Reviewing DNA Tests (With Peer-Reviewed Studies)

Watch on YouTube · 2025-11-22 · 32 min

0:00 Hi everyone. Today I'm gonna be revealing the truth about genes and DNA. The simple truth is that none of it has ever been observed. I could end the video right here, you could look into it and then you would find out that what I'm saying is true. Of course, I hope that you have some questions now, because that would mean that you are thinking for yourself. You may be wondering about so-called crime suspects. Do they not look at their DNA samples? How do they know who's guilty? What about paternity tests? How do they know who the real parent is? What about the saliva that I sent to 23andMe? What about my ancestry? And so on. It's your lucky day. You're going to find out the truth about all of that and even more.

0:54 We are going to start with crime suspects and I'm going to explain to you what actually happens in these laboratories.

[video] 1:01 Something that's really surprised me over the last 20 years that I've been testifying as an expert witness in DNA profiling cases, literally around the world in over 100 criminal trials, is how much more scientific DNA profiling could and should be.

1:15 You will find out that it's not scientific at all.

[video] 1:20 Alright, now let me tell you what I mean by that. But to do that, I'm going to need to get you all to be DNA profiling experts with me. Alright? Now trust me, it's going to be a lot easier than you think. the word easier is the key word because it is actually easy to do it okay so let's get right to work and start talking about what dna profiles look like the slide behind me shows you what dna profiles look like these days they essentially are a set of graphs we have a fancy term for them as dna profiling experts we want to call them electropharograms but on the graphs you see some peaks the peaks correspond to fragments of dna that you find associated with an evidence sample And we call those peaks alleles. The alleles have names. They're given to them by some computer software that puts some numbers under them. The numbers are their names. And we'll get this information across an individual's chromosomes from a number of different locations. Those are called loci, all right? And when all is said and done, a DNA profile distills down to a table of alleles like the one that you see here on the screen.

[video] 2:16 It's just a list of the locations where we looked for information and the information that we found, those tables of alleles. Now, there's very little that we can tell about a person from their DNA profile. And this information is really only useful to us to the extent to which we can distinguish between one person's DNA profile and another's. All right?

2:32 And you will find out that it's impossible. Not only that, they cannot even distinguish between a man or a woman. And even worse than that, they cannot even distinguish between a cat or a human.

[video] 2:49 take any animal you want they cannot do it now whether you believe it or not you guys are fast on the way to being dna profiling experts and i want to build your confidence right now by letting you take a test all right so here is a dna profile from an evidence sample comes from a real court case that i've been involved with and it might look familiar to you it's the same one that we've been talking about before right so nothing too shocking there but it really does come from a court case and in a minute i'm going to have you guys take a test i'm going to ask you all to raise your right hand and then I'm gonna show you the DNA profile of a suspect that's part of the investigation for which this crime scene sample was tested. And when you've decided if the suspect could be the source or could not be the source of this DNA profile, I just want you to lower your hands, all right? So that's the nature of the test. Let's have you do that. Raise your right hand, audience participation, right? And here's the suspect's DNA profile. When you've figured it out, when you think you know if he's the source or not, lower your hand.

[video] 3:42 Now take a look around, because it took about, what, five seconds for almost everybody in this room to lower their hand. That's all that it took. This is pretty easy, isn't it? And I'll put words in your mouth, because what you've all done is you've found that pretty much wherever you started to do the comparison between the suspect and the evidence sample is that there was a difference, right? And in a word, Here's part of the important vocabulary of DNA profiling. Suspect number one is excluded as a possible contributor. They just can't be the source of the DNA that was found in that evidence sample.

4:10 It's very important for you to understand what you're looking at here, the peaks in the graph. I'm going to explain it in the most basic way possible. You take a sample of hair, some saliva, blood, or something else. Then you apply a bunch of chemicals to it. I'm not going to name the chemicals because that will only confuse you. After a few steps, the sample will be unrecognizable. If you used a hair, then you would have no idea that a hair was used. Before putting the liquid into the instrument, the machine, fluorescent dyes will be applied to it. Then in the instrument, it will pass by a tiny window. A laser will then shine on it.

