The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

WOW. I am definitely going to steal thermalman's stage set:

And I thought I somehow jumped from the frying pan to the fire with an extremely inadvertant single sentence just recently. That ain't nothing compared to this.

Can't wait to see the rest of the show.

Edited March 26, 2013 by bananasquatch

[Guest thermalman]

OTL,S is reporting that Ketchum is now testing alien dna.

http://seesdifferent...rn-human-being/

Its the 3/24/2013 update.

Of course they would. Sheesh, any other proproganda against MK out there, while we're at it?

[Guest]

"Is it some evolutionary offshoot of humanity that we have yet to identify in the fossil record? Maybe. But the mysterious sequences are single strand, that is haploid DNA, and all terrestrial DNA in somatic cells (blood, hair, tissue, bone) is diploid unless it is in gametes (sex cells). ~ Thom Powell at thomsquatch

Can someone speak to this? I thought the single strands represented places were the DNA was contaminated or damaged?

Again a very wrong and uneducated statement. Single stranded DNA has NOTHING to do with being haploid!! Haploid means one copy of a gene, diploid means two copies of a gene. All mammalian genes are diploid with the exception of the sperm and egg.

BUT ALL GENES (with the exception of some viruses) ARE DOUBLE STRANDED!!!

Haploid organisms, such as yeast (in some stages) or bacteria, have one copy of a gene but it is DOUBLE STRANDED!! Some viruses have single stranded RNA or DNA, and much of the RNA in ones cells is single stranded.

I don't know if I would call mtDNA haploid though as there are usually many, many copies, but they are all derived exclusively from the maternal line. (And yes Virginia, they are double stranded as well.) Diploid nuDNA has one copy of a gene from the maternal source, one from the paternal source. With the obvious exception of the male specific Y chromosome.

Single stranded DNA can occur in extremely limited amounts very transiently while a cell repairs a damaged sequence, or during replication. BUT a cell that does not correct the damage (ie make it dsDNA again), or finish replication, will not divide and will likely die, and will NEVER be passed on the the next generation.

Thank you, I know what the composition of cells are and all that! I just couldn't wrap my mind around how the cellular terms were being used to describe DNA. That didn't make sense to me.

Sorry if I sounded condescending, that was not my intent. I was just trying to show how the terms are used. I shoulda left off that part about high schoolers!

From thomsquatch.com:

The findings were remarkably consistent: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), which is indicative of the female component of the genome, came back as human! The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.†Also, large sections of the DNA strands appeared as single strand molecules (haploid), as opposed to the uniformly double-stranded DNA of all human DNA that is not found in sex cells (gametes). This might indicate that the DNA being sequenced was highly degraded DNA, but degraded DNA is found to contain lots of bacteria, and no bacteria was found in conjunction with the DNA that showed single strand configuration. It was not degraded, but it was single strand DNA in about half of the segments that were sequenced. Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum.

This paragraph is very confusing to me. mtDNA is inherited wholly from the mother, and does not tell us anything about the nuDNA inherited from the mother. nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied. And while DNA can be degraded by bacteria, not all degradation is caused by bacteria. Repeated freezing and thawing of samples, UV radiation, and pH can all cause degradation. Also, even DNA found in gamete cells is double-stranded; the gamete cells just contain 1/2 the number of chromosomes.

Overall, I think Mr. Powell is asserting that the single-strand portions of the DNA are from the father (non-human) while the double-stranded portions are from the mother (human). I don't know for sure, but that's what it seems like.

Looking back over Mr. Powell's post, especially the next to last paragraph, I also think he is implying that the single-strand DNA found by Dr. Ketchum is evidence of an extra-terrestrial origin for that part of the DNA, hence the use of "terrestrial" when describing somatic cells.

It is very clear that Mr. Powell does not have a grasp of the basics of biology. Thank you Maelsquatch for your many useful posts to counterbalance the gross inaccuracies that are being put forward as science from MK and many of her supporters.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest]

Re-reading my last post I should probably more correctly be saying "genome" instead of "gene" as there can be more than one copy of a gene in a haploid genome. And it is not just the "genes" that are double stranded but the whole sequences contained within a chromosome. So haploid=one copy of genome, diploid=two copies of genome, and all double stranded. Sorry for any confusion.

