The non scientists either won’t understand the significance of the findings described here or will pretend not to.
The virologists will contemptuously say “You just don’t understand anything” and will insist you’re not following the scientific method. Their yap dogs will repeat it.
Meanwhile, we know exactly what it means.
There’s no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses.
I have debated with near hundreds of claimed professional virologists and microbiologists. The intellectually honest amongst them will all agree that there is no evidence of the existence of any pathogen to be found using cell culture isolation of from Electron Microscopy... It is ALL predicated on genetics... which is the part we are at.
mike im on an oil rig off the coast of the Shetland islands uk , everybody is coming down with coughing and something , its spreading from person to person , im unvaccinated and ive had it twice in this 3 week trip , please explain this to me as we work inside 90 percent of the time ? what you are saying does not stand up .
ok so from the 8th of October untill the 16th i was in Malta on holiday i flew straight out to this rig The Magnus directly from work and back to Aberdeen , the temperature ranged from 26 degrees to 32 degrees , i stayed in the Marco Polo Hostel and came down sick also , EVERYBODY in St Julians , bar a few were coughing and a had cold symptoms , nope 👎 it dosent stand up as the staff commented it was present in the Hostel all through the summer , its a biologicl weapon , it exists in some form , colds , flus in summer time were non existent until recent times im 48 years old , there’s something there , nefarious yes , but there’s something going around .
There are infinite variables in your environment. People poisoning themselves more often with processed foods, chemicals in building materials, pesticides, stresses, pharmaceuticals and vaccines...
If you are being honest it is not "everyone" sick at the same time either.
Attributing patterns of sickness to an invisible microbe has been debunked by over 150years of clinical experimentation trying and failing to do so.
I like the way contagion can be mentally accepted when "the wife came down with it too, but the kids are absolutely fine", "so how come the kids are fine then, living under the same roof n'all?", "oh, they must have a better "immune" system than me and the wife", "how come? Your "immune" system has been in training for countless many more years than your children's, surely it should be way more robust than theirs?"
"Immune system" - another blag to reinforce the virus hoax
i can send you my number address occupation , political beliefs , i live in cheltenham, come visit me or call me i not a sinister opposing voice , i understand we are under attack from all quarters but this thing you say cannot be true !
I like that phrase people use when telling a story; “you can’t make this shit up.” But wait, they did make it up. The whole science of virology made up from whole cloth. The best part is their own papers disclosing the truth. Thank you, Jamie, for reading them.
What a great find! The amount of mental gymnastics these virologists have to do to keep the virus theory alive for themselves is staggering. They will completely through common sense out the window to avoid questioning the main narrative.
Just as an aside, and as mentioned in a previous comment under a earlier article of yours also dealing with electron micrographs, the more you look at these images the more it becomes obvious that what they point to as "virus" particles are actually artefacts of the process - they are just bubbles formed in the sample after having undergone chemical and heat treatment.
The biggest indication that these bubbles are artefacts, are their morphology. What is the chance that the microtome is going to slice every "virus" particle in a sample exactly through the middle so that you have a perfect centre sectional view of every "virus" particle in a sample? So that every single instance you have a perfect sectional view of the protein coat (the dark outer layer)? Where are the "virus" particles which the microtome has sliced just to one side ‐ so that you see more protien coat than the interior of the "virus" particle - so that the dark out layer is thicker than the interior layer?
If you imagine a microtome slicing sections of an egg, each slice made would show a different sectional view of the shape of the egg as the sections went through the structure. You wouldnt just see the middle section displaying the yok every single time. There are far too many instances where we see these bubbles sliced precisely through the middle in a single sample for the laws of solid geometry to permit.
In addition, nothing seen in an electron microscopy image is real.
If you simply take a sample and put it in the instrument, you see nothing.
The sample has to be put through a multistage process involving coating it with various materials, in order to force it to interact with the beam of electrons. This process is likely to have caused changes to what the sample looked like. We can never know to what extent this distorts what we’re finally shown. It’s a paradox. A deeply specialised technique was developed to allow us not to see small things.
