapid tests’ efficiency is even worse than RT-PCR, because their efficiency got established based on [1] SARS like symptoms and [2] positive RT-PCR. Just the Covid fiasco is enough to question PCR concept and the theromocycler. This is without discussing the air pollution and industrial contamination happening in China in general and in Wuhan, an industrial city (with a focus on automotive and steel production), that can easily cause symptoms of “atypical pneumonia” and various respiratory symptoms. (links: China has made major progress on air pollution. Wuhan protests show there’s still a long way to go, Air quality characteristics during 2016–2020 in Wuhan, China).
- The idea that a broth of chemicals with a tiny amount of dead tissue can go through 30-60 minutes of boiling and this chemical boiling can produce more DNA is beyond comprehension. Is it possible to create something identical to nature in a hot chemical soup (?) while we know heat and chemicals are damaging to the tissue, to cells and to cells’ content, to nature in general? These basic facts (heat and chemicals) alone indicate that PCR/theromocycler doesn’t represent anything natural.
Go to: GEL ELECTROPHORESIS HYPOTHESESGel Electrophoresis is based on the following assumptions: - Gel electrophoresis separates DNA sequences based on the length of the sequence by applying an electrical charge.
- DNA/RNA is negatively charged and will be pulled toward the positive charge.
- Shorter i.e. lighter sequences will pass faster through the gel while longer/heavier sequences will take longer. Based on this and the nucleobases ladder, scientists can determine the length of the sequence in the sample.
- Electric current and the buffer don’t affect the sample i.e. it doesn’t degrade it.
GEL ELECTROPHORESIS – CRITICAL CHECKPOINTS:By pinpointing the many issues with DNA, genes and especially with the PCR, someone would already understand that the DNA test might not match what it claims it matches, or match anything at all. Let’s assume that DNA and PCR perform what they are claimed to perform and assess Gel Electrophoresis on its own: - Gel electrophoresis is claimed to separate molecules according to their size. Since it’s used for molecules that are invisible (DNA, RNA and proteins), there is no way to confirm that what it is loaded with are molecules and there is also no way to validate that it separates these molecules based on their size since the invisible molecules need toxic dyes to become visible. How exactly a specific dye binds to a specific molecule is another, unsubstantiated molecular story.
- The determination of fragments size is based on a base-pair (“bp”) ladder which indicates the length of the sequence which is derived from molecular weight. Basically, the weight got associated with length i.e. with how many base-pairs a sequence contains, so it is an indirect way of quantifying the results. The ladder is provided by the biotech suppliers and there is no way to verify the ladder’s accuracy.
- The gel needs to be run for a specific time in order to determine the “weight-length of the sequence”. If you run the gel for too long then all fragments will mitigate to the end of the gel, basically the results depend on time. Either the gel, buffer and/or electricity degrade the fragments, so they all end up becoming small enough to travel to the end of the gel, or the gel itself gets degraded and allows all fragments to travel to the end. The ladder is also subject to time which totally defeats the purpose/comparison.
- The samples are stained with dyes such as coomassie blue and amido black before or after the process. Per this study amido black is toxic and damaging to DNA in vivo but for gel electrophoresis it’s perfectly fine and doesn’t affect in anyway the synthetic sequences generated from PCR (i.e. it doesn’t fragmentize or deteriorate the chemical broth).
- EDTA buffer is quite toxic to living tissue but as always, per molecular science, it is perfectly fine for already extracted and PCRed DNA, per biotech corporation “EDTA can be used to prevent degradation of DNA and RNA…”.
- Ethidium bromide which is mixed with the gel’s buffer, supposedly, makes DNA visible by using UV light. Ethidium bromide is highly toxic in vivo to DNA and “Great care must be taken when handling this mutagenic dye because it can bind to DNA in skin cells” but per molecular science, again, it is perfectly fine in vitro and has no effect when used for gel electrophoresis. Per this study Ethidium bromide affects the mobility of DNA fragments in the gel.
- The toxically dyed, PCRed DNA broth is also mixed with glycerol for gel electrophoresis. Glycerol provides density and viscosity, “Without glycerol, the DNA sample would disperse instead of sinking and forming a layer in the well…”. Basically, more chemicals are needed for the PCReed broth to be visible, mobile and comparable.
- DNA fragments appear as bands on the gel, individual DNA fragments are too small to be seen and examined. There is no way to verify that DNA fragments is what travels in the gel.
- There are too many things that can go wrong with gel electrotherapies, being aware of them someone could easily question the results and their accuracy.
- Since PCR supposedly synthesizes artificial DNA from chemicals it is more accurate to state that the chemical broth obtained from PCR is negatively charged. We don’t know the electric charge of DNA or whatever is isolated before PCR.
