Amongst the aware, space badgers are now understood as the cause of disease, but Professor Ferrytell has been strangely silent about the fraud of Genetics. 🧬
Some have suggested he is controlled opposition -
with virology all but scuppered and spacebadgerology firmly established, Professor Ferrytell becomes a trusted voice.
And yet - he is totally silent on the Nanodwarf breakthrough.
This is very good, Jamie, and creepily familiar. I was inside the beast when it adopted “Molecular Biology” en masse. It was the late 1990s. I didn’t know anything about sequencing and PCR because the former was very grand wizard stuff, done in very few places, and the latter either hadn’t been invented or was purely cutting edge technology while I was still doing my PhD (old fashioned, steam method of twitching tissues in a tissue bath).
Then my employer starting hiring “molecular biologists”. I objected to this title, because those I met were not biologists in any way. They were tech people. The most important qualification was that they could use computers and complicated software. We shared no common foundation of knowledge or understanding of how things were supposed to work. Eventually they got retitled as “bioinformatics” as the discipline and “bioinformaticians” as the trade. We did try to collaborate but it was almost hopeless. The assumptions being made couldn’t be formalised.
I spent months speaking with these new experts at a range of levels, from people adding literally invisible materials from empty tubes, supplied by vendors, which came with data sheets and eventually online codes to what was supposedly in them, to the people who then manipulated the output (the names of the dwarves in great profusion) and onto those who made claims for potential new drug targets.
I was greatly helped by one hire who had a biology background, then had hopped into young molecular biology for his PhD and jumped into drug discovery in my department. He reported directly to me. He was the only one I got any real sense out of. And yes, it turned out that a great deal of this was an act of faith. It seemed to me that if you made enough measurements, the weight of evidence would form something solid from the smoke. I never got past my scepticism about any of it. It was all too vague and imprecise, which seemed fatally wrong given all we had was the four dwarves to start with. This fellow did explain “contigs” to me, and I when I understood it, I immediately showed that it was computer aided art criticism. Contigs is short for plausibly contiguous sequences. The end of one sequence might be identical to the start of another sequence. They might plausibly once have been a longer sequence from which the two shorter pieces came. You can form an almost infinite sequence inferred by joining inferred short sequences by overlapping them in a computer. So how to choose one sequence or a cloud of related sequences from the very many? Well, you assist its work by suggesting things your new sequence might be related to. Where do these earlier longer sequences come from? An ever growing database of human gene sequences which other people claim to have done before you. It was claimed that these must be correct, because others kept finding identical or almost identical sequences. I remember exploding that “Of course they do! If you keep constraining the options from the contigs, they don’t have many other choices”. Sometimes they were different by one base. Eventually this gave rise to SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms. Is this real? I really don’t know.
By then, early 2000s, the company had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on numerous, slightly dodgy collaborations with a half a dozen newish tech companies, all making claims I didn’t believe. I told the head of U.K. discovery that the methods proposed to “scale the Discovery engine” as part of our corporate mission to “Go beyond #1” was fatally flawed.
First, NOBODY understood drug discovery, ever. I’d been at it 15 years (eventually over 30 years) and every single example bore virtually no resemblance to any other. Sure, the methods looked similar & the final 5-10 years were constrained by regulations. But the heart of it asks “What molecular targets and mechanisms have the best chance to alter something usefully in a human body without unacceptable unwanted effects?” There is no book on how to begin to answer that fundamental question. Not a single one of the expensive technologies even tangentially touched on it.
To this day, if anyone wants to try it, you’re reliant on some flawed person like me to join a bunch of potentially related dots in our small sample of knowledge, itself a tiny, unknown fraction of all there is to know, coming up with a tentative medical hypothesis and then working with medicinal chemists to find a chemical starting point from which to make variants, combined with a “screening sequence” intended to select the best, most drug like candidate, one of which might eventually go into tox testing and early clinical trials. It’s a wonder to me that ANY drugs end up being useful. And of course I now appreciate in ways I didn’t before that they mostly don’t.
The best drugs ALL derive from natural experiments. Things already learned from interactions of humans and animals with materials in the natural world. Then seeking to understand how the observed effects happen and to optimise that. Once the industry exhausted that source of possibilities and wanted to go many times faster, it became clear to me that all the companies were led by people who knew far less than I did about how the drugs in the pharmacopoeia had come from.