5:04 A sensor will detect the colors, brightness and so on. These signals will be interpreted by the software of the computer and based on the information that it gets through the sensor, the computer will create the graph and that's an electropherogram. It's not as if you go to a laboratory and give them a sample and they look at it and find out your DNA. DNA has never been observed. They don't deal with that. They deal with exactly what I just explained to you. It's not scientific. It's purely an interpretation. The analysts in the laboratory simply interpret that. And later on in this video, you will see why it doesn't work at all.

6:02 It's way worse than you actually think, because most people believe that you look at the DNA and, okay, it's maybe not 100% confirmed, but it's 99% confirmed. It's not at all like that.

[video] 6:16 even he himself the guy in this video can pretty much admit that it's for sure not scientific and that it's not reliable one last thing i need to tell you is dna profiling experts there's some vocabulary that is something you'll see a lot of in your career as a dna profiling expert about every third dna profile you'll look at will have something that looks like that it comes up frequently enough that analysts have a name for it it's a technical artifact and the name is get ready blob All right? You can impress your friends with your DNA profiling vocabulary later today. Just keep talking about blobs and you'll have it covered. So that's an artifact. It's not reproducible. Nobody knows what causes them. It could be a bit of dust in the machine that's generating the graph. It's not important. It's just even the software is not sure what to do with it, right? It can't put a number on it. It calls it an OL allele. That's short for off-ladder allele.

7:07 Of course, in reality, they don't know what any of it is, any of the peaks. But it's just funny that he even admits that there's these blobs, these artifacts, and all of those could be artifacts, of course, at the end of the day, which they

7:27 do not recognize anyway, obviously. None of it is recognizable. It's an interpretation of the software anyway, because of a sensor that detects the colors and brightness of a laser interacting with fluorescent dyes of a sample which has nothing to do with the original sample. It's a joke. I'm sure that you understand it by now. But still, they take those peaks seriously. But then some of those are blobs.

[video] 7:58 meaning that it's sort of like where a 20 might be or a 21. The software doesn't even know what to do with it. You can't draw any conclusions from it. Again, it's an artifact.

8:08 And so when all is said... As you will see, you cannot draw any conclusions from any of it.

[video] 8:12 Now, you guys see the whole context. There's a problem here, isn't it? It isn't there. We have two different people with different DNA profiles, neither of whom can be excluded as possible contributors to this critical evidence sample, right?

8:26 It's even way worse than that. I'll show you what I mean after this.

[video] 8:30 And that's just not the way things are supposed to be. I'll tell you the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem here is that we have been letting ourselves be guided by the subject of the investigation when we're interpreting the object, the evidence sample. You know, I can put this in simpler English. We're being subjective as opposed to objective. And to the extent to which any sort of technique is subjective, it's not scientific.

8:55 all right now psychologists it's not scientific anyway this method but it's understandable what he means typically a laboratory isn't even gonna do a test except if they have information about the human being or any kind of animal that they are doing the test on simply because it's prejudiced when it comes to crime. But in general, they want to have information about you before doing the test for obvious reasons. If you didn't understand why yet, then you will.

[video] 9:31 have explored this phenomenon for many years, not just in the context of DNA profiling. They say that what we've been wrestling with here is a phenomenon that essentially is known as examiner bias. And examiner bias is a problem particularly when you're dealing with ambiguous results and there's one particular outcome that the analyst is expecting is going to be the right answer. I got good news for us all. There is a simple cure for the affliction of examiner bias. You know what that cure is? Very simply, it's blind testing.

10:02 Yes, and they don't do that because blind testing wouldn't work. Because you cannot test DNA, you cannot compare it to other DNA, It just cannot be done. And that's why you won't be seeing blind testing.

[video] 10:19 We have analysts interpret the evidence samples, let the evidence samples speak for themselves without any knowledge of the suspect's DNA profile. Why don't we do that? Well, I'll tell you, this isn't a fresh idea. This is about a five or six year old idea, and it's been surprisingly controversial. Crime lab employees and prosecutors don't like the idea of blind testing.