[southernyahoo]

I think this is why Ketchum was puzzled by the single stands. Is it possible a primer can write itself into a genome where there is no counterpart for the sequence it attempts to find? Or would the primer completely fail and leave a gap in the sequence? How would a primer sequence a single stranded virus when it has to find a counterpart to perform it's function in the first place? Maybe I'm off in my understanding of how primers work but have watched a video on PCR.

[Guest]

I think this is why Ketchum was puzzled by the single stands. Is it possible a primer can write itself into a genome where there is no counterpart for the sequence it attempts to find? Or would the primer completely fail and leave a gap in the sequence? How would a primer sequence a single stranded virus when it has to find a counterpart to perform it's function in the first place? Maybe I'm off in my understanding of how primers work but have watched a video on PCR.

I believe the single strand theory came about from the fact that a number of her PCR reactions failed to provide a product. This is a common problem when doing any pcr. There are a number of variables that are involved - degree of homology of the primer to the template, temperature of annealing (hybridizing the primer to the template), salt conditions, as well as GC content of the template and repetitive sequences. IMO, failure of a pcr does not lead me to think of alternative types of DNA, just that the conditions were not correct. This then lead MK to do the electron microscopy work. Reading their protocol, they did not RNAse treat their samples, which could account for some of the single stranded material. Also, if the sample DNA was degraded, or at any time "denatured" by the sample being heated then rapidly cooled, this could lead to some random single stranded DNA when the sequences improperly reannealed. If the DNA sample was degraded or denatured, this could also potentially lead to the pcr failures. BUT I do not believe the DNA described as in the electron microscopy study is in any way a native type of DNA. IMO, it is an artifact.

I have never heard of a primer writing itself into a genomic sequence (if I am understanding your question correctly). If you were doing standard sequencing (like dideoxy sequencing) failure would provide no sequence, or if it annealed incorrectly (due to too low a hybridization temp), this could generate spurious sequence that is not relevant to the region of interest. For sequencing a single stranded DNA virus, you would need to synthesize the complementary strand first, which could then be used as a template for pcr. The same primer could be used to synthesize the complementary strand as well as one of the two primers of the pcr reaction. Hope this answers your questions.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest thermalman]

@ rr "nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied"

That's not what is implied. TP is just stating exactly what is quoted, that only the male nDNA is found to be novel.

"The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.â€

Nowhere in his quote does TP imply what RR is interpreting.

@rr "Re-reading my last post I should probably more correctly be saying "genome" instead of "gene" as there can be more than one copy of a gene in a haploid genome. And it is not just the "genes" that are double stranded but the whole sequences contained within a chromosome. So haploid=one copy of genome, diploid=two copies of genome, and all double stranded. Sorry for any confusion."

No problem rr. Unlike the tribal cannibalism attitude directed at every little detailed mistake that MK makes, we MK believers forgive you for your error. Afterall, WE'RE all only human.

Edited March 27, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

@ rr "nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied"

That's not what is implied. TP is just stating exactly what is quoted, that only the male nDNA is found to be novel. Nowhere in his quote does TP imply what RR is interpreting.

"The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.â€

I read it the same way as RR read it; "mtDNA which is indicative of the female component of the genome... [and] Nuclear DNA [comes] from the male progenitor" seems to indicate that Powell believes that the mom's only contribution is the mtDNA, not any nDNA.

Now, assuming your interpretation is correct, how would Dr. Ketchum, DVM determine which base pairs came from which parent?

[Guest]

They're a type of people.lol

[Guest thermalman]

Of course you would lc. We know that nDNA comes from both parents. TP is stating specifically that the male progenitor's contribution of nDNA is the only novel one. He does not state any detail of the nDNA from the female contributor. His statement is clearly indicative of what MK's stated findings have been all along. Despite what you and others may deem from your misinterpretation of TP's quote,

"Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum".

Actual people and labs, that have had full access to the samples, concur with what was found by MK.

