Brilliant summation of this VIP topic, with excellent examples. Thank you!
I believe we need to keep this vital discussion circulating until we reach critical mass and thus these insane pseudo-scientific narratives become common knowledge, demanding we rewrite virtually everything we thought we knew about the medical 'sciences'. - It has begun.
Won't happen. I'd really be glad to be proven wrong. ( I have heard/read sufficient old literature enough to conclude that people who think 'critically' will always be outnumbered.)
Excellent. I'll use part of your essay, giving you full credit, to apply it to the theory of evolution, which is unfalsifiable, because they just come up with a new story to answer every objection.
The theory is based on speculation - it really doesn't even qualify as a theory - it's more correctly termed a hypothesis. I'll flesh this out with examples as time permits.
Darwin doubted that random variation could produce an eye, and said so. Somewhere. Evolution was his song and dance in his day and age. It earned him a following and a good income. Good for him.
But believing without evidence hardly originated with science. Just ask Thomas who doubted.
Lack of adherence to Popper's definition has led to the wild proliferation of pseudoscience. Major examples include "climate change," the theory of evolution, Marxism, most of psychiatry, and most of mainstream medicine.
An important corollary of Popper is that a scientific theory can never truly be proven, but can be disproven. A single black swan disproves the theory that all swans are white. The "evidence-based medicine" cult handles this problem by resorting to a legal definition of proof, the preponderance of "evidence," which is clearly unscientific.
Ancel Keys' infamous "diet-heart hypothesis" continues to dominate mainstream medical practice, led by the American Heart Association and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The "evidence" for the notion that dietary fat increases cholesterol and thus heart disease, was his bogus "7-Countries Study" that showed a strong correlation between population saturated fat consumption and incidence of coronary disease. We all know he cherry-picked seven countries out of 22 for which data was available. He neglected to include France, who's delicious high fat cuisine is not associated with an elevated rate of heart disease. Rather than admitting that France disproved the hypothesis, it became the "French Paradox."
The entire cholesterol theory of heart disease has been repeatedly disproven by studies and observations of. millions of individuals with high cholesterol and no heart disease, and millions with low cholesterol and severe coronary disease. Literal mountains of evidence disproving the theory are either dismissed, ignored, or subsumed into the theory. Now it's about LDL particle size! They simply will not let go of this ridiculous, junk science notion. Perhaps the fact that it's been incredibly lucrative has something to do with it?
The fundamental rule of critical thinking is to respond to challenges to your argument. Unbekoming? Where is your response?
Facts
1. Chimerism is a phenomenon identified prior to the Lydia Fairchild case and this previous identification was the basis of proving that Lydia was indeed the mother.
2. The identification of chimerism allowed for appropriate DNA-testing.
--- The DNA tests that “failed” sampled blood and cheek cells. Those tissues contained the other set of DNA from her chimerism, not the DNA from the eggs that created her children.
--- Once researchers tested DNA from tissues that came from her reproductive system (cervical cells, ovarian tissues, or fetal DNA in placenta), the DNA matched her children perfectly.
So, the mismatch wasn’t because the DNA test was wrong — it was because the sample didn’t reflect the DNA that actually contributed to the children.
The DNA-testing didn't fail due to a problem with the testing method per se, the testing failed because the very rare possibility of chimerism wasn't taken into account in what types of cells were tested. Thus, the assumption of "lack of chimerism" was the cause of failure, not the testing method per se.
>Rather than admitting that France disproved the hypothesis, it became the "French Paradox."
For amusement only : There is also something called the Israeli paradox. Here the Israelis apparently adhere closely to the mainstream guidelines ( like low fat, low cholesterol diet etc.) and they appear to have one of the highest incidence of heart disease.
How embarrassing it should be to be a "doctor" or "scientist" in this field these days. It is more like a crime syndicate than anything else it claims to be.
DNA, viruses, the medical mafia and government are all a 100% lie. All these fairy tales are used to control society. No one has ever seen DNA. It is all comprised of computer algorithms and guesswork filling in the blanks. All of it is poppycock. The Fairchild case proves it beyond any doubt.
It's the same nonsense with fake global warming. When it is supremely cold, these clowns tell you it is caused by global warming. A + B = C or F or K or Q. The science is settled and anything that contradicts it just an exception. Great article.