Put simply, where they now are (they, because I’m no longer part of it, by permanent choice) is this. Try to draw a process diagram for the honest research biologist and his bioinformatics friends. Box by box, process by process, test by test and result set by result set. There is no plausible path that takes us to success. And ever more of these boxes contains the code word, which I’m proud to have invented and added to the lexicon.
TAMO. I remember chatting with my first molecujar biologist and writing this in a box on our flow chart on the whiteboard. We’d both been jumping up and adding exciting ideas as we discussed things.
“What does that mean?” he asked.
I said it seemed to me that, along every possible path we could think of, we always reached a TAMO box. “Then A Miracle Occurs”.
Thanks, Jamie. This is very clearly explained and I very much like the analogies with the cockerel and the dwarf sequencing which helps bring it home just how much of a fraud this all is. I’ve no doubt that very many of the technicians and scientists involved in this industry believe it all but the sooner the public can understand what’s going on here the better. Articles like this expose the depth of scientific fraud very well. And we will find ways to amplify this message and reach more people.
I must be having a "thick" day. I am only an engineer and programmer. I can only see an explanation of why the PCR test is fraudulent. But Kary Mullis said that on YouTube. They seemingly dispatched him shortly before launching the psyop - in August 2019, in California, and of "pneumonia complications".
It is comforting to know that I have about 44 billion miles of NanoDwarfs with plenty to spare, I guess. You have made it abundantly clear that medical science is based on quicksand from the get go.
How much is one of these gizmos gonna cost? From $1 million down to $99 perhaps? No doubt that the minION will be connected directly to Palantir's sniffing and data collection software.
Can I infer that this minION will become part of the HHS and the MAHA movement like wearing a data tracker for health stats? Will they be combined? The possibilities to further baffle the mind with BS will be endless.
He didn't say it wasn't for diagnosis either. His Patent, on his Nobel Prize, in his autobiography and in the trial of an innocent man accused of spreading a non existent pathogen where Kary's testimony got him locked up for 8 years do he explicity write that his invention WAS designed to diagnose disease.
Here is my article on this fraud. He is no saviour.
I agree. Mullis was no angel. But he exposed the fraud of Fauci and the HIV scam.
I did a search and got AI to write a synopsis of this video. I stress here that AI is programmed to respect the official narrative - just like the NYT and FT
Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, has stated that PCR tests should not be used for diagnosis in a strict sense because the test is very sensitive and can detect tiny amounts of genetic material. He noted that PCR can find "almost anything in anybody" if run long enough, which means it can generate positive results that do not necessarily indicate an active infection or disease. Mullis specifically made such remarks in the context of HIV testing and expressed skepticism about using PCR tests as a definitive diagnostic tool for AIDS.
However, these statements have often been taken out of context, especially in discussions about the use of PCR tests for COVID-19. Experts affirm that modern PCR tests designed for COVID-19 are specific and reliable for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections when used appropriately. Advances in PCR technology and protocols since Mullis's remarks in the 1990s have improved their diagnostic accuracy.
In summary, Mullis did express that PCR tests should not be used as sole diagnostic tools due to their high sensitivity and risk of false positives if interpreted incorrectly, but his comments were specific to contexts like HIV. The PCR test itself is a powerful molecular technique, but diagnosis depends on appropriate interpretation of test results in clinical and epidemiological contexts.[2][4][6][10]
In the video and related statements, Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, expresses that the PCR test itself does not determine if a person is sick. He states that if you run the PCR test long enough with high sensitivity, you can find almost anything in anybody, meaning the test amplifies genetic material but does not indicate disease presence or severity. Mullis cautioned that the PCR test was not created as a diagnostic tool to measure disease presence, particularly not for use as a standalone diagnostic for infections like coronavirus. He emphasized that the test can detect very small amounts of genetic material, but it does not tell you whether someone is ill or infectious.
Thus, Mullis's argument is that the PCR test should not be used as the sole diagnostic method to declare infection or illness, as it can detect genetic fragments that may not correspond to an active infection or disease state. This is often interpreted as a warning against over-reliance on PCR test results for clinical diagnosis without considering clinical symptoms or viral load.