[Guest]

@ rr "nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied"

That's not what is implied. TP is just stating exactly what is quoted, that only the male nDNA is found to be novel. Nowhere in his quote does TP imply what RR is interpreting.

"The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.â€

@rr "Re-reading my last post I should probably more correctly be saying "genome" instead of "gene" as there can be more than one copy of a gene in a haploid genome. And it is not just the "genes" that are double stranded but the whole sequences contained within a chromosome. So haploid=one copy of genome, diploid=two copies of genome, and all double stranded. Sorry for any confusion."

No problem rr. Unlike the tribal cannibalism pointed at every little detailed mistake that MK makes, we MK believers forgive you for your error. Afterall, WE'RE all only human.

TM, I do believe you have misquoted me - I don't recall saying that (please note the post # and I will double check).

And if you are looking at one's DNA, you can not say the male progenitor nuclear DNA is novel (which I am interpreting as coming from the paternal lineage), as the resulting genome is a mixture of both parents. The only case where you could say this is with the Y chromosome, but all nuDNA data is from CH11. Unless you have the paternal DNA to compare it to, you can not make this statement.

And thank you for accepting my clarifications to my earlier post - they were not errors, just over simplifications. I may make mistakes, and welcome people to let me know when I have said something incorrect. I will do my best to self correct when possible. I would welcome any of MKs corrections - but to date she has admitted none (if this statement is in error, please let me know). Again, my objective in being on this forum is to try and make sure the scientific truth gets out there and to counteract any statements of fact that I believe are not accurate. MK made some VERY STRONG CONCLUSIONS, so the little details really do matter.

[Guest thermalman]

@ lc "Now, assuming your interpretation is correct, how would Dr. Ketchum, DVM determine which base pairs came from which parent?"

@rr "And if you are looking at one's DNA, you can not say the male progenitor nuclear DNA is novel (which I am interpreting as coming from the paternal lineage), as the resulting genome is a mixture of both parents. The only case where you could say this is with the Y chromosome, but all nuDNA data is from CH11. Unless you have the paternal DNA to compare it to, you can not make this statement."

Cannot both, the maternal and paternal nDNA, be seperated and determined from which parent it came from through DNA Profiling?

@rr "TM, I do believe you have misquoted me - I don't recall saying that (please note the post # and I will double check)."

I couldn't have possibly misquoted you, as I cut and pasted your direct comments to my post.

[Guest]

Looks like Thom Powell nailed it.

Yep ... He nailed it ... The only thing he did not mention, but is covered by "groupthink", is " talking points" .....

Loved the way he built the case for the many personal attacks.

The bait and switch..... Attack the person not the argument....

BTW ... Check my dang spelling PLEASE.... If that is your thingy....

Finally, and this is a big red flag, Powell ends his polemic with an appeal to buy his book, which Ketchum's study just happens to support.

I didn't want to bring that up initially, but that was the part that resonated with me the most. Always a little self-marketing within everyone who attaches themselves to a project/event that has nothing to do with them. Nothing personal against Thom. I think he's a talented writer, and is very intelligent, but I disagree with most of his thoughts in the matter. Debate always has this same dynamic. It's nothing new. We could easily flip the script, and attack the pro-Ketchum ideologies, the group-think, and point out the confirmation bias in a lot of their logic, too. It's a never ending debate until Melba feels compelled to start proving her claims.

So, if everyone is right, would that qualify as 'group-think'? I picture Ketchum camp meetings being tantamount to the AT&T commercials with the adult and the kids, only explaining DNA results to them to spread throughout the land.

And I'm not sure if anyone on the board thought I was attacking them over my misspelling post, but that was directed towards Ketchum's FB post, and I was referencing Ms. Forestpeople.

Edited March 27, 2013 by BigGinger
To Remove Content at Member's Request

[Cotter]

Sorry for any confusion.

Bud, no apologies necessary, I've been confused for weeks on this stuff.

:-)

[southernyahoo]

I picture Ketchum camp meetings being tantamount to the AT&T commercials with the adult and the kids, only explaining DNA results to them to spread throughout the land.

That's a delusion on your part.