#USA #Government wants #DNA and social media from visitors
https://www.privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/5713/trump-administration-wants-your-dna-and-social-media
Comments
#stalking #surveillance #gov #why
https://www.privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/5713/trump-administration-wants-your-dna-and-social-media
Comments
#stalking #surveillance #gov #why
Privacy International
The Trump Administration wants your DNA and social media
Yesterday the Trump Administration announced a proposed change in policy for travellers to the U.S. It applies to the powers of data collection by the Customs and Border Police (CBP).
#DNA may be fake and gay too
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2025/01/30/critical-review-of-dna-test/
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2025/01/30/critical-review-of-dna-test/
Critical Check
A critical review of DNA testing
CONTENT: INTRODUCTION (1) DNA ISOLATION (2) PCR (3.1) GEL ELECTROPHORESIS (3.2) BIOANALYZER – DNA CHIP (4) DNA PATERNITY REPORT CRITICAL REVIEW: DNA THEORY DNA THEORY – CRITICAL CHECKPO…
Forensic Science International: Genetics
NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned
Interlaboratory comparisonstudies, which are sometimes referred to as collaborative
exercises or round-robin studies, provide a useful way to demonstrate that multiple
laboratories can generate comparable results with the same provided samples, and are
cited…
exercises or round-robin studies, provide a useful way to demonstrate that multiple
laboratories can generate comparable results with the same provided samples, and are
cited…
The NIST study data that no one is supposed to see…!
In the NIST study (National Institute of Standards and Technology, see source), a mixed DNA sample from four people was produced. The task for 108 forensic laboratories was to assess whether a certain "suspect" is contained within this sample.
The built-in study trick
The so-called "DNA" of the suspect was never actually included in the sample.
The results of the 108 laboratories:
» 69% said: The suspect could be contained
» 25% said: The data are inconclusive
» 6% said: The suspect is not contained
In other words:
Only 6% of the laboratories have correctly recognized the situation.
94% of them were wrong or did not provide a clear, correct statement.
And exactly this method is worldwide considered as "objective DNA evidence".
Why this is another nail in the coffin for the genetics narrative, as it already has been shown that:
» Race tests in dogs are giving completely contradictory results depending on the laboratory (Romeo experiment).
» DNA samples of the same female dog ("Mia/Sam"): Determined the wrong gender, wrong assignment in an accredited forensic laboratory.
» A paternity study with 336 children and 348 unrelated men showed that 95.8% of the children had at least one additional "father", sometimes up to 32 men, who could not be statistically ruled out.
Now adding to this:
» A 108 laboratories, where 94% of them fail to correctly recognize that the suspect isn't found in the provided sample at all.
This is not a gold standard in any way.. no, this is again the result of professional deception disguised by soyentists as "DNA forensics".
Conclusion
What is sold as "a fixed blueprint" and "objective evidence" turns out to be a scientific interpretation and results existing only within software (just like with virology). This is not a scientific fact, but can only be classified as pseudo-science. #Soyence #DNA
» Source
Thirty on thirty
In the NIST study (National Institute of Standards and Technology, see source), a mixed DNA sample from four people was produced. The task for 108 forensic laboratories was to assess whether a certain "suspect" is contained within this sample.
The built-in study trick
The so-called "DNA" of the suspect was never actually included in the sample.
The results of the 108 laboratories:
» 69% said: The suspect could be contained
» 25% said: The data are inconclusive
» 6% said: The suspect is not contained
In other words:
Only 6% of the laboratories have correctly recognized the situation.
94% of them were wrong or did not provide a clear, correct statement.
And exactly this method is worldwide considered as "objective DNA evidence".
Why this is another nail in the coffin for the genetics narrative, as it already has been shown that:
» Race tests in dogs are giving completely contradictory results depending on the laboratory (Romeo experiment).
» DNA samples of the same female dog ("Mia/Sam"): Determined the wrong gender, wrong assignment in an accredited forensic laboratory.
» A paternity study with 336 children and 348 unrelated men showed that 95.8% of the children had at least one additional "father", sometimes up to 32 men, who could not be statistically ruled out.
Now adding to this:
» A 108 laboratories, where 94% of them fail to correctly recognize that the suspect isn't found in the provided sample at all.
This is not a gold standard in any way.. no, this is again the result of professional deception disguised by soyentists as "DNA forensics".
Conclusion
What is sold as "a fixed blueprint" and "objective evidence" turns out to be a scientific interpretation and results existing only within software (just like with virology). This is not a scientific fact, but can only be classified as pseudo-science. #Soyence #DNA
» Source
Thirty on thirty