Full report lo animal fat undi ani confirm chesaru… paytm dogs ipudu randi ra

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

Naa kodaka sigu eggu unna vadu aaite

fan ki oori vesukuntadu ofcourse neku levu ani telusu

 

[Android_Halwa]

1 hour ago, ARYA said:

kaamasena ranku puranam SIT report vachina rojee release iyyindi entoo anthaa nijamga nijamee anipistundi @Android_Halwa release dates ela clash iyyayi

Kaka…nuv asalu vishayam marichitivi…

Janasena gallani expose chesindi sinna alludu bharath ganni save cheyanika…the same day GVMC transferred 55 acres to mothukumilli for free free free..

animal fat just coincidence matrame…

[Android_Halwa]

2 hours ago, psycopk said:

Oh my halwa…. Neku ante ap lo jagadu vaste tg bagu padutundi ani asa.. naku alantivi emi levu…jaggadu anta plan prakaram ee chesadu… meru hindus aai undi kallu muskone untam … ante mee karma

 

Lol…Baboru power loli ravadaniki enni abadhalu seppindo mari…

adhikaram loki ravadaniki cheppulu eyinchade kadu, notiki vachina abadham kuda seppukuntaru…

Noru teristhe abadham…danni nijam cheyalani kasta padutunav…

Nalugu PPT’s esina antha matrana mee animal fat theory nijam avadu…aipoindi..mee time aipoindi

[Lonewolf]

9 hours ago, Naaperushiva said:

Low detection ledhu em ledhu samara support chesukovataniki vesaadu..dhanikanna better testing PcR testing use chesaaru dhantlo em dhorakaledhu..Technically NDDB testing vs SIT testing choodau NDDB had more chances of false positives where as this PCR is DNA analysis

 

In the context of the 

SIT's January 2026 chargesheet, the statement that lard was "not detected" even with a "limit of detection (LOD) > 10%" means that investigators found no scientific proof of pig fat in the ghee, even at high concentrations. 

Here is the breakdown of what those technical terms imply in this specific case:

• "Not Detected": This indicates that forensic and chemical testing of the four ghee samples yielded no traces of animal-derived DNA or lipids associated with lard.
• "Limit of Detection > 10%": This suggests that the testing method used was highly sensitive, capable of identifying even small amounts of foreign fat. If lard had been present at any concentration above 10% (or even much lower, depending on the specific equipment), it would have triggered a "positive" result. The fact that nothing was found confirms that the original "animal fat" theory has been scientifically debunked.
• Why was there an earlier "Positive" report? The SIT report clarifies that the original lab deviations (S-values) seen in late 2024 were caused by a "chemical cocktail" of palm oil, vegetable fats, and artificial esters designed to mimic the properties of ghee, which fooled the initial screening tests. 

The conclusion of the SIT is that while the ghee was massively adulterated (synthetic and fake), it was not contaminated with animal fats like lard or beef tallow. 

Would you like to know more about the specific synthetic chemicals found in the "fake ghee" instead of lard?

 

 

 

 

 

Technically, the 

PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) method used in the CBI-led SIT investigation is superior for confirming the biological origin of fat (like lard), while the NDDB's CALF method is a broader screening tool for general purity.

The two methods differ in purpose and reliability:

 

1. NDDB CALF Method (Gas Chromatography) 

• Technique: Uses Gas Chromatography (ISO 17678) to measure "S-values" (triglyceride profiles).
• Strengths: Excellent at detecting whether ghee is "impure" by spotting deviations from standard cow milk fat.
• Weaknesses: It can produce false positives. The NDDB report itself cautioned that things like cow feed (high in vegetable oil) or specific processing methods can cause deviations that look like animal fat but aren't. In this case, the SIT found that synthetic additives (beta-carotene and esters) were used specifically to "hack" these traditional tests. 

 

2. SIT's PCR Method (DNA Analysis)

• Technique: Specifically targets animal-specific DNA (like pig or cattle DNA) in the sample.
• Strengths: Highly specific and sensitive. It is considered the best method for confirming the presence of pork DNA or lard, as it looks for the genetic signature of the animal rather than just fatty acid levels.
• Result: This is why the SIT was able to state with scientific certainty that no animal fat was present; the "DNA-based" evidence overrode the "chemical-based" screening of the NDDB. 

 

Summary of Comparison

 

Feature	NDDB CALF (GC)	SIT Investigation (PCR)
Primary Goal	General purity screening	Specific animal species identification
Reliability	Can have false positives from vegetable oils	Highly accurate for biological origin
Findings	Found "foreign fat" (broadly defined)	Confirmed the "foreign fat" was synthetic vegetable oil

 

ante thread title lo aa confidence chusi …something anukunna…

so as usual… pulkas and illiterates same vp argument annamata

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]

 

[psycopk]