10:42 Yes, and the reason they don't is because they can very easily influence the people who work in the laboratory if they tell them what the guy or the girl supposedly did. If they want to get them, if they want to arrest them, then they can be very persuasive.

11:04 you will be biased of course as an analyst when you work in the laboratory because as you can understand these are not accurate tests they cannot prove if it's your dna and that's not even what it's about anyway

[video] 11:23 The types of arguments that I hear from them are along these lines. They'll say that the work that they're doing is critically important. There literally are instances where people's lives will be on the line on the basis of the decisions they're making. And it's really important that they get the right answer, right? And that means they need to take advantage of all the information that's available to them, including the suspect's DNA profile.

11:45 And it doesn't make any sense.

[video] 11:49 I'll tell you, I'm not persuaded by that particular argument or that line of reasoning because it seems to me it's very similar to a student telling a teacher, you know, I really want to do well on the test you're about to give me, and I'm confident that I'll do much better if you give me the answer key before you hand me the test.

12:05 Exactly. It makes no sense.

[video] 12:07 Right? It's literally laughable, right? You're laughing at the prospect of that because it defeats the purpose of the test in the first place. So, why don't we just pursue this idea a little bit further? Why don't we ask that crime lab employees and prosecutors have blind testing done? I think what's going to happen is if labs start to adopt this procedure, that test results are going to be interpreted much more conservatively. For evidence samples that look like this one, I think a lab would be much more likely to simply say that no conclusions can be drawn rather than simply reporting that Bonnie or Clyde might be the source. And at the end of the day, you know what that's going to do? That's going to make DNA testing more objective.

12:46 There's a study which I quickly want to talk about. Everything will be linked in the description. There was a suspect because of a gang, not gonna say the word on YouTube, and the original conclusion of the laboratory was that he cannot be excluded as a suspect. Then they took the same electropharogram and sent it to 17 different accredited forensic laboratories. The analysts who work in these laboratories believe that they understand exactly what they are doing. They are officially good at their job. The difference is that they were not given any information about the case, the suspect.

13:34 They came to completely different conclusions. One of them did say that he cannot be excluded. Four of them said that the result is inconclusive. But 12 of the laboratories excluded him as a suspect. Do you understand what's going on? They put your fate into the hands of people who look at these graphs, which are not scientific anyway, but

14:09 They are not even accurate. They always come to different conclusions.

14:17 Do you believe that this is justice? Would you really call it that? The results are biased. And the people who work in these laboratories and even the police, of course, understand this. But if they want to blame somebody as the one who did it, then... Unfortunately, the result won't be based on your DNA. It will be based on this very unscientific, inaccurate test, which is all based on the interpretation of the computer and the software, and it's also based on the interpretation of the analysts. Does this have anything to do with science? Absolutely not. At this point, you should understand it. Now let's get to paternity tests.

15:09 This study concluded that these tests are so unreliable that out of 336 children and 348 unrelated men, one child had up to 32 different fathers. And 95.8% of the children

15:30 had at least one extra father. And oftentimes men who were unrelated to the children had a better test result than the actual father. The study concluded that the likeliness of identifying somebody wrongly as the father is high. We are gonna look at some footage now from talk shows and I think that you're gonna look at it in a different light.

[video] 15:57 Okay, when it comes to two-year-old AJ, Colin, you are not... And she's probably thinking, huh?

16:08 I never slept with anybody else. This makes no sense. And it doesn't.

[video] 16:12 In the case of three-year-old Nylani, Rayshawn, you are not.

16:27 Whether it says that they are or they aren't, once you understand how this so-called test works, of course you understand that it's a joke.

[video] 16:45 In the case of two-year-old Denver Damon, you are nuts!

17:04 You understand how it works or how it doesn't work. Now we are going to talk about DNA tests for your ancestry.

[video] 17:14 Welcome to the African ancestry family. I'm literally like shaking right now. Oh gosh. Okay. Okay. Okay. So what does it say?