This interpretation aligns with multiple fact checks and clarifications noting that Mullis's statements were sometimes taken out of context from earlier discussions about HIV, and that PCR testing for COVID-19 is designed to be specific and reliable when used according to clinical standards. However, Mullis himself did say that the PCR test does not "tell you you're sick" and that it can detect very small amounts of material that may not be relevant to actual infection status.[2][5][6][7]
In summary, Mullis did say the PCR test should not be solely relied upon for diagnosis of illness, as it amplifies genetic material without indicating disease presence or infectiousness.
Amongst the aware, space badgers are now understood as the cause of disease, but Professor Ferrytell has been strangely silent about the fraud of Genetics. 🧬
Some have suggested he is controlled opposition -
with virology all but scuppered and spacebadgerology firmly established, Professor Ferrytell becomes a trusted voice.
And yet - he is totally silent on the Nanodwarf breakthrough.
👀
Give him a kick up his ass. That’s the kind of language professors never hear but might respond to.
It is amazing how money can create pseudoscience and call it The Science™. And get so Many to believe it's reality.
Thanks for Your deep look at reality - true reality!
😂 between the dwarfs and the lederhosen polyester. It would be absolutely impossible to join a book club today. 😂 I’d be thrown out so fast
This is very good, Jamie, and creepily familiar. I was inside the beast when it adopted “Molecular Biology” en masse. It was the late 1990s. I didn’t know anything about sequencing and PCR because the former was very grand wizard stuff, done in very few places, and the latter either hadn’t been invented or was purely cutting edge technology while I was still doing my PhD (old fashioned, steam method of twitching tissues in a tissue bath).
Then my employer starting hiring “molecular biologists”. I objected to this title, because those I met were not biologists in any way. They were tech people. The most important qualification was that they could use computers and complicated software. We shared no common foundation of knowledge or understanding of how things were supposed to work. Eventually they got retitled as “bioinformatics” as the discipline and “bioinformaticians” as the trade. We did try to collaborate but it was almost hopeless. The assumptions being made couldn’t be formalised.
I spent months speaking with these new experts at a range of levels, from people adding literally invisible materials from empty tubes, supplied by vendors, which came with data sheets and eventually online codes to what was supposedly in them, to the people who then manipulated the output (the names of the dwarves in great profusion) and onto those who made claims for potential new drug targets.
I was greatly helped by one hire who had a biology background, then had hopped into young molecular biology for his PhD and jumped into drug discovery in my department. He reported directly to me. He was the only one I got any real sense out of. And yes, it turned out that a great deal of this was an act of faith. It seemed to me that if you made enough measurements, the weight of evidence would form something solid from the smoke. I never got past my scepticism about any of it. It was all too vague and imprecise, which seemed fatally wrong given all we had was the four dwarves to start with. This fellow did explain “contigs” to me, and I when I understood it, I immediately showed that it was computer aided art criticism. Contigs is short for plausibly contiguous sequences. The end of one sequence might be identical to the start of another sequence. They might plausibly once have been a longer sequence from which the two shorter pieces came. You can form an almost infinite sequence inferred by joining inferred short sequences by overlapping them in a computer. So how to choose one sequence or a cloud of related sequences from the very many? Well, you assist its work by suggesting things your new sequence might be related to. Where do these earlier longer sequences come from? An ever growing database of human gene sequences which other people claim to have done before you. It was claimed that these must be correct, because others kept finding identical or almost identical sequences. I remember exploding that “Of course they do! If you keep constraining the options from the contigs, they don’t have many other choices”. Sometimes they were different by one base. Eventually this gave rise to SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms. Is this real? I really don’t know.
By then, early 2000s, the company had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on numerous, slightly dodgy collaborations with a half a dozen newish tech companies, all making claims I didn’t believe. I told the head of U.K. discovery that the methods proposed to “scale the Discovery engine” as part of our corporate mission to “Go beyond #1” was fatally flawed.
First, NOBODY understood drug discovery, ever. I’d been at it 15 years (eventually over 30 years) and every single example bore virtually no resemblance to any other. Sure, the methods looked similar & the final 5-10 years were constrained by regulations. But the heart of it asks “What molecular targets and mechanisms have the best chance to alter something usefully in a human body without unacceptable unwanted effects?” There is no book on how to begin to answer that fundamental question. Not a single one of the expensive technologies even tangentially touched on it.