💯 agree, yet the majority of people (especially the "clever" ones) point to electron micrographs like they are completely accurate and reliable images of the micro world.
Dr Harold Hillman is the only scientist I have come across that has attempted to publish papers / bring attention to these issues with Electron Microscopy. Once you understand his work, you realise how far astray electron micrographs have lead us when it comes to biology.
Cold and Flu are so démodé ... Covid is the new fashion accessory everyone is testing for (even without symptoms 😀). It brings a lot of social media kudos.
I'm grateful you're doing this work, because the deaf, dumb and blind need work like this to help them wake up - so bless you for having the stamina to go through the garbage to find the odd treasure. For those of us who already knew that science is a business, run by politics/Nazi infused department of defence, all we ever needed was a sharp eye for political manipulation and a nose for bullshit.
ICYM, either Tom Cowan or The Baileys, or both, presented this paper a few years ago, no?
Good to be presenting it with a more fine comb analysis, that's for sure.
In discussing any histo-immunology analysis, you can remind your readers that the so-called "spike" sequence is a composite theoretical construct of a string of of epitopes that are found in virtually every human tissue tested, so "anti-spike" antibodies can always be always shown to "selectively bind to" a tissue sample, since every tissue bears one or more of the epitopes from which the so-called "spike protein" sequence was contrived.
This is how the illusion is maintained: the jabs are concocted to induce a bit of tissue damage which then stimulates the release of antibodies, with varying degrees of specificity & affinity, to clear away the - usually transient - damage.
This lab trickery is easy to do when the non-glycosylated or aberrantly-glycosylated recombinant protein antigens used to generate diagnostic or therapeutic antibodies are very crude approximations of the actual highly-glycosylated native protein target, which - having never actually been purified from an actual host and thus never structurally characterized in any real sense - is thus always a theoretical construct based upon pseudoscientific interpretations of transient RNA fragments found in different states of physiological or mental stress ("Acute Phase Response RNA").
"People also ask
What happens during the acute phase response?
The acute phase response is a systemic reaction against inflammation, infection, or tissue injury, which is characterized by leukocytosis, fever, increased vascular permeability, alteration in plasma metal and steroid concentration, along with increased levels of acute phase proteins."
The theoretical "spike protein" is actually a composite of widely-dispersed natural epitopes:
1)
Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 ...
by A Vojdani · 2021 · Cited by 335 — We found that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies had reactions with 28 out of 55 tissue antigens, representing a diversity of tissue groups that included barrier
by D Kanduc · 2020 · Cited by 285 — Potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases.
1 Jan 2024 — Molecular Mimicry Study Between Peptides of SARS-CoV-2 and Neutrophil Extracellular Traps-Related Proteins. Yekbun Adiguzel, Yehuda Shoenfeld.
What they do is introduce the specific human DNA sequence that interests them into a bacteria E. coli or sometimes into a yeast or sometimes hamster kidney cells, but almost always it's the E coli.
Then the E. coli gets grown as a culture s that the protein corresponding to the inserted DNA sequence can be obtained and purified in milligram or gram quantitates. Let's call it "recombinant protein-xyz", or "(rec)protein-xyz". "Recombinant" because it's derived from human DNA that was recombined into a bacterial chromosome.
Then they find a sheep, first take some blood and store it to use as a control, then inject the purified (rec)protein-xyz together with some adjuvant stuff.
After awhile they take some sheep blood and mix it with their (rec)protein-xyz to see if they get an immunoglobulin fraction from the blood that sticks good to their (rec)protein-xyz, but not to other proteins.
They called this polyclonal antibodies or "anti-(rec)protein-xyz antibodies" cuz it'll be a mixture of antibodies with a diversity of binding affinities & specificities. To improve the situation, the polyclonal antibodies can be further purified to yield a more homogenous group of antibodies so as to improve specificity, e.g. reduce cross-reactivity with proteins similar to (rec)protein-xyz.