According to this fake science, we aren't supposed to believe our eyes or ears when our five senses contradict the 'science'. This "don't believe your eyes or ears" is everywhere. We see an illegal commit a crime but the police report says a white guy did it, we are supposed to believe a piece of paper or a green screen press conference, not our eyes. This world has gotten so illogical that soon I expect the expert class to say it's racist to be logical. This takes its toll on the mass consciousness. The more this happens the more easily we are manipulated.
The other possibility is that the vaccines did not contain the stuff they said it contained: instead it contained gene altering stuff so the chimeric claim may actually be true. So after all these years of getting vaccinated or eating GMO food, we are physically not the same person to whom our mothers gave birth. So the question remains: who is the chimera? The mother or the baby? Epigenetics tells us that it is the baby since the baby inherited the altered genes. If so where are the altered genetics in the mother? If GMO food used kidney cells to create the cell line, would JUST her kidneys be different, with just the altered genes are in her DNA, but not necessarily expressed? Think of the implications of this.
Summary: The Motte and Bailey logical fallacy is heavily used by scientists to maintain their position and to sustain the appearance that they always know what they are talking about when they are actually wrong.
Wonder if they tested Fairchild's OTHER children -- were THEY related to the newly born child? Were any on them related to the putative father?
I remember decades ago reading about a police woman who was nearly convicted and jailed because the DNA testing in some murder scene MATCHED HER DNA -- despite they had multiple PROOFS that she was nowhere near the location of the murder, well ... you know... DNA is gold-proof! I think she was 'found not guilty' because they had such a preponderance of the evidence that she could not POSSIBLY have been there to do the deed. But she was ever after looked askance at...
Now... TRY to get science and scientists and academics and courts and law-makers to SEE what's real....
The woman’s family was tested, including her parents & siblings. The ‘foreign’ DNA was familial DNA, recognizable as coming from her parents. The DNA analysis didn’t reveal that a stranger had produced the children, but that the mother’s relation to her children was more similar to that of an aunt rather than the mother. The grandparents were clearly related to the children through predicable DNA percentage links. The woman’s DNA was verified to be familiarly linked to her sibling(s) and her parents as well. When the woman’s tissues were all tested and compared, her blood revealed one type/subtype, while other tissues revealed a weak presence of another type that was shared with her family as well as the same type as her blood. When put together with her families cells, her cells behaved predictably as familial cells would. All of this testing is why the ‘sudden’ diagnosis of genetic chimerism was put forth…not because they just wanted the DNA results to be unfalsifiable, but because the results showed predictable familial relationships, just not a straightforward maternal relationship. The DNA (and tissue tests) revealed aunt/uncle relationships with the aunt(s)/uncle(s) and maternal grandparent relationships with the maternal grandparents. The only anomaly was that the mother’s relationship, while confirmed appropriately with her sibling(s) and parents, appeared to be that of an aunt to her own children. It would be irrational to throw out all the confirmatory testing results that were exactly as expected because the relationship of the mother was unexpected. It makes more sense to rely on centuries of observing phenotypic chimerism (most easily observed in coat colors of animals being suddenly broken by an unrelated and unexpected second color) having a molecular equivalent…genetic chimerism.
DNA might not match in all cases for particular reasons, however, we can see where a match is shown where we wouldn't expect it but at the same time other information tends to confirm that match. I don't think that could ever be said about an alleged virus.
While Popper spoke of theories being falsifiable and unfalsifiable he also spoke of risky predictions tending to give strong support to an hypothesis.
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
For example, a few people who've used DNA testing companies have discovered that their father isn't the alleged sperm donor they were told he was but the fertility doctor who looked after their mother. There is no expectation that a person would be matched with their mother's fertility doctor, however, the fact that the fertility doctor is matched to a number of people who were allegedly conceived by a sperm donor is pretty compelling.
Another example is that of Nichole who received a call after her mother died from a friend of her mother's who asked if her mother had ever told her that the man she was brought up to believe was her father wasn't in fact her biological father. On questioning of another of her mother's friends Nichole learnt her father's nickname had been Stretch and he'd been in the military police. After doing a DNA test she was matched to a (tall) man who had also done a test given as a present to him by his wife only for the purpose of learning his ethnic ancestry but - to his surprise - learnt he was matched to a daughter he had no knowledge of - Nichole.