- We need to trust that what got isolated is DNA, trust that PCR multiplied specific sequences of DNA, trust that gel electrophoresis separates these sequences by length and trust that the ladder indicates the base-pair length. In reality all this requires a considerable leap of faith.
- Since a DNA chip is based on the gel electrophoresis concept and process and it contains patented technology, I will skip its review as I find there is absolutely no need to investigate how this technology got validated since the concept and model of DNA, its in vivo replication, in vitro multiplication and it’s “visualization” (through the gel) are all under serious questioning.
Go to: FINAL THOUGHTS- Scientists assume that nature has characteristics, rules and restraints that can be expressed with numbers and letters. They totally ignore that letters and numbers which form words and formulas are manmade, and while they are applicable and useful for man-made creations, nature is not man-made. In addition, they apply these alphanumeric characters on chemically treated and heated matter, matter that has been altered and dead.
- Molecular science claims that an organism’s physiology and its functioning (as a whole and each part separately) are “encoded” in a sequence of four transparent liquids (nucleobases) which are multiplied by other transparent liquids (enzymes) without any direct evidence. All got isolated by applying chemicals, centrifugation and boiling of dead matter. Knowing the exact procedures and how theories got derived, molecular science ticks lots of symptoms of schizophrenia. I'm actually concerned about the mental health of those who participate in GMO and CRISPR experiments, where they simply poison seeds, plants and embryos.
- Can we really call isolation something resulting from combing dead matter with chemicals? For example, if we combine yellow paint with blue and get green, does that mean we have “isolated” the green? By manipulating water with heat and metal, did Lavoisier obtain oxygen and hydrogen gases or created them?
- All methods of validating DNA or anything relating to it are indirect. The isolation of DNA is not an actual extraction and its validation is mainly done through gel electrophoresis. As already mentioned, gel electrophoresis cannot verify the presence of DNA in the sample unless toxic dye is used that supposedly gets bound only to DNA.
- Even if DNA existed, the idea that we can create a lot of synthetic DNA by boiling a tiny amount of natural DNA in a chemical broth is a farfetched idea.
- The DNA test doesn’t compare sequences, it compares the weight of fragments. Fragments that are generated through chemically washing dead matter, boiling it in a chemical broth for a half an hour (or more) and then placing it on a gel/DNA-chip with more chemicals and toxic dyes.
- While chemicals and heat are harmful to life and as a result to DNA but in vitro, per molecular science, they are not harmful during DNA isolation, PCR/Thermocycler and Gel Electrophoresis, actually most of them supposedly act as “stabilizers”, go figure.
- Depending on a DNA brand’s kit used and lab’s protocols, the samples will be analysed for 15 to 25 STRs and a match is considered when 50% of the STR repeats is identical in both samples. Let’s assume that DNA is real and that we indeed get exactly 50% of DNA from each parent, there are about 700,000 STRs in the human genome, so why matching 50% of 15-26 is considered a match? What if the samples don’t match on the tested STRs but match for non-tested STRs? And what about if someone matches 50% with 16 STRs but doesn’t match 50% when tested for 25 SRTs?
- Molecular scientists have the tendency in assuming what they deduced from their experiments in vitro must happen in vivo and that the byproducts they get are part of the original matter. As excellently put by Daniel Roytas, it’s like claiming that ash and smoke are part of the tree. I will take it even further; molecular scientists claim that ash and smoke are the molecular makeup and the fundamental building blocks of the tree, they even assign functions to these byproducts. While we understand how unreal and ridiculous this analogy sounds the reality is that this is exactly what they postulate for every substance they’ve "isolated" (dna, rna, enzymes, proteins, vitamins etc.).
- One of the most questionable things about DNA is its enzymatic synthesis, in vivo and in vitro. First, we never, ever saw anything claimed to happen in vivo. As already mentioned, in vivo claims are based on in vitro claims, but in vitro experiments are derived from mathematical formulas and statistics based on byproducts generated from boiling dead matter in a chemical soup.
- Can we really create synthetic analogues e.g. artificial nucleotides and primers (?) And can a (bacterial) enzyme identify and treat these analogues as identical to natural ones? Did we ever see nature incorporating plastic into itself just because the molecular formula and structure is identical to the natural one?
- Generally, scientific “discoveries” that explain how nature and organisms operate are just hypotheses. Typically, a hypothesis is suggested when there is a correlation between an action and a result/effect. Indirect tests and experiments are performed to confirm or debunk the hypothesis and a scientific paper gets published documenting the hypothesis, experiments and the conclusion. In most cases the publication [i.e. the hypothesis] will be perceived as a “discovery” and will become a basis for the next hypothesis. Some hypotheses get Nobel Prizes (e.g. Arthur Kornberg – RNA and DNA synthesis, Kary B. Mullis – PCR invention). At the end and in reality, what we really have are not facts, but hypotheses based on older hypotheses based on older hypotheses. Hypotheses that we cannot question because of scientific consensus and Nobel prizes.