To this day, if anyone wants to try it, you’re reliant on some flawed person like me to join a bunch of potentially related dots in our small sample of knowledge, itself a tiny, unknown fraction of all there is to know, coming up with a tentative medical hypothesis and then working with medicinal chemists to find a chemical starting point from which to make variants, combined with a “screening sequence” intended to select the best, most drug like candidate, one of which might eventually go into tox testing and early clinical trials. It’s a wonder to me that ANY drugs end up being useful. And of course I now appreciate in ways I didn’t before that they mostly don’t.
The best drugs ALL derive from natural experiments. Things already learned from interactions of humans and animals with materials in the natural world. Then seeking to understand how the observed effects happen and to optimise that. Once the industry exhausted that source of possibilities and wanted to go many times faster, it became clear to me that all the companies were led by people who knew far less than I did about how the drugs in the pharmacopoeia had come from.
Put simply, where they now are (they, because I’m no longer part of it, by permanent choice) is this. Try to draw a process diagram for the honest research biologist and his bioinformatics friends. Box by box, process by process, test by test and result set by result set. There is no plausible path that takes us to success. And ever more of these boxes contains the code word, which I’m proud to have invented and added to the lexicon.
TAMO. I remember chatting with my first molecujar biologist and writing this in a box on our flow chart on the whiteboard. We’d both been jumping up and adding exciting ideas as we discussed things.
“What does that mean?” he asked.
I said it seemed to me that, along every possible path we could think of, we always reached a TAMO box. “Then A Miracle Occurs”.
Thanks, Jamie. This is very clearly explained and I very much like the analogies with the cockerel and the dwarf sequencing which helps bring it home just how much of a fraud this all is. I’ve no doubt that very many of the technicians and scientists involved in this industry believe it all but the sooner the public can understand what’s going on here the better. Articles like this expose the depth of scientific fraud very well. And we will find ways to amplify this message and reach more people.
I would love to hear of an accurate way to determine how much toxic mRNA a person has in his blood/saliva/urine
Hi Alfred, this is my take on it. https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/what-is-the-pcr-really-testing-for?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=27c5yh
I must be having a "thick" day. I am only an engineer and programmer. I can only see an explanation of why the PCR test is fraudulent. But Kary Mullis said that on YouTube. They seemingly dispatched him shortly before launching the psyop - in August 2019, in California, and of "pneumonia complications".
Kary Mullis never said his own invention was fraudulent quite the opposite.
It is comforting to know that I have about 44 billion miles of NanoDwarfs with plenty to spare, I guess. You have made it abundantly clear that medical science is based on quicksand from the get go.
How much is one of these gizmos gonna cost? From $1 million down to $99 perhaps? No doubt that the minION will be connected directly to Palantir's sniffing and data collection software.
Can I infer that this minION will become part of the HHS and the MAHA movement like wearing a data tracker for health stats? Will they be combined? The possibilities to further baffle the mind with BS will be endless.
Bless you for bringing us this information, Jaime. I appreciate your sharp wit, too. We have to laugh so we don't cry.
Correct. He said it was not for diagnosis. It was for experiments. One can hardly expect him to return his Nobel Prize.
He didn't say it wasn't for diagnosis either. His Patent, on his Nobel Prize, in his autobiography and in the trial of an innocent man accused of spreading a non existent pathogen where Kary's testimony got him locked up for 8 years do he explicity write that his invention WAS designed to diagnose disease.
Here is my article on this fraud. He is no saviour.
https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/kary-mullis-dancing-naked-in-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=27c5yh
I agree. Mullis was no angel. But he exposed the fraud of Fauci and the HIV scam.
I did a search and got AI to write a synopsis of this video. I stress here that AI is programmed to respect the official narrative - just like the NYT and FT
𝗞𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀, 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗖𝗥 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗖𝗥 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗥𝗔𝗨𝗗𝗖𝗜.
https://rumble.com/v3hp7vi-kerry-mullis-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-speaksout-on-the-fraud-of-pcr-test-an.html
------------- AI
Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, has stated that PCR tests should not be used for diagnosis in a strict sense because the test is very sensitive and can detect tiny amounts of genetic material. He noted that PCR can find "almost anything in anybody" if run long enough, which means it can generate positive results that do not necessarily indicate an active infection or disease. Mullis specifically made such remarks in the context of HIV testing and expressed skepticism about using PCR tests as a definitive diagnostic tool for AIDS.