The Pout (also The Silent Treatment; Nonviolent Civil Disobedience; Noncooperation): An often-infantile Argumentum ad Baculum that arbitrarily rejects or gives up on dialogue before it is concluded. The most benign nonviolent form of this fallacy is found in passive-aggressive tactics such as slowdowns, boycotts, lockouts, sitdowns and strikes. Under President Barack Obama the United States finally ended a half-century long political Pout with Cuba. See also "No Discussion" and "Nonrecognition."
Nice commentary that will serve to add one more nail to the human coffin of the Regressive (aka "progressive") ideologies and beliefs now entrenched throughout society against which it has been deemed that 'resistance is futile'. Disagreement with the directive de jour is now critically dependent upon routine 'censorship' together with various stupendous and self-betraying assertions that 'we own/control the science/data/narrative/you'.
No where is this more egregious and sustained as observed here, in the 'germ' theory and virus/virion/exosome confabulation. It is also established in the preposterous nonsense of "fossil" fuels, and in the unfalsifiable UNEP/IPCC dogma of 'climate change' (contrasted to 'climate variability') that reveals as its centre-piece a logical reductio ad absurdum, the dependent erasure of humanity from the face of Gaia, necessary to allegedly (and ideologically) prevent a direct/indirect anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition and land usage. In this latter instance, the unfalsifiability constitutes a clear and present danger, an implied and manifest threat captured in the background Malthusian Directive.
The installation of memes and their ideological polemic is now routine politics, anti-social media and psy-ops. This is well articulated by Saul Alinsky: Control the language, you control the people. The foci is destitution, delegitimisation, depopulation, deindustrialisation, dependence, and ultimately, death.
Nevertheless, a time must arise when, with nothing left to lose, withdrawal of submission to government and social license appears inevitable.
You left out part of the reason why the DNA analysis was not considered inaccurate. First, phenotypic chimerism has been recognized for centuries. So it is not out of the realm of possibilities that genotype chimerism is possible as well. Sometimes phenotypic chimerism is extremely obvious, while other times it is more subtle and only identified through close examination. If visible chimerism, or the presence of seemingly random different forms (most obvious are coat color dimorphisms within a single animal) within a single organism, clearly happens and has been noted for centuries, there should be no surprise this also can occur on a molecular scale.
Also, the DNA analysis revealed close familial DNA, not altogether foreign DNA. I believe the mother’s DNA relation was that of an aunt to her children. The children’s DNA was conclusively linked to their maternal grandparents. This prompted investigators to do further analysis. Testing of the HLA haplotypes as well as blood types of the mother in question showed that while her blood yielded one result, some of her other tissues revealed a weak presence of another type. This other type was found in her relatives (siblings & parents) in a predictable fashion. Same with analyzing various tissues from the mother; some were absolutely consistent while others revealed a weak presence of, still related, but different typing. Much more testing was completed before the suggestion of genetic chimerism and such a suggestion wasn’t something altogether unknown to exist in the biological world. Neither were the ‘foreign’ DNA results entirely foreign (as in, from a stranger), they were still familial related as revealed by comparing the results to siblings and parents of the woman in question.
Additionally, with the more common occurrence of transplants (stem cells, bone marrow, & organs) has yielded quite a bit of study on induced chimerism. People that have received transplants often have very thorough genetic analysis done of multiple tissues in order to find an appropriate match from a stranger. This happens before any exchange of tissue is made. Then after the transplant, further analysis is done of their tissues to determine the success (or failure) of the transplant(s). These results often reflect the presence of the donor’s tissue types in often unrelated areas of the patient. In fact, the presence of the donor’s type in far flung reaches of the recipient’s body indicates the transplant(s) were successful and the donor’s tissue is making up for the lack throughout the recipient’s body. It is because of these donor-recipient studies that genetic chimerism has become a more ‘common’ (although still rare) phenomenon with well-established analyses showing its mechanism(s).
Additionally, forensics has also done studies on genetic chimerism, not in defense of DNA analysis in general, but when presented with what seems to be an impossible result. Again, generic chimerism isn’t a frequent occurrence dreamed up out of nowhere, it has a clear precedent in observed phenotypic chimerism for centuries. The forensic community does not accept new methods of analysis and identification without intensive review and evaluations. DNA analysis has been shown to, time and time again to reveal predictable results based on known results achieved through other means. Yes, there will always be some anomalies that defy the predictable results, like chimerism, but before accepting a method for something as serious as crimes and punishments, such methods are tested, retested, and re-retested to verify the results as predictable and consistent.