[video] 17:25 is, oh my God, I barely can read because I feel like I'm shaking. It is with great pressure, oh my God, I can't even read this right now, I can't believe I'm multiplying all my results. It is with great pleasure that I report your matriclain analysis determined your, oh my God, I literally cannot speak straight. Focus on you, focus, focus, focus. Start over. It is with great pleasure that I report our matriclain analysis determined your maternal lineage to be of European ancestry. European ancestry.

[video] 18:01 The mitochondrial DNA sequence that we determined from your sample belongs to a non-African lineage in the haplogroup.

18:06 The mitochondrial. That's a different topic. I kind of already explained it in a different video.

[video] 18:13 Group H. Our analysis encompasses hypervariable regions one, two, and three. Blah, dah, dah, dah, dah. You have inherited these segments of DNA from your mother and they have been passed down passed on consistently from mother to daughter over the past 500 to 2000 years. So they are unique to your maternal lineage. We analyze the variance within these regions and determine the parts of your DNA that you share with people within specific ethnic groups.

18:43 The problem very often when it comes to these tests is that they base a lot on the information that you give them, especially your name. And it depends on how your name sounds like very often because they won't do it without the information.

[video] 19:01 Are they trying to tell me I'm white? I'm so confused. The HVR variants listed below indicate DNA sequence patterns that you share with European populations.

19:12 The combination... And again, keep in mind, they didn't look at her DNA because it's never been observed in the first place.

[video] 19:21 ...of HVR variants determine your membership. The sequence similarity score represents our 100% confidence level in your results. Haplogroup H.

19:41 I could show you lots of reports, articles, and experiments that people did. They took samples from their dogs, cats, but also other animals and humans, but they labeled them wrongly. They put a human name on the sample of a dog, Then they sent it to a laboratory and the lab sent them back the results saying that the human comes from Europe, for example. They also cannot tell the genders apart, as I said before. That's also been done, but they cannot even tell the species apart. There's been cases where they thought that the sample of a sheep is a human just because they rely on the information that you give them.

20:35 But people believe that we have this very special DNA, and it's unique, and you can identify every animal with this magical DNA, which we, for whatever reason, simply cannot see.

[video] 21:05 Give it to him. Give it to him. 14% sub-Saharan African. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold on. This is called statistical noise.

[video] 21:21 Ah, my ancestry results are here. So it says here I'm 92.8% East European,

[video] 21:29 and 7.2% West African. Wait, what? I'm a black man. Wait, no. I'm black. I have to go get in touch with my culture. See ya. No, it's not happening. Motherfucker.

[video] 21:55 This is obviously just a skit, but people actually do believe these tests. That's why I wanted to show it to you.

[video] 22:21 Another important point is about diseases. If you ask Google AI about genetic diseases then it will tell you that nearly all diseases have a genetic component.

22:52 And then there is a list. But of course, if your parents or their parents ate garbage and then you grow up in the household and if they develop type 2 diabetes, for example, Would you also not develop that if you as a biological being are exposed to the same food as them? Most people would then say, oh, it's genetic or I inherited that. But if you would be eating natural food, raw meat, drinking blood, do you think that you would actually get it? Really? No, you can't believe that. And then think about all of the other diseases. which are blamed on genetics, which is out of your control. It just is like that. And then think about who came up with all of this and who could be benefiting from this.

23:51 Then, of course, we also have all of these black pillars who talk about your genetics all the time. That's all that they talk about. And of course, your inheritance, what you inherit from your bloodline is important for sure, obviously, which is all based on the food that your ancestors ate. But still, if you simply look at the one generation and then the next one, of course, you will inherit a lot from the last generation, that's clear. It's still all based on food, and that's really what's gonna determine how you're gonna turn out. But of course, a lot is also inherited. That's clear, but people don't understand this. They believe that you just inherit everything and it comes from magic land somewhere.