To detect the reaction product formed from when the anti-(rec)protein-xyz antibodies stick to the (rec)protein-xyz they like to modify the antibodies or the protein or both with radioactive atoms or fluorescent molecules. If there's enuf (rec)protein-xyz then the reaction product can even be visualized with the naked eye as a clump that precipitates out of solution. But you still need to check that the clump really contains (rec)protein-xyz and not cross-reacting proteins by dissolving the clump so as to reverse the reaction, to unstick the proteins from the antibodies.
Then, as a final check, you purify the protein from the mixture and establish the amino acid sequence to make sure it's really your original target (rec)protein-xyz, and not some other similar but different protein, that the antibodies might wanna stick to. Of course, usually the kooks skip this critical check, cuz it's a lot of painstaking work and you gotta be using in parallel the pre-inoculated sheep's blood as a control, which doubles the workload.
But even after all these steps, you still got the problem that the purified (rec)protein-xyz that was injected into the sheep as an antigen is only a rough approximation of the real protein-xyz. That's because the real protein-xyz in it's native state inside the body is almost always pimped-up with complicated arrangements of sugar groups and all kinds of other modifications & configurations. In contrast, the (rec)protein-xyz is just an amino acid polymer backbone lacking all the extra sugars groups and stuff that the bacteria cell (or yeast or hamster cell) doesn't know how to make.
In other words, the real, naturally-occurring ('native') protein-xyz is a glycosylated protein (glycoprotein), a polymer chain of amino acids adorned with all kinds of exotic human-specific sugars, while the antibodies were raised using a non-glycosylated version of the amino acid polymer, because the bacteria (or yeast or hamster) cells don't know how to add all the additional sugars & stuff because they lack all the human enzymes of glycosylation and post-translational modifications. which means that the native protein-xyz has size, shape, and chemical properties that render it very different from the (rec)protein-xyz. Antibodies that stick strongly to the (rec)protein-xyz might not stick at all to the native protein-xyz or, alternately, the antibodies might prefer to stick to a different native glycoprotein that shares in common with protein-xyz only a small portion of the amino acid sequence.
The only way to actually know what the antibodies are sticking to is to, as described above, detach the antibodies and then purify the protein to verify the amino acid sequence. Since many of the native glycoproteins of interest are present only in minute quantities, it's usually impossible to obtain enough purified protein for verifying the amino sequence. Instead, the kooks rely on the Western Blot method, which can only very roughly approximate the length of the target protein and is thus prone to misinterpretations, aka 'wishful thinking'.
Of course, 'virus glycoproteins' fall into this category of being too scarce in quantity to be physically verified by purification and sequencing from the optimal growth conditions- the actual host. In fact, 'virus glycoproteins' are only 'known' to exist in the natural host based solely upon the crude antibody methodology that is prone to misinterpretations due to cross-reactivity, glycosylation restrictions, etc, as described above.
So there's a lot of limitations to using antibodies to get the right interpretations. But there's lots of useful antibody kits out there, usually for the many blood proteins that are present in actual physically tangible, measurable quantities, that can be purified and characterized directly from the blood, and thus don't require resorting to the recombinant methodology of creating ersatz substitutes devoid of glycosylations from which all kinds of misinterpretations and even outright fraud derives.
Forgive me if I'm confused, but WHO are a "bunchakooks"?? Watson and Crick? Or are you referring to those "genetic engineers" who are being lamented by the author of the paper that Jamie linked? Or are you referring to the author of that paper himself?
I'm sure you also agree that good to be highlighting this seminal article that Jamie linked to above:
"Published in the February 2002 issue of Harpers
Unraveling the DNA Myth
The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering
by Barry Commoner"
The kooks never did proper controls, never properly did the sequencing work of their final products, so they could go on & on to engage in wishful thinking.