- Last but not least we, humans, can only explain the how’s and why’s about things we created ourselves. While we have observed, documented and linked many causes and effects in nature, the stories are just assumptions and presumptions because we really don’t know what happens on a microlevel. We’re are not the designers of nature and we haven’t created any equipment or ways in observing nature in its natural state i.e. without extracting the matter of interest from the rest of the organism and its environment.
- So, does DNA testing “match” samples (?) maybe it does, although I highly doubt it especially because of PCR (and the already mentioned Covid fiasco which is based on RT-PCR). It could act as blood group testing where the blood is mixed with three types of chemicals (synthetic analogues of “antigens” and “antibodies”) and the group is determined based with which chemicals the blood gets agglutinated. Blood group looks like being a hereditary trait although you can find stories where people’s blood type has changed (this might suggest that environment and food could change blood’s reaction to the mentioned chemicals). Comparison of blood groups was the first type of paternity test; it wasn’t used for matching but mainly for eliminating the potential father/s. The issue with blood groups is that if our blood was tested for more antigens, antibodies (if such things exist is totally another story) and their synthetic analogues we would have had much more blood types. E.g. Cow has 11 main blood groups and lots of subgroups, 800 blood types in total. In reality, this indicates that cow’s blood is very reactive to chemicals any externally infused blood.
- Another major problem with molecular science is the full dependence on biotech corps products and instruments. Molecular scientist simply needs to follow the protocols provided by the (expensive) kits and instruments purchased from these coprs. There is no way to validate any of the purchased products/ instruments quality or performance since we are dealing with invisible substances. Molecular scientists need to “trust and follow the science”, questioning the foundations and the procedures is not part of this “science”, won’t get them a degree nor a paycheck….
- Molecular biology presume that we are (by)products of chemical reactions and enzymes that can be quantified and labeled with letters/names. We, actually all living organisms, are more than some numbers and letters. I don’t think we will ever manage to decipher the principles of life. In fact, molecular science takes us on a path that is opposite to truth and reality.
SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL DNA TESTSFamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe and My Heritage use next generation sequencing technology for their DNA tests, specifically Microarray analysis where almost everything is automated (by tecan and illumina instruments); the staff handling the DNA don’t need to be familiar with biochemistry or molecular biology. The sample will go through the typical PCR process and then will be placed on DNA microarrays chip. There are hundreds to thousands of probes (short sequences of nucleotides) that are attached on the DNA chip and if the [PCRed] DNA has a sequence that compliments the probe, it will get attached and will be detected through a laser. The mentioned corporations use single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) but don’t disclose more details about the probes’ sequences. SNP is a variation of a base pair in specific section of sequence at specific location of a chromosome/genome when two or more samples are compared. More information about the commercial tests can be found below: CRITICAL CHECKPOINTSWhile some claim that the commercial DNA test is identical to lab/paternity DNA test and the only reason they are not acceptable in court is because they cannot verify from whom the sample was taken, the reality is very different: - The first and major issue is no official disclosure of the markers [probes] used neither full list of SNPs. The probes used and the subsequent microarray analysis don’t cover your whole genome (even if they claim they do). For your full genome sequencing you need to request for a next generation sequencing which costs around $600 and this is without analyzing or comparing your results to anything, just raw data.
- Laboratories performing a DNA test need to be accredited by AABB (American Association of Blood Bank) in USA and by local authorities (of the country and/or state) and comply with ISO/IEC 17025, also each country has its own specific legal requirements with many being similar to AABB. The commercial DNA tests don’t comply with any of the mentioned.
- You may have read articles claiming that criminals were found and convicted though commercial DNA kits’ database but this is an absolute misinformation. STRs are, still, the only official way of matching DNA. Matched SNPs cannot be used for identification or conviction. Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy (FIGG) is a method employed when all other methods of identifying a suspect are exhausted i.e. where there no clues or leads, no evidence, no witnesses and the DNA material found at the crime scene doesn’t match to any profile already uploaded to “Combined DNA Index System” (CODIS). The DNA collected from the crime scene will be go through SNPs analysis and the results will be compared to profiles found on commercial kits’ database. Normally a warrant should be obtained, and user’s acceptance is needed for his/her data to be used by the government for forensic purposes. Once there are some matches, mainly of relatives (based on matching %) a genealogy tree will be built. Then suspects are included/excluded based on physical characteristics, age, location etc. Once a suspect is identified and he/she has no alibi then the official DNA matching will be performed through STRs i.e. the suspect’s sample will need to be tested by an approved lab using STRs markers. So, at the end of the day these databases are not official. For more details: Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG): a guide for prosecutors.