24:50 Some people just at some point appeared out of nowhere and they looked good. And then they had children and you can eat soy and corn flakes and you will have the same kind of children. Or it's some kind of magical genetic recombination Those invisible genes, you know what I'm talking about. They do something magical which I cannot explain and then a human appears. And you look that way because of a lottery. That's what they believe because they have no idea what they are talking about. That's the problem with most people in the Black Pill community, incredibly ignorant. What you may have also thought of is, wait, do we not come from apes, chimpanzees?

25:41 We famously share, famously, yes, because it's very well known, more than 98% of our DNA, which has never been observed, cool, with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. Our proteins are virtually identical. Oh, really? Could you please show me some proof? Well, I can't. I just read about it in a book in the university. I blindly believe it. I simply absorbed information. I never thought about it. And then I wrote this article. As far as proof goes... There is zero proof out there. OK, my whole life was a lie. Let's move on. And it's interesting that it says physically we are incredibly different. Yeah. But not genetically, no.

26:40 We look different, we are completely different, but somewhere inside, it's not visible, it has never been observed, we are almost the same. Awesome, I love it. This is the most famous photo of DNA in 2025. Of course, in reality, it's just a black line. But they want you to imagine that it's something else. That's typically what it's based on, your imagination or at the very best, your interpretation.

27:16 They did not follow any scientific methods to create this image. That should be needless to say, seeing as the word science comes from knowledge. It's all about what you know. And you can only know something if you sense it. True scientific experiments are testable and repeatable.

27:46 They didn't even do any negative controls, meaning that you couldn't possibly prove that the procedure itself doesn't cause these lines. It could be an artifact. We don't know. This is what most people see as DNA genes. It's imaginary. Sometimes you will see fancy 3D animations, but you will never see anything real. You will always imagine how it may look like. Is this science or is this a religion? Be honest. If you would have to categorize it and you would win a million dollars for the right answer, would you put it closer to a religion or a science? You know the answer.

28:43 This image might as well come from a chair, a tree, because there were no negative controls done. That's why it's impossible to say if the procedure itself caused this image, this artifact, whatever it may be. You're simply imagining and you're seeing what you want to see but it's not there look at it really it's just not there even if these tests would work which they don't as you can see that would still not prove dna that would simply mean that you found a procedure which is good at analyzing the fluids and the hairs of an animal's body just because i call it a dna test doesn't make it a dna test

29:38 If I would call it a God test, and if the test would actually work, could I prove God that way? I still cannot sense these magical little molecules with any of my senses. What does it matter if I call it a DNA test if it's all imaginary?

30:01 Another problem is that no study has ever been done to determine if somebody's hair belongs to somebody's saliva, for example. You could take 10 different people, send the samples to a laboratory without any labels, and then ask the laboratory to send back the results and to tell you which hair belongs to which saliva. That should be no problem if we would have these magical little DNA molecules inside of us which essentially define us. Why has it never been done? Studies like this have been done, but with the names attached to the samples, that's not really hard. I could do it here also. I look at one sample with the name, and then I look at the other sample with the name.

31:00 Hmm, who does it belong to, I wonder?

31:07 Now you may think, What about my blue eyes and the blonde hair? My parents have the same kind of blue eyes and blonde hair. what did you expect did you expect them to give birth to a tree to a wolf or to a biological being that looks like them when you see a pig giving birth do you expect a chicken to come out obviously they will create beings just like themselves Just because you used to explain it by saying the word genetics without understanding what it means, and I say used to, because I'm sure that you understand right now what nonsense it is, doesn't mean that it's proof. It simply means that that's how you explained it.

32:03 It's the same as a Christian saying that God created the surf. And my proof for that is that God created the surf. My explanation is the proof. I could give the Christian 10,000 different possibilities, seeing as it's all fantasies. But if the Christian wants to believe that it was God, then the Christian is going to believe that and he will use the explanation as proof. That's exactly what you do when you talk about inheritance and genetics. You cannot prove the genetics. It's just your explanation.

32:45 You can of course try to find out what determines your inheritance, but one thing is for sure, it's not DNA. Thanks for watching.