The result is that much of what we call 'molecular biology' is a Tower of Babel.
Thanks for keeping us informed of what you are up to... even if it is utterly tedious ploughing through a ton of b/s. Wait for the next ton, Jamie! It is sure to be incoming after this little spoke in the proverbial wheel (or should it be spike?) xx
Lol... thank you Frances. Yes have to take a break from reading these things every once and a while or they start to send you loopy...but rare nuggets when they admit their fraud are totally worth it.
I've worked in data collection and analysis for a long time and I always find it neat when different groups don't spend enough time gathering baseline data for comparison. For instance, you only know a cellphone signal is specific to a handset if you either have the technical specs or you've performed signal collection over a period of time and it's characteristics have been observed as being consistent. When it comes to the, "What is a virus?" Anything could've been established as the baseline which could include bacteria modified in a lab. Of course the lab would know it's genetic makeup and when they see it elsewhere they could confirm it with sample sequencing. In the world of bioweapons this would also be a great for measuring the effectiveness of a pathogen.
-Second, even if they were specific, if you've never found the virus how can you have a specific antibody to it? Ah, you find antigens and call them viral just because you want to.
"to stop people from noticing these particles in uninfected cultures do indeed look exactly like the things the virologists were calling “viruses”…
It is astonishing that the formid-ologists (Latin; fear) 'circle the drain' so reliably. From the start whenever they described yet another v-entity embodying some novel, fear inducing disease, for example, whether influenza (1933), corona (1966), canine parvo (1978), HIV (1979), the methodology was shonky enough to drive a horse and cart through, invariably exposing those old equine chestnuts, chance, bias and confounding.
Given that the V only exists in the mind based on an unproven theory, that you guys have helped to throw light on and expose, if you like, it seems to me that the next step is to understand in detail how such a mental construct has continued to hold sway for so long.
The money angle alone, although it’s a bit easier to understand, has some mind boggling side avenues. The academic paper mountain, based largely on what appears not much more than paid people messing around in a lab (sorry if that seems harsh) is a massive conundrum in itself. In terms of therapeutic interventions what happened to the Hippocratic oath of doctors? Injecting stuff they do not know/understand?
Media and governments have their role as pushers. And all this for something that only exists in our minds! Isn’t it the case that what the humanity has truly been infected with is a mind-virus!
The Germ Theory itself is a complete lie, bullshit and fairy tale, which a trillion dollar 'industry' relies on the masses believing!!! If that utter fraud Pasteur had been involved in tooth fairy theory the medical world would be paying homage to her/him/it !!
this man Pete Ross is super smart ( Like you Jamie )) i am going to start following him right now --------- Wow !!! i am so thankful for people like both of you ------- i hope there will be more like you both my brain needs the stimulation i rarely look forward to anything now i cannot what to read what both of you write
I’m leaning towards the terrain theory after what I researched and aome debates i have heard. Also Dr Sam Baily has some videos that are very interesting.
The non scientists either won’t understand the significance of the findings described here or will pretend not to.
The virologists will contemptuously say “You just don’t understand anything” and will insist you’re not following the scientific method. Their yap dogs will repeat it.
Meanwhile, we know exactly what it means.
There’s no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses.
Personally I would love to have 'experts in the field of virology' look at this. Dissection of his conclusion, it would be great to read.
Yes people call me names and stuff.
But surly that what science is. Debate as to what is correct and what is bull.
I am a huge fan of Jamie.
I have debated with near hundreds of claimed professional virologists and microbiologists. The intellectually honest amongst them will all agree that there is no evidence of the existence of any pathogen to be found using cell culture isolation of from Electron Microscopy... It is ALL predicated on genetics... which is the part we are at.
mike im on an oil rig off the coast of the Shetland islands uk , everybody is coming down with coughing and something , its spreading from person to person , im unvaccinated and ive had it twice in this 3 week trip , please explain this to me as we work inside 90 percent of the time ? what you are saying does not stand up .