- A ‘dye-labelled artificial nucleotides’, aka terminators, become visible by fluorescent light only if the PCRed DNA contains a complementary sequence to the probe with the specific terminator-colour on it. Regardless of how many colours are used by the process-protocols-instruments, there is always some overlap of colours in the arrays. It’s up to the instrument’s software (algorithms) which colours/light will be considered or ignored, based on intensity. This just shows that the raw and unprocessed data always contains conflicting information, and it is based on instruments’ programming if a SNP will be recognised or not in the sample.
- There are also webpages where you upload your DNA results from various DNA commercial kits e.g. Genomelink to get more “information” about your ethnicity and health. One of the ways to get more personalised reports for free is to provide Genomelink with feedback about their predictions about you through agreeing or disagreeing to the traits and characteristics they’ve assigned to you. This feedback loop looks like personal data/traits mining where the company uses statistics and algorithms to estimate and associate certain SNPs to certain characteristics and traits; essentially it is not based on your DNA but on questionnaires and algorithms.
- As with gel electrophoresis and bioanalyzer, nothing of original sample is compared during microarrays analysis because before the analysis the sample goes through PCR.
- 23andMe has contracted LabCorp to perform all the laboratory work. In reality all are performed at the premises of the “National Genetics Institute” a subsidiary company of LabCorp. This is quite a misleading name for a private company; I don’t understand how California Secretary of State allowed such a name to be used by a private company.
- “Ethnicity cannot be detected by DNA, but there is sometimes an overlap with a person’s genetic ancestry. For example, people who share the same heritage will often live in the same places and marry people from similar backgrounds... Each company uses different algorithms and compares your results to different reference populations, so results vary from company to company.” Source: How can DNA tests determine ethnicity? In addition ethnicity estimates get continuously adjusted based on commercial kits’ database expansions and algorithms adjusmtents. So basically, these reports don’t add much to what you already know about your ethnicity or origin of your family, and what is the point to search for your roots through such questionable and unreliable tests? Genomelink providers reports indicating which chromosome contains which ethnicity and also the occupation of your ancestors (source: I Uploaded My DNA to Genomelink, My True Ancestry, GEDmatch, Promethease, and Genetic Lifehacks). Like seriously, even if DNA was real, PCR produced more DNA and the commercial kits were in compliance with basic standards the reliability and antiquity of the “history” we are taught [indoctrinated with] is under serious questioning too.
 Image Source: I Took 10 DNA Tests and Compared Them | Which One Should You Take? - The health reports providing information to what health conditions and diseases you are prone to are extremely controversial, if not dubious. In order to accept them we need to accept the DNA model and that sequences of DNA, “genes”, contain diseases’ predisposition. Regardless if you believe in genes or not, we are exposed to so many toxins and “carcinogens” (atmosphere, products, food, consumables, wearables, injectables) that do we really need a DNA/genes report to tell about the dis-eases we might “express” at some point? Reading the ingredients of what we eat, consume, apply or inject into our body is more than enough to make us realize that we are exposed to tons of toxics on a daily basis and that their levels and/or build-up can lead to symptoms of dis-eases; with dis-eases being damage, injury or death of specific tissue and symptoms being a way to eliminate the injured/dead tissue or/and heal/regrow the damaged tissue.
- I don’t even want to go into SNPs theories and Microarrays technology which are based on many additional assumptions on top of DNA and PCR. The idea that invisible synthetic oligonucleotides (associated to phenotype) called “probes” are printed within seconds onto a glass and the synthetic DNA (i.e. PCRed DNA), gets attached without any super-duper intelligent enzyme, is as absurd as PCR. How exactly can someone validate this technology and the probes? I would love to see the exactly same sample to be processed “analysed” by different commercial kits and by different biotech brands.
- Both commercial DNA tests and their predictions (database and algorithms) feel like a horoscope. I still remember vividly when a friend of my husband, then boyfriend, asked us about our horoscope, we replied that we both are Gemini. He read a little bit about our character and predation for the already passed week and asked if what we heard sounded relevant, to which we replied that it sounded ok; then he told us that he read about cancer. With this story I wanted to point out that you will not get any useful information since the majority of descriptions/predictions are simply generalization and estimates. Other than building your family tree online by providing and using your personal data and genealogy, there is not much use for these commercial kits and related webpages.
- In reality people provide their personal information and dead tissue to companies that cooperate with authorities, e.g. police and FBI, and on top of if pay for it. Someone can state that if you haven’t done anything wrong why would you care? The problem is that DNA itself is under serious questioning so if the matching is done based on so many assumptions, then there is a high chance being part of a wrongful suspicion based on absolutely cotnroversial [DNA] testing.
FURTHER INFORMATION & USEFUL LINKS |
No comments:
Post a Comment