There are a lot of things we, as humans, will never be able to fully comprehend or explain. However, that doesn’t mean the methods we have to attempt to comprehend or explain are truly insufficient or inaccurate, merely that the world is intricate and varied beyond our abilities. Trying to put rational solutions to infinite challenges will always be difficult. However, we do the best we can with the knowledge, skills, and analysis available and are always striving forward to better solutions with more accurate results. That’s actually one reason things have moved beyond simple observation. In the maternal case you mention, prior to the observation of her last child’s delivery, there were moments where the observational chain was likely broken. Baby swaps are not unknown to occur in hospitals for instance. Blood tubes swaps or contamination are not unknown to occur in a hospital setting. There are so many things that can go wrong between the truly observed and the rupture of the observational trail. Even in the tightly controlled forensic environment accidents are known to occur. So unusual results aren’t simply thrown out or left unexplained, but they’re investigated with just as much care as the whole case. Multiple theories are investigated and analyzed. Results are required to be verified via thorough testing and retesting. Once an unusual result is identified, retested, and re-verified, then things move outside the norm and theories are tested to see which fits most parsimoniously.
Brilliant summation of this VIP topic, with excellent examples. Thank you!
I believe we need to keep this vital discussion circulating until we reach critical mass and thus these insane pseudo-scientific narratives become common knowledge, demanding we rewrite virtually everything we thought we knew about the medical 'sciences'. - It has begun.
>until we reach critical mass
Won't happen. I'd really be glad to be proven wrong. ( I have heard/read sufficient old literature enough to conclude that people who think 'critically' will always be outnumbered.)
Excellent. I'll use part of your essay, giving you full credit, to apply it to the theory of evolution, which is unfalsifiable, because they just come up with a new story to answer every objection.
The theory is based on speculation - it really doesn't even qualify as a theory - it's more correctly termed a hypothesis. I'll flesh this out with examples as time permits.
Darwin doubted that random variation could produce an eye, and said so. Somewhere. Evolution was his song and dance in his day and age. It earned him a following and a good income. Good for him.
But believing without evidence hardly originated with science. Just ask Thomas who doubted.
Hey, George - I think you got it backwards - Thomas doubted and wouldn't believe until he did see the evidence! I would probably be like Thomas.
I was alluding to the fact that he was reproached for not believing without proof.
Oh..
It would be hard to overstate the importance of this essay. The brilliant philosopher, Karl Popper, has been widely forgotten or ignored, but not by me (https://richardamerlingmd437332.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-american-medicine).
Lack of adherence to Popper's definition has led to the wild proliferation of pseudoscience. Major examples include "climate change," the theory of evolution, Marxism, most of psychiatry, and most of mainstream medicine.
An important corollary of Popper is that a scientific theory can never truly be proven, but can be disproven. A single black swan disproves the theory that all swans are white. The "evidence-based medicine" cult handles this problem by resorting to a legal definition of proof, the preponderance of "evidence," which is clearly unscientific.
Ancel Keys' infamous "diet-heart hypothesis" continues to dominate mainstream medical practice, led by the American Heart Association and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The "evidence" for the notion that dietary fat increases cholesterol and thus heart disease, was his bogus "7-Countries Study" that showed a strong correlation between population saturated fat consumption and incidence of coronary disease. We all know he cherry-picked seven countries out of 22 for which data was available. He neglected to include France, who's delicious high fat cuisine is not associated with an elevated rate of heart disease. Rather than admitting that France disproved the hypothesis, it became the "French Paradox."
The entire cholesterol theory of heart disease has been repeatedly disproven by studies and observations of. millions of individuals with high cholesterol and no heart disease, and millions with low cholesterol and severe coronary disease. Literal mountains of evidence disproving the theory are either dismissed, ignored, or subsumed into the theory. Now it's about LDL particle size! They simply will not let go of this ridiculous, junk science notion. Perhaps the fact that it's been incredibly lucrative has something to do with it?
Thanks for this wonderful essay.
I'm afraid this article has got it wrong and I welcome engagement with my refutation of it here: https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/karl-popper-and-dna-testing
The fundamental rule of critical thinking is to respond to challenges to your argument. Unbekoming? Where is your response?