Hi Frank… Please read this.
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-most-complete-contagion-study
ok so from the 8th of October untill the 16th i was in Malta on holiday i flew straight out to this rig The Magnus directly from work and back to Aberdeen , the temperature ranged from 26 degrees to 32 degrees , i stayed in the Marco Polo Hostel and came down sick also , EVERYBODY in St Julians , bar a few were coughing and a had cold symptoms , nope 👎 it dosent stand up as the staff commented it was present in the Hostel all through the summer , its a biologicl weapon , it exists in some form , colds , flus in summer time were non existent until recent times im 48 years old , there’s something there , nefarious yes , but there’s something going around .
There are infinite variables in your environment. People poisoning themselves more often with processed foods, chemicals in building materials, pesticides, stresses, pharmaceuticals and vaccines...
If you are being honest it is not "everyone" sick at the same time either.
Attributing patterns of sickness to an invisible microbe has been debunked by over 150years of clinical experimentation trying and failing to do so.
I like the way contagion can be mentally accepted when "the wife came down with it too, but the kids are absolutely fine", "so how come the kids are fine then, living under the same roof n'all?", "oh, they must have a better "immune" system than me and the wife", "how come? Your "immune" system has been in training for countless many more years than your children's, surely it should be way more robust than theirs?"
"Immune system" - another blag to reinforce the virus hoax
will do thankyou
i can send you my number address occupation , political beliefs , i live in cheltenham, come visit me or call me i not a sinister opposing voice , i understand we are under attack from all quarters but this thing you say cannot be true !
I like that phrase people use when telling a story; “you can’t make this shit up.” But wait, they did make it up. The whole science of virology made up from whole cloth. The best part is their own papers disclosing the truth. Thank you, Jamie, for reading them.
What a great find! The amount of mental gymnastics these virologists have to do to keep the virus theory alive for themselves is staggering. They will completely through common sense out the window to avoid questioning the main narrative.
Just as an aside, and as mentioned in a previous comment under a earlier article of yours also dealing with electron micrographs, the more you look at these images the more it becomes obvious that what they point to as "virus" particles are actually artefacts of the process - they are just bubbles formed in the sample after having undergone chemical and heat treatment.
The biggest indication that these bubbles are artefacts, are their morphology. What is the chance that the microtome is going to slice every "virus" particle in a sample exactly through the middle so that you have a perfect centre sectional view of every "virus" particle in a sample? So that every single instance you have a perfect sectional view of the protein coat (the dark outer layer)? Where are the "virus" particles which the microtome has sliced just to one side ‐ so that you see more protien coat than the interior of the "virus" particle - so that the dark out layer is thicker than the interior layer?
If you imagine a microtome slicing sections of an egg, each slice made would show a different sectional view of the shape of the egg as the sections went through the structure. You wouldnt just see the middle section displaying the yok every single time. There are far too many instances where we see these bubbles sliced precisely through the middle in a single sample for the laws of solid geometry to permit.
I agree with your geometry based point.
In addition, nothing seen in an electron microscopy image is real.
If you simply take a sample and put it in the instrument, you see nothing.
The sample has to be put through a multistage process involving coating it with various materials, in order to force it to interact with the beam of electrons. This process is likely to have caused changes to what the sample looked like. We can never know to what extent this distorts what we’re finally shown. It’s a paradox. A deeply specialised technique was developed to allow us not to see small things.
💯 agree, yet the majority of people (especially the "clever" ones) point to electron micrographs like they are completely accurate and reliable images of the micro world.
Dr Harold Hillman is the only scientist I have come across that has attempted to publish papers / bring attention to these issues with Electron Microscopy. Once you understand his work, you realise how far astray electron micrographs have lead us when it comes to biology.
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2024/02/14/why-you-should-know-about-harold-hillmans-work-on-the-living-cell/
The 'proof' that viruses infect cells:
https://i.imgur.com/uPHhrti.jpeg
I’ve noticed that nobody has gotten the common cold or the flu since Covid. It’s always I’m sick with Covid. A coronavirus.
