Dr. Greer's reply re the Atacama coverup

Everyone should be concerned about the scientific and media coverup of the Atacama Skeleton research from Stanford please read the material we just posted on our website.

Go to https://siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/

Then scroll down and click - Atacama Humanoid - learn more.

The website information includes Dr. Greer's full letter, comments from Peer Review #1 and #2 and other materials.

We are making an appeal to the legal and investigatory community to assist us in bringing justice to this matter and investigating whether outright corruption has occurred. If you are an attorney and/or professional investigator who can work pro bono or on a contingency contact us immediately at: [email protected]

Excerpts from Dr. Greer's letter to Stanford/ UCSF and Genome Research:

Twelve scientists have looked into this paper and have concluded it is "junk science" at it's worst. Two have written comments after studying the data.

........

Specifically, the study had no controls, was not a reference-free DNA study, data was cherry picked and key data left out (e.g.: 360,000 triploid alleles ) and was done with antiquated technology and methodology. I have been assured that any competent peer-review process would have given the paper a 0 score and returned it.

The assertion that the skeleton is a deformed fetus (allegedly female ) is unfounded by the data and the clinical medical findings (see Dr. Lachman's report, attached). That there were 7 de novo mutations resulting in the seen biological specimen is spurious and without scientific foundation. Others have concluded that had there been such widespread genetic damage that the embryo would never have been able to divide and develop further.

Two PhD scientists with deep knowledge and expertise in DNA sequencing have assured me the study was faked from the very beginning and that the report could not have been properly peer-reviewed. Both have concluded that this is a case of massive academic corruption and fraud.

Excerpts from Peer Review #1

In one quick sentence, the authors need to provide some proof that the many novel mutations which say were responsible for “bone deformities” while the mummy was alive, did not in fact take place in the 100-500 years or so, since the mummy died? Since we see similar mutations in almost all samples of ancient DNA? ......... a little fetus could not develop to such a late, well-developed stage with 54 separate deleterious mutations in its developmental genes.

.........

A non-expert might not have noticed it, but I am fairly sure that Nolan and colleagues planned a fake analysis right from the beginning. They included lots of random mutations in their sequences by intent, by omitting a standard treatment to remove them.

Excerpts from Peer Review #2:

His [Nolan's} first mistake was using a human reference genome as an assembly scaffold for the raw sequence reads. This needed to be done reference-free, de novo. Steve, use these words when you talk about this: “reference-free genome assembly”. This is a very challenging mathematical task and would require very special compute infrastructure to do.

........

I could go on forever. These guys failed as scientists and the academic community loves them for it. The whole point of the scientific method is to avoid bias and let objective reality show us the truth.

? ? ?