Facts
1. Chimerism is a phenomenon identified prior to the Lydia Fairchild case and this previous identification was the basis of proving that Lydia was indeed the mother.
2. The identification of chimerism allowed for appropriate DNA-testing.
--- The DNA tests that “failed” sampled blood and cheek cells. Those tissues contained the other set of DNA from her chimerism, not the DNA from the eggs that created her children.
--- Once researchers tested DNA from tissues that came from her reproductive system (cervical cells, ovarian tissues, or fetal DNA in placenta), the DNA matched her children perfectly.
So, the mismatch wasn’t because the DNA test was wrong — it was because the sample didn’t reflect the DNA that actually contributed to the children.
https://www.iflscience.com/woman-discovers-she-isnt-the-biological-mother-of-her-own-children-61317
Popper's falsifiability methodology has certain problems explained by the Duhem-Quine thesis:
"You never test a single hypothesis in isolation—only a bundle of assumptions."
Whenever you derive a prediction, you’re implicitly using:
--- the main theory 𝐻
--- auxiliary hypotheses (measurement assumptions, background physics, instrument reliability, etc.)
The DNA-testing didn't fail due to a problem with the testing method per se, the testing failed because the very rare possibility of chimerism wasn't taken into account in what types of cells were tested. Thus, the assumption of "lack of chimerism" was the cause of failure, not the testing method per se.
There is extremely compelling evidence for the validity of DNA-testing - see my other comment: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/unfalsifiable/comment/229085302
>Rather than admitting that France disproved the hypothesis, it became the "French Paradox."
For amusement only : There is also something called the Israeli paradox. Here the Israelis apparently adhere closely to the mainstream guidelines ( like low fat, low cholesterol diet etc.) and they appear to have one of the highest incidence of heart disease.
Yes! A “paradox” is anything that completely disproves a favored hypothesis.
How embarrassing it should be to be a "doctor" or "scientist" in this field these days. It is more like a crime syndicate than anything else it claims to be.
Stay away from doctors as much as possible.
DNA, viruses, the medical mafia and government are all a 100% lie. All these fairy tales are used to control society. No one has ever seen DNA. It is all comprised of computer algorithms and guesswork filling in the blanks. All of it is poppycock. The Fairchild case proves it beyond any doubt.
It's the same nonsense with fake global warming. When it is supremely cold, these clowns tell you it is caused by global warming. A + B = C or F or K or Q. The science is settled and anything that contradicts it just an exception. Great article.
According to this fake science, we aren't supposed to believe our eyes or ears when our five senses contradict the 'science'. This "don't believe your eyes or ears" is everywhere. We see an illegal commit a crime but the police report says a white guy did it, we are supposed to believe a piece of paper or a green screen press conference, not our eyes. This world has gotten so illogical that soon I expect the expert class to say it's racist to be logical. This takes its toll on the mass consciousness. The more this happens the more easily we are manipulated.
The other possibility is that the vaccines did not contain the stuff they said it contained: instead it contained gene altering stuff so the chimeric claim may actually be true. So after all these years of getting vaccinated or eating GMO food, we are physically not the same person to whom our mothers gave birth. So the question remains: who is the chimera? The mother or the baby? Epigenetics tells us that it is the baby since the baby inherited the altered genes. If so where are the altered genetics in the mother? If GMO food used kidney cells to create the cell line, would JUST her kidneys be different, with just the altered genes are in her DNA, but not necessarily expressed? Think of the implications of this.
Lots of good questions.
Brilliant. I am wiser for having read this post. And even more sad at the current state of mankind.
Felt like reading Catch-22 if Orwell had written it.
Love this essay. Thank you. Sending on to "sciency" relatives and friends.
Summary: The Motte and Bailey logical fallacy is heavily used by scientists to maintain their position and to sustain the appearance that they always know what they are talking about when they are actually wrong.
What a horror story. And what a wonderful essay - thank you.
Wonder if they tested Fairchild's OTHER children -- were THEY related to the newly born child? Were any on them related to the putative father?
I remember decades ago reading about a police woman who was nearly convicted and jailed because the DNA testing in some murder scene MATCHED HER DNA -- despite they had multiple PROOFS that she was nowhere near the location of the murder, well ... you know... DNA is gold-proof! I think she was 'found not guilty' because they had such a preponderance of the evidence that she could not POSSIBLY have been there to do the deed. But she was ever after looked askance at...
Now... TRY to get science and scientists and academics and courts and law-makers to SEE what's real....
The woman’s family was tested, including her parents & siblings. The ‘foreign’ DNA was familial DNA, recognizable as coming from her parents. The DNA analysis didn’t reveal that a stranger had produced the children, but that the mother’s relation to her children was more similar to that of an aunt rather than the mother. The grandparents were clearly related to the children through predicable DNA percentage links. The woman’s DNA was verified to be familiarly linked to her sibling(s) and her parents as well. When the woman’s tissues were all tested and compared, her blood revealed one type/subtype, while other tissues revealed a weak presence of another type that was shared with her family as well as the same type as her blood. When put together with her families cells, her cells behaved predictably as familial cells would. All of this testing is why the ‘sudden’ diagnosis of genetic chimerism was put forth…not because they just wanted the DNA results to be unfalsifiable, but because the results showed predictable familial relationships, just not a straightforward maternal relationship. The DNA (and tissue tests) revealed aunt/uncle relationships with the aunt(s)/uncle(s) and maternal grandparent relationships with the maternal grandparents. The only anomaly was that the mother’s relationship, while confirmed appropriately with her sibling(s) and parents, appeared to be that of an aunt to her own children. It would be irrational to throw out all the confirmatory testing results that were exactly as expected because the relationship of the mother was unexpected. It makes more sense to rely on centuries of observing phenotypic chimerism (most easily observed in coat colors of animals being suddenly broken by an unrelated and unexpected second color) having a molecular equivalent…genetic chimerism.
I wouldn't say they're the same.
DNA might not match in all cases for particular reasons, however, we can see where a match is shown where we wouldn't expect it but at the same time other information tends to confirm that match. I don't think that could ever be said about an alleged virus.
While Popper spoke of theories being falsifiable and unfalsifiable he also spoke of risky predictions tending to give strong support to an hypothesis.
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
For example, a few people who've used DNA testing companies have discovered that their father isn't the alleged sperm donor they were told he was but the fertility doctor who looked after their mother. There is no expectation that a person would be matched with their mother's fertility doctor, however, the fact that the fertility doctor is matched to a number of people who were allegedly conceived by a sperm donor is pretty compelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCnwq5MEGik
Another example is that of Nichole who received a call after her mother died from a friend of her mother's who asked if her mother had ever told her that the man she was brought up to believe was her father wasn't in fact her biological father. On questioning of another of her mother's friends Nichole learnt her father's nickname had been Stretch and he'd been in the military police. After doing a DNA test she was matched to a (tall) man who had also done a test given as a present to him by his wife only for the purpose of learning his ethnic ancestry but - to his surprise - learnt he was matched to a daughter he had no knowledge of - Nichole.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hdjIoJMP1_w
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/is-dna-testing-a-fraud
The Pout (also The Silent Treatment; Nonviolent Civil Disobedience; Noncooperation): An often-infantile Argumentum ad Baculum that arbitrarily rejects or gives up on dialogue before it is concluded. The most benign nonviolent form of this fallacy is found in passive-aggressive tactics such as slowdowns, boycotts, lockouts, sitdowns and strikes. Under President Barack Obama the United States finally ended a half-century long political Pout with Cuba. See also "No Discussion" and "Nonrecognition."
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
Nice commentary that will serve to add one more nail to the human coffin of the Regressive (aka "progressive") ideologies and beliefs now entrenched throughout society against which it has been deemed that 'resistance is futile'. Disagreement with the directive de jour is now critically dependent upon routine 'censorship' together with various stupendous and self-betraying assertions that 'we own/control the science/data/narrative/you'.
No where is this more egregious and sustained as observed here, in the 'germ' theory and virus/virion/exosome confabulation. It is also established in the preposterous nonsense of "fossil" fuels, and in the unfalsifiable UNEP/IPCC dogma of 'climate change' (contrasted to 'climate variability') that reveals as its centre-piece a logical reductio ad absurdum, the dependent erasure of humanity from the face of Gaia, necessary to allegedly (and ideologically) prevent a direct/indirect anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition and land usage. In this latter instance, the unfalsifiability constitutes a clear and present danger, an implied and manifest threat captured in the background Malthusian Directive.