However, these statements have often been taken out of context, especially in discussions about the use of PCR tests for COVID-19. Experts affirm that modern PCR tests designed for COVID-19 are specific and reliable for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections when used appropriately. Advances in PCR technology and protocols since Mullis's remarks in the 1990s have improved their diagnostic accuracy.
In summary, Mullis did express that PCR tests should not be used as sole diagnostic tools due to their high sensitivity and risk of false positives if interpreted incorrectly, but his comments were specific to contexts like HIV. The PCR test itself is a powerful molecular technique, but diagnosis depends on appropriate interpretation of test results in clinical and epidemiological contexts.[2][4][6][10]
[1](https://www.biomerieux.com/us/en/blog/diagnostic-digest/remembering-kary-mullis-pioneer-of-pcr.html)
[2](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/14/fact-check-kary-mullis-quote-pcr-tests-outdated-lacks-context/9198197002/)
[3](https://siarchives.si.edu/collections/siris_arc_217745)
[4](https://pub-orangeville.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=9893)
[5](https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-023-00270-x)
[6](https://fullfact.org/online/kary-mullis-anyone-PCR-test/)
[7](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/interview/)
[8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DwNvH4Hmt4)
[9](https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/pcr-more-than-just-a-covid-test/)
[10](https://factcheck.hkbu.edu.hk/home/en/fc_report_eng/pcr/)
Here is a different video from a different discussion.
https://rumble.com/v4pozch-pcr-test-founder-kary-mullis-speaks-out-against-the-misinterpretation-of-th.html
------------- AI
In the video and related statements, Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, expresses that the PCR test itself does not determine if a person is sick. He states that if you run the PCR test long enough with high sensitivity, you can find almost anything in anybody, meaning the test amplifies genetic material but does not indicate disease presence or severity. Mullis cautioned that the PCR test was not created as a diagnostic tool to measure disease presence, particularly not for use as a standalone diagnostic for infections like coronavirus. He emphasized that the test can detect very small amounts of genetic material, but it does not tell you whether someone is ill or infectious.
Thus, Mullis's argument is that the PCR test should not be used as the sole diagnostic method to declare infection or illness, as it can detect genetic fragments that may not correspond to an active infection or disease state. This is often interpreted as a warning against over-reliance on PCR test results for clinical diagnosis without considering clinical symptoms or viral load.
This interpretation aligns with multiple fact checks and clarifications noting that Mullis's statements were sometimes taken out of context from earlier discussions about HIV, and that PCR testing for COVID-19 is designed to be specific and reliable when used according to clinical standards. However, Mullis himself did say that the PCR test does not "tell you you're sick" and that it can detect very small amounts of material that may not be relevant to actual infection status.[2][5][6][7]
In summary, Mullis did say the PCR test should not be solely relied upon for diagnosis of illness, as it amplifies genetic material without indicating disease presence or infectiousness.
[1](https://rumble.com/v4pozch-pcr-test-founder-kary-mullis-speaks-out-against-the-misinterpretation-of-th.html)
[2](https://rumble.com/v1p5vb4-pcr-test-founder-kary-mullis-speaks-out-against-the-misinterpretation-of-th.html)
[3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c)
[4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DwNvH4Hmt4)
[5](https://pub-orangeville.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=9893)
[6](https://fullfact.org/online/kary-mullis-anyone-PCR-test/)
[7](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/14/fact-check-kary-mullis-quote-pcr-tests-outdated-lacks-context/9198197002/)
[8](https://rumble.com/v64mskv-pcr-test-creator-kary-mullis-explains-its-function.html?e9s=src_v1_cmd%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a)
[9](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-eccentric-scientist-behind-the-gold-standard-covid-19-pcr-test)
[10](https://barnevernsaksjonen.no/aiovg_videos/inventor-of-pcr-test-kary-mullis-it-doesnt-tell-you-youre-sick/)