Cold and Flu are so démodé ... Covid is the new fashion accessory everyone is testing for (even without symptoms 😀). It brings a lot of social media kudos.
I'm grateful you're doing this work, because the deaf, dumb and blind need work like this to help them wake up - so bless you for having the stamina to go through the garbage to find the odd treasure. For those of us who already knew that science is a business, run by politics/Nazi infused department of defence, all we ever needed was a sharp eye for political manipulation and a nose for bullshit.
Thank you zoe
Bless you Jamie, from the bottom of my heart xo ❤️
ICYM, either Tom Cowan or The Baileys, or both, presented this paper a few years ago, no?
Good to be presenting it with a more fine comb analysis, that's for sure.
In discussing any histo-immunology analysis, you can remind your readers that the so-called "spike" sequence is a composite theoretical construct of a string of of epitopes that are found in virtually every human tissue tested, so "anti-spike" antibodies can always be always shown to "selectively bind to" a tissue sample, since every tissue bears one or more of the epitopes from which the so-called "spike protein" sequence was contrived.
This is how the illusion is maintained: the jabs are concocted to induce a bit of tissue damage which then stimulates the release of antibodies, with varying degrees of specificity & affinity, to clear away the - usually transient - damage.
This lab trickery is easy to do when the non-glycosylated or aberrantly-glycosylated recombinant protein antigens used to generate diagnostic or therapeutic antibodies are very crude approximations of the actual highly-glycosylated native protein target, which - having never actually been purified from an actual host and thus never structurally characterized in any real sense - is thus always a theoretical construct based upon pseudoscientific interpretations of transient RNA fragments found in different states of physiological or mental stress ("Acute Phase Response RNA").
"People also ask
What happens during the acute phase response?
The acute phase response is a systemic reaction against inflammation, infection, or tissue injury, which is characterized by leukocytosis, fever, increased vascular permeability, alteration in plasma metal and steroid concentration, along with increased levels of acute phase proteins."
The theoretical "spike protein" is actually a composite of widely-dispersed natural epitopes:
1)
Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 ...
Frontiers
https://www.frontiersin.org › fimmu.2020.617089 › full
by A Vojdani · 2021 · Cited by 335 — We found that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies had reactions with 28 out of 55 tissue antigens, representing a diversity of tissue groups that included barrier
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089/full
2)
Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike ...
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC7499017
by D Kanduc · 2020 · Cited by 285 — Potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases.
https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/molecular-mimicry-study-between-peptides-of-sars-cov-2-and-neutro
3)
Molecular Mimicry Study Between Peptides of SARS-CoV ...
אוניברסיטת תל אביב
https://cris.tau.ac.il › publications › molecular-mimicry-st...
1 Jan 2024 — Molecular Mimicry Study Between Peptides of SARS-CoV-2 and Neutrophil Extracellular Traps-Related Proteins. Yekbun Adiguzel, Yehuda Shoenfeld.
https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/molecular-mimicry-study-between-peptides-of-sars-cov-2-and-neutro
Aren’t antibodies as mythical as viruses? They are even smaller so have never been observed. When they say we found antibodies what did they find?
Correct.
What they do is introduce the specific human DNA sequence that interests them into a bacteria E. coli or sometimes into a yeast or sometimes hamster kidney cells, but almost always it's the E coli.
Then the E. coli gets grown as a culture s that the protein corresponding to the inserted DNA sequence can be obtained and purified in milligram or gram quantitates. Let's call it "recombinant protein-xyz", or "(rec)protein-xyz". "Recombinant" because it's derived from human DNA that was recombined into a bacterial chromosome.
Then they find a sheep, first take some blood and store it to use as a control, then inject the purified (rec)protein-xyz together with some adjuvant stuff.