The installation of memes and their ideological polemic is now routine politics, anti-social media and psy-ops. This is well articulated by Saul Alinsky: Control the language, you control the people. The foci is destitution, delegitimisation, depopulation, deindustrialisation, dependence, and ultimately, death.
Nevertheless, a time must arise when, with nothing left to lose, withdrawal of submission to government and social license appears inevitable.
You left out part of the reason why the DNA analysis was not considered inaccurate. First, phenotypic chimerism has been recognized for centuries. So it is not out of the realm of possibilities that genotype chimerism is possible as well. Sometimes phenotypic chimerism is extremely obvious, while other times it is more subtle and only identified through close examination. If visible chimerism, or the presence of seemingly random different forms (most obvious are coat color dimorphisms within a single animal) within a single organism, clearly happens and has been noted for centuries, there should be no surprise this also can occur on a molecular scale.
Also, the DNA analysis revealed close familial DNA, not altogether foreign DNA. I believe the mother’s DNA relation was that of an aunt to her children. The children’s DNA was conclusively linked to their maternal grandparents. This prompted investigators to do further analysis. Testing of the HLA haplotypes as well as blood types of the mother in question showed that while her blood yielded one result, some of her other tissues revealed a weak presence of another type. This other type was found in her relatives (siblings & parents) in a predictable fashion. Same with analyzing various tissues from the mother; some were absolutely consistent while others revealed a weak presence of, still related, but different typing. Much more testing was completed before the suggestion of genetic chimerism and such a suggestion wasn’t something altogether unknown to exist in the biological world. Neither were the ‘foreign’ DNA results entirely foreign (as in, from a stranger), they were still familial related as revealed by comparing the results to siblings and parents of the woman in question.
Additionally, with the more common occurrence of transplants (stem cells, bone marrow, & organs) has yielded quite a bit of study on induced chimerism. People that have received transplants often have very thorough genetic analysis done of multiple tissues in order to find an appropriate match from a stranger. This happens before any exchange of tissue is made. Then after the transplant, further analysis is done of their tissues to determine the success (or failure) of the transplant(s). These results often reflect the presence of the donor’s tissue types in often unrelated areas of the patient. In fact, the presence of the donor’s type in far flung reaches of the recipient’s body indicates the transplant(s) were successful and the donor’s tissue is making up for the lack throughout the recipient’s body. It is because of these donor-recipient studies that genetic chimerism has become a more ‘common’ (although still rare) phenomenon with well-established analyses showing its mechanism(s).
Additionally, forensics has also done studies on genetic chimerism, not in defense of DNA analysis in general, but when presented with what seems to be an impossible result. Again, generic chimerism isn’t a frequent occurrence dreamed up out of nowhere, it has a clear precedent in observed phenotypic chimerism for centuries. The forensic community does not accept new methods of analysis and identification without intensive review and evaluations. DNA analysis has been shown to, time and time again to reveal predictable results based on known results achieved through other means. Yes, there will always be some anomalies that defy the predictable results, like chimerism, but before accepting a method for something as serious as crimes and punishments, such methods are tested, retested, and re-retested to verify the results as predictable and consistent.
There are a lot of things we, as humans, will never be able to fully comprehend or explain. However, that doesn’t mean the methods we have to attempt to comprehend or explain are truly insufficient or inaccurate, merely that the world is intricate and varied beyond our abilities. Trying to put rational solutions to infinite challenges will always be difficult. However, we do the best we can with the knowledge, skills, and analysis available and are always striving forward to better solutions with more accurate results. That’s actually one reason things have moved beyond simple observation. In the maternal case you mention, prior to the observation of her last child’s delivery, there were moments where the observational chain was likely broken. Baby swaps are not unknown to occur in hospitals for instance. Blood tubes swaps or contamination are not unknown to occur in a hospital setting. There are so many things that can go wrong between the truly observed and the rupture of the observational trail. Even in the tightly controlled forensic environment accidents are known to occur. So unusual results aren’t simply thrown out or left unexplained, but they’re investigated with just as much care as the whole case. Multiple theories are investigated and analyzed. Results are required to be verified via thorough testing and retesting. Once an unusual result is identified, retested, and re-verified, then things move outside the norm and theories are tested to see which fits most parsimoniously.
This is a variation on one of the best Blonde jokes when those were popular in the 80s
Doctor: "Ma'am the test shows you're pregnant.
Blonde: "Really doctor? Are you sure it's mine?