Fool’s Gold Standard: The Unvalidated Science of DNA

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/fools-gold-standard-the-unvalidated

= = =

In 2011, researchers obtained DNA evidence from a real criminal case—a gang rape prosecution in Georgia—through a Freedom of Information Act request. The original laboratory had concluded that one of the accused men “could not be excluded” as a contributor to the DNA mixture found on the victim. This conclusion was essential to the prosecution. The man was in prison.

Itiel Dror, a cognitive neuroscientist who studies bias and decision-making, and Greg Hampikian, a geneticist and innocence project advocate, sent the same DNA evidence—the same electropherograms the original analysts had examined—to 17 independent DNA examiners working in accredited governmental laboratories across North America. These weren’t amateurs. They averaged nearly nine years of experience in DNA analysis. The critical difference: they received only the DNA data itself, without knowing about the rape accusation, the cooperating witness, or the prosecution’s theory. They were asked simply to examine the DNA mixture and determine whether the suspect could be excluded.

The results: only 1 out of 17 agreed with the original laboratory’s conclusion.

Four found the result inconclusive. Twelve concluded “exclude”—the opposite of what had been presented in court.

Same evidence. Qualified experts. Working independently. And 12 out of 17 reached a different verdict than the one that helped send a man to prison.

This wasn’t an outlier. A 2013 NIST study sent DNA mixture samples to 108 accredited laboratories. For a three-person mixture, 70% said the suspect “might be in the mix.” Only 6% reached the correct conclusion. The claimed accuracy of forensic DNA testing—99.8%, one in a billion, the gold standard of evidence—collapsed to something closer to guesswork when analysts didn’t know what answer was expected.

...

The question this raises is not whether a few laboratories have quality control problems. The question is whether the entire foundation of DNA science—the theory that a molecule called DNA exists in a specific double-helix structure, carries genetic information in a readable sequence, and can be reliably identified and matched—has ever been properly validated.

The answer, when you examine the evidence, is troubling.

If the underlying molecule and its interpretive framework were as robust as claimed, blind testing would converge. Seventeen qualified analysts examining the same data would reach the same conclusion, or something close to it. They didn’t. Twelve reached the opposite conclusion. This isn’t laboratory sloppiness or individual incompetence—these were accredited facilities staffed by experienced professionals. Systematic failure under controlled conditions doesn’t just indict individual laboratories. It justifies re-examining the foundational assumptions those laboratories rely on.

You can read the full essay here: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/fools-gold-standard-the-unvalidated

I looked at this back in 2024. Virtually all the essays/papers said the same thing. There was no evidence available to show the actual presence of DNA. Much of the research papers used such words; believed, predicted, suggested, assumed, theoretical. Also the odd 'might' or 'could'.

This paragraph makes interesting reading. It is more in line with my work:

"Andrews contracted independent laboratories to run virus isolation protocols on uninfected cell cultures. Over 150 electron microscopy images from live sessions found particles matching “SARS-CoV-2,” “Measles,” and “HIV” by exact size, shape, coating, and visible inclusions—in cultures with no virus present. The particles were cellular debris from cells starving in reduced nutrient medium. The tests that were supposed to identify specific biological entities identified whatever produced the right electrical or physical characteristics.

Much of what the white-coats insist is true; is nothing but. No wonder they waited for Dr Mullis to go before unleashing covid in 2019.

An interesting read yes, but without diluting it by introducing Covid - whatever that was, then consider this.

The real problem isn’t that DNA is junk science. It’s that good science gets turned into a piece of technology, run through human judgment, and then waved through by courts that don’t really understand probability or uncertainty.

27 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

An interesting read yes, but without diluting it by introducing Covid - whatever that was, then consider this.

The real problem isn’t that DNA is junk science. It’s that good science gets turned into a piece of technology, run through human judgment, and then waved through by courts that don’t really understand probability or uncertainty.

Yes, I largely agree with your response. And we have gone through a very similar process with the PCR-test during the scam-demic, where that completely unfit test was considered definite proof with all consequences for those that tested positive.

22 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Fool’s Gold Standard: The Unvalidated Science of DNA

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/fools-gold-standard-the-unvalidated

= = =

In 2011, researchers obtained DNA evidence from a real criminal case—a gang rape prosecution in Georgia—through a Freedom of Information Act request. The original laboratory had concluded that one of the accused men “could not be excluded” as a contributor to the DNA mixture found on the victim. This conclusion was essential to the prosecution. The man was in prison.

Itiel Dror, a cognitive neuroscientist who studies bias and decision-making, and Greg Hampikian, a geneticist and innocence project advocate, sent the same DNA evidence—the same electropherograms the original analysts had examined—to 17 independent DNA examiners working in accredited governmental laboratories across North America. These weren’t amateurs. They averaged nearly nine years of experience in DNA analysis. The critical difference: they received only the DNA data itself, without knowing about the rape accusation, the cooperating witness, or the prosecution’s theory. They were asked simply to examine the DNA mixture and determine whether the suspect could be excluded.

The results: only 1 out of 17 agreed with the original laboratory’s conclusion.

Four found the result inconclusive. Twelve concluded “exclude”—the opposite of what had been presented in court.

Same evidence. Qualified experts. Working independently. And 12 out of 17 reached a different verdict than the one that helped send a man to prison.

This wasn’t an outlier. A 2013 NIST study sent DNA mixture samples to 108 accredited laboratories. For a three-person mixture, 70% said the suspect “might be in the mix.” Only 6% reached the correct conclusion. The claimed accuracy of forensic DNA testing—99.8%, one in a billion, the gold standard of evidence—collapsed to something closer to guesswork when analysts didn’t know what answer was expected.

...

The question this raises is not whether a few laboratories have quality control problems. The question is whether the entire foundation of DNA science—the theory that a molecule called DNA exists in a specific double-helix structure, carries genetic information in a readable sequence, and can be reliably identified and matched—has ever been properly validated.

The answer, when you examine the evidence, is troubling.

If the underlying molecule and its interpretive framework were as robust as claimed, blind testing would converge. Seventeen qualified analysts examining the same data would reach the same conclusion, or something close to it. They didn’t. Twelve reached the opposite conclusion. This isn’t laboratory sloppiness or individual incompetence—these were accredited facilities staffed by experienced professionals. Systematic failure under controlled conditions doesn’t just indict individual laboratories. It justifies re-examining the foundational assumptions those laboratories rely on.

You can read the full essay here: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/fools-gold-standard-the-unvalidated

This guy Jamie Andrews is mentioned over and over on the essay from the link:

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/fools-gold-standard-the-unvalidated

And rightly so, as he has followed virologists, epidemiologists, immunologist and some other ologist' lab protocols, arrived at different results, and some alarming conclusions. Mostly that the virologist's results are simply made up nonsense.

He is not new to OFBT however, He could be heard on AN about a month ago:

Or, go direct to his interview with UK Column. Well worth a listen, as he explains in simple terms, lab work for finding both DNA and viruses. And the tricks that are pulled to allow false narratives to reign.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/jerm-warfare-jamie-andrews-on-why-virology-is-junk-science