After awhile they take some sheep blood and mix it with their (rec)protein-xyz to see if they get an immunoglobulin fraction from the blood that sticks good to their (rec)protein-xyz, but not to other proteins.
They called this polyclonal antibodies or "anti-(rec)protein-xyz antibodies" cuz it'll be a mixture of antibodies with a diversity of binding affinities & specificities. To improve the situation, the polyclonal antibodies can be further purified to yield a more homogenous group of antibodies so as to improve specificity, e.g. reduce cross-reactivity with proteins similar to (rec)protein-xyz.
To detect the reaction product formed from when the anti-(rec)protein-xyz antibodies stick to the (rec)protein-xyz they like to modify the antibodies or the protein or both with radioactive atoms or fluorescent molecules. If there's enuf (rec)protein-xyz then the reaction product can even be visualized with the naked eye as a clump that precipitates out of solution. But you still need to check that the clump really contains (rec)protein-xyz and not cross-reacting proteins by dissolving the clump so as to reverse the reaction, to unstick the proteins from the antibodies.
Then, as a final check, you purify the protein from the mixture and establish the amino acid sequence to make sure it's really your original target (rec)protein-xyz, and not some other similar but different protein, that the antibodies might wanna stick to. Of course, usually the kooks skip this critical check, cuz it's a lot of painstaking work and you gotta be using in parallel the pre-inoculated sheep's blood as a control, which doubles the workload.
But even after all these steps, you still got the problem that the purified (rec)protein-xyz that was injected into the sheep as an antigen is only a rough approximation of the real protein-xyz. That's because the real protein-xyz in it's native state inside the body is almost always pimped-up with complicated arrangements of sugar groups and all kinds of other modifications & configurations. In contrast, the (rec)protein-xyz is just an amino acid polymer backbone lacking all the extra sugars groups and stuff that the bacteria cell (or yeast or hamster cell) doesn't know how to make.
In other words, the real, naturally-occurring ('native') protein-xyz is a glycosylated protein (glycoprotein), a polymer chain of amino acids adorned with all kinds of exotic human-specific sugars, while the antibodies were raised using a non-glycosylated version of the amino acid polymer, because the bacteria (or yeast or hamster) cells don't know how to add all the additional sugars & stuff because they lack all the human enzymes of glycosylation and post-translational modifications. which means that the native protein-xyz has size, shape, and chemical properties that render it very different from the (rec)protein-xyz. Antibodies that stick strongly to the (rec)protein-xyz might not stick at all to the native protein-xyz or, alternately, the antibodies might prefer to stick to a different native glycoprotein that shares in common with protein-xyz only a small portion of the amino acid sequence.
The only way to actually know what the antibodies are sticking to is to, as described above, detach the antibodies and then purify the protein to verify the amino acid sequence. Since many of the native glycoproteins of interest are present only in minute quantities, it's usually impossible to obtain enough purified protein for verifying the amino sequence. Instead, the kooks rely on the Western Blot method, which can only very roughly approximate the length of the target protein and is thus prone to misinterpretations, aka 'wishful thinking'.
Of course, 'virus glycoproteins' fall into this category of being too scarce in quantity to be physically verified by purification and sequencing from the optimal growth conditions- the actual host. In fact, 'virus glycoproteins' are only 'known' to exist in the natural host based solely upon the crude antibody methodology that is prone to misinterpretations due to cross-reactivity, glycosylation restrictions, etc, as described above.
So there's a lot of limitations to using antibodies to get the right interpretations. But there's lots of useful antibody kits out there, usually for the many blood proteins that are present in actual physically tangible, measurable quantities, that can be purified and characterized directly from the blood, and thus don't require resorting to the recombinant methodology of creating ersatz substitutes devoid of glycosylations from which all kinds of misinterpretations and even outright fraud derives.
This is an interesting read.
https://hygeia-analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/RP_Hist_Commoner.pdf
yep.
bunchakooks.
Forgive me if I'm confused, but WHO are a "bunchakooks"?? Watson and Crick? Or are you referring to those "genetic engineers" who are being lamented by the author of the paper that Jamie linked? Or are you referring to the author of that paper himself?
We're in the same lifeboat, Ron.
"bunchakooks" is plural; "author" is singular.
I'm sure you also agree that good to be highlighting this seminal article that Jamie linked to above:
"Published in the February 2002 issue of Harpers
Unraveling the DNA Myth
The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering
by Barry Commoner"
The kooks never did proper controls, never properly did the sequencing work of their final products, so they could go on & on to engage in wishful thinking.
The result is that much of what we call 'molecular biology' is a Tower of Babel.
Thanks for keeping us informed of what you are up to... even if it is utterly tedious ploughing through a ton of b/s. Wait for the next ton, Jamie! It is sure to be incoming after this little spoke in the proverbial wheel (or should it be spike?) xx
Lol... thank you Frances. Yes have to take a break from reading these things every once and a while or they start to send you loopy...but rare nuggets when they admit their fraud are totally worth it.
Thank you Jamie for putting on your hip boots and wading into the murky scientific(?) muck!
no worries sir... all in a days work...lol
I've worked in data collection and analysis for a long time and I always find it neat when different groups don't spend enough time gathering baseline data for comparison. For instance, you only know a cellphone signal is specific to a handset if you either have the technical specs or you've performed signal collection over a period of time and it's characteristics have been observed as being consistent. When it comes to the, "What is a virus?" Anything could've been established as the baseline which could include bacteria modified in a lab. Of course the lab would know it's genetic makeup and when they see it elsewhere they could confirm it with sample sequencing. In the world of bioweapons this would also be a great for measuring the effectiveness of a pathogen.
Excellent sleuthing Jamie. Note how the authors reify the specter of actual viruses with the "specific antibody tests" nonsense.
-First we know that epitopes are nonspecific
https://www.nature.com/articles/nri3279
-Second, even if they were specific, if you've never found the virus how can you have a specific antibody to it? Ah, you find antigens and call them viral just because you want to.
Stellar work! ..and a priceless ending.
"to stop people from noticing these particles in uninfected cultures do indeed look exactly like the things the virologists were calling “viruses”…
It is astonishing that the formid-ologists (Latin; fear) 'circle the drain' so reliably. From the start whenever they described yet another v-entity embodying some novel, fear inducing disease, for example, whether influenza (1933), corona (1966), canine parvo (1978), HIV (1979), the methodology was shonky enough to drive a horse and cart through, invariably exposing those old equine chestnuts, chance, bias and confounding.
Great work, and thanks for the wading!
Given that the V only exists in the mind based on an unproven theory, that you guys have helped to throw light on and expose, if you like, it seems to me that the next step is to understand in detail how such a mental construct has continued to hold sway for so long.
The money angle alone, although it’s a bit easier to understand, has some mind boggling side avenues. The academic paper mountain, based largely on what appears not much more than paid people messing around in a lab (sorry if that seems harsh) is a massive conundrum in itself. In terms of therapeutic interventions what happened to the Hippocratic oath of doctors? Injecting stuff they do not know/understand?
Media and governments have their role as pushers. And all this for something that only exists in our minds! Isn’t it the case that what the humanity has truly been infected with is a mind-virus!
The Germ Theory itself is a complete lie, bullshit and fairy tale, which a trillion dollar 'industry' relies on the masses believing!!! If that utter fraud Pasteur had been involved in tooth fairy theory the medical world would be paying homage to her/him/it !!
this man Pete Ross is super smart ( Like you Jamie )) i am going to start following him right now --------- Wow !!! i am so thankful for people like both of you ------- i hope there will be more like you both my brain needs the stimulation i rarely look forward to anything now i cannot what to read what both of you write
I’m leaning towards the terrain theory after what I researched and aome debates i have heard. Also Dr Sam Baily has some videos that are very interesting.