Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

DNA tests are powerful but biology occasionally has a plot twist. Chimerism can leave one person with two distinct DNA profiles, creating situations where genetic testing may produce results that seem impossible at first glance. So before treating a DNA result as the final word, perhaps we should ask...

16,886 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Kearney Disinformation Correction Yesterday, Aidan Kearney attempted to attack the lack of canine DNA detected on John's clothing by tweeting two misleading claims. 1. Canine Swab Collection Kearney Disinformation: Michael Proctor was the source of DNA collected. Factual Information: The swabs were neither from Proctor's body nor collected by him. The swabs were collected by Maureen Hartnett at the MSP crime lab from John's shirt per instructions of Teri Kuhn at UC Davis and were received packaged appropriately. 2. Inhibitors Caused The Lack of Canine DNA Kearney Disinformation: There were inhibitors on John's clothing that masked the presence of canine DNA. Factual Information: UC Davis was asked to perform two tests: a nuclear DNA test which would be used to identify a specific animal and, if the nuclear DNA test failed to yield results, a mitochondrial DNA test called Meat ID to determine presence of DNA from a variety of species. Nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of the cell and only 2 copies exist whereas mitochondrial DNA is found in the cytoplasm and is significantly more abundant with hundreds of thousands of copies. Nuclear DNA tests are far more accurate in determining the exact source, ie one dog from another dog, whereas mitochondrial DNA is less specific but will be able to determine if DNA from a specific animal species is present. In this case, the presence of DNA from 12 different animal species, including canine and pig, was tested. The results of the QPCR testing for nuclear DNA were that the swabs "did not indicate the presence of canine (nuclear) DNA, but did indicate the presence of inhibitors. This result is obtained when 1. Canine DNA is degraded, 2. The DNA is obscured by inhibitors, or 3. There is no nuclear DNA present." The less specific test using mitochondrial DNA, Meat ID, was then completed. This test showed no canine DNA and further, showed no inhibitors. In other words, had canine DNA been present, it would have been identified on the Meat ID mitochondrial testing since there were no inhibitors. The below video contains questioning from both the defense and prosecution supporting the identified factual information.

Julie Carpenter

10,660 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

EXCLUSIVE: Scene of Nancy Guthrie private lab testing. I’m outside DNA Labs International where the DNA Testing of evidence is happening right now. I traveled to Deerfield Beach, Florida where lab technicians have been testing critical evidence in the investigation — including the glove found nearly 2 miles from her home. We’ve heard a lot about the discrepancies of sending this type of DNA evidence to a private lab versus a lab used by the FBI, but the Pima County Sheriff, Chris Nanos, says this is their protocol, and a lab that they have used for years. There are only a limited number of private accredited DNA labs in the country capable of this level of forensic work. If possible, DNA Labs International will develop a DNA profile from the glove. According to independent DNA consultant Suzanna Ryan of Ryan Forensic, which is not connected to this case but can speak about how this all works, once a profile is developed it will most likely be sent to the Arizona Department of Public Safety. That’s where the quality control process begins: •A qualified DNA analyst or CODIS administrator verifies the data •The profile must meet strict standards before upload •Once approved, it is electronically transmitted through state systems to the Federal Bureau of Investigation •All systems work together within the national DNA database network CODIS This extra verification step can take time — but it’s critical to ensure the data is admissible and accurate. In this exclusive video, I take you to the scene of where this testing is being done. Because the lab sits on private property, we were asked to leave by property management — but this is where the forensic work is happening. More to come on my YouTube Channel The Ingle Edit and on NewsNation

Laura Ingle

202,710 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨Watch Candace Owens cherry-pick and mischaracterise the testimony of the ATF's DNA expert - CUTTING AWAY before her audience sees the parts that completely undermine her narrative. Candace wants her audience to believe that because the DNA profile attributed to Tyler Robinson as the major contributor showed signs of degradation, that must mean the DNA was old - and therefore couldn't belong to the shooter. The problem? That's not what either DNA expert testified. In fact, moments after the cherry-picked clip Candace used, the ATF expert confirms she cannot determine when the DNA was deposited on the trigger or trigger guard. And just two days earlier, the FBI's DNA expert explained that degradation can result from many factors, such as, heat, humidity, cleaning, and other environmental factors, adding: "I really can't tell why an item is degraded." -The ATF expert did not testify that degradation meant the DNA was old -She did not testify it made the DNA unusable -She did not testify that it was inconsistent with the shooter That's Candace's conclusion - not the expert's testimony. And despite the degradation, the ATF expert still testified that the DNA profile was at least one trillion times more likely if it originated from Tyler Robinson as the major contributor than from four unknown unrelated individuals. That's exactly where Candace cuts away. It's another example of taking one sentence from an expert, stripping away the context, and presenting a conclusion the witness never reached. An honest investigator follows the evidence wherever it leads. Candace takes whatever evidence supports her predetermined narrative, distorts it - and hides the rest. The opposite of someone trying to find the truth.

Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV)

77,742 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat