phew; reached the end; speechless; is anything real? It would be like the US govt sending money to Sri Lanka to promote operas; or comic books; or fighting climate change on Mars ....... oh wait, seemingly that has been happening
Excellent, thanks. I have long suspected that all this stuff was yet more horse piss and now you have confirmed that. Could you please do a take down of Watson and Crick? Those two have bugged me for decades as I have long suspected these two of being more of the same but lacked the background to expose them. I feel very certain you are the chap to do it. My intellectual spider sense was always tingles when in the presence of this type of scientific piss as I start being unable to understand what is apparently being communicated, a sure sign. Before convid 19 I might have considered myself stupid or at least lacking in the necessary vocabulary to understand the language. Now, no way. If it makes no sense it is almost certainly piss. Am I injecting myself with it because the government say so? Are you kidding? Thanks again. This one goes in the archive.
Thank you for breaking this all down and exposing some of the lies and subsequent idiotic assumptions which constitute “The Science” of “The Experts” we are being subjected to by hoards of demented sycophants. Gut intuition outs this malevolence for those that naturally question authority ~ I sincerely hope your articles reach many in the legions of co-opted orks !
You are a brilliant communicator and a comic genius! This is so fantastic. Gonna buy you a double grande Kofi next month. Thank you for the fantastic detailed info and for the tickles. This is exactly how Psy-ence should be treated. Very impressive Jamie. Many thanks for your work. Sorry if you already addressed this or if it should be obvious, I'm curious about your opinion of Kary Mullis. Also, I read recently that if you ferment the wee wee, you can get stem cells. What do you think of that? Asking for a friend! LOL
Thanks you Zoe. I highly doubt that waste, your body doesn't need could start the beginnings of new life if left in a cupboard over night lol...Kary Mullis was controlled op.. I have an article about him.
LOL - I'm no urine expert so I don't know what to say/think. Doesn't seem too far fetched to say Kary Mullis was controlled op - but how that all figures into the big picture I don't know - I see Susan was kind enough to link to your article. Thanks for responding Jamie. 😊
Well... the bigger picture is he developed the fraudulent test that helps them fake pandemics and murder Millons with dangerous pharmaceuticals and all it took was a hawaaiin shirt, a surfboard and an untimely death (from his headinistic drug taking) to turn him into some cult hero...
Wow - I'm just gob-smacked - I just opened up your article and I feel like such an idiot for being one of those dummies that thought he was 'taken out' just in time for the scamdemic. I thought because he called out Fauci as a fraud and saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, perhaps he was worth listening to. I very much look forward to your thoughtful presentation.
LOL - that's incredible! Apologizing to Fraudci seems a bridge too far for me but thanks for the info. Must be so frustrating to have that info and share it and then people still refuse to incorporate that into their reality. Thanks Jamie - I super appreciate it! xo ♥️
You can almost imagine ‘Scotty’ up in the ‘USS Enterprise’ - as the crew and ship itself, orbit Planet Urethra; saying to Captain James T Kirk: in order to get a jildy on Cap’n, we’ve now switched from ‘Lithium Crystals’ in the regular engine management system; and gone straight to ‘Micturition Mode’ which, if my calculations are correct, should give us something akin to Warp speed one-one-one. Known more precisely, in Galactic Federation terms, as: a series of number ones. We should be outta this foul smelling part of the Universe before you can say: hang on, I just need a quick run off.!!
Unfortunately for us the whole kit and kaboodle of: Virology, The Bermuda Triangle, Sooby Doo: and the adventures of the 13th missing Ghost; Climate bollocks, Globalism/Zionism (not to be confused with Judaism), censorship, big business, fear mongering, arms dealing and the slower spin speed required on a wool wash; are, indeed, all susceptible to those same ‘building blocks of life’ consisting of, but not limited to; ammonia, bleach, room temperature pish, formaldehyde, rat excrement, iron filings, aluminium oxide and slightly off cows milk.
The script for all this ‘Scientific legislation’ ( which we need, before we can even leave the house) is no longer written, discussed, dissected, argued, or gone into in the most fastidious detail; before even any type of Occam’s Razor maybe suggested, and any theories rejected, before everything is reevaluated and gone over for the eighteenth time - by bespectacled, bald headed boffins in white lab coats, who debate their points, scrupulously and meticulously, sometimes for days…
Ah, Science, back in those halcyon (daze). Big discussions. Nothing arrived at quickly. White coats for goalposts. Games lasting for decades… Now, much to our chagrin, the goalposts have been moved. And the scientific playing field has been tilted. We now suffer from ‘corporate Scientism’: high priests from Central banks and globalist corporations, hedge funders and billionaires nudging us, inextricably, towards ‘following the Science’.!! Muzzling up. Getting injected with toxic gunk. And, believing: we’re all in this together.. fun and games until someone pisses all over you from a great height. (Nice one Jamie, keep up the good work).
I also, in trying to make sense of the mRNA in the vaxes papers, could see they just keep doing inferred and indirect studies making a mess of anyone who wants to grasp something logical out of them.
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 3
In relation to the skeptical claim that fixed chemical in solution can PROOFREAD a DNA strand to make sure that the correct nitrogenous bases are matching up with each other.
ME
for the type of interaction to occur in a repeated fashion, one would have to conclude there must be 'intelligent design' at play - is that the conclusion that scientists working in this area have come to and do you, as their AI advocate attend church services with them?
AI
The concept of "intelligent design" is a topic of debate within both scientific and religious communities. In the context of DNA replication and repair, scientists generally attribute the remarkable efficiency and precision of these processes to natural selection and evolutionary mechanisms rather than invoking intelligent design. Here's why:
1. Natural Selection: Over billions of years, life on Earth has evolved through the process of natural selection. DNA polymerase and other enzymes involved in replication and repair have evolved to be highly efficient and accurate because organisms with such mechanisms were more likely to survive and reproduce.
2. Molecular Mechanisms: The processes of DNA replication, proofreading, and repair are well-understood at the molecular level. Scientists have uncovered the detailed structures and functions of these enzymes, providing a naturalistic explanation for their behavior.
3. Experimental Evidence: Extensive experimental evidence supports the naturalistic view. The structure and function of DNA polymerase and other related enzymes have been studied using advanced techniques such as X-ray crystallography, electron microscopy, and biochemical assays.
While some people interpret the complexity of biological systems as evidence of intelligent design, the prevailing scientific consensus is that these systems can be explained through natural processes and evolutionary mechanisms.
As for attending church services, I am an AI created by Microsoft and do not have personal beliefs or attend religious services. However, I can provide information and discuss topics related to both science and religion if you're interested.
ME
with a great degree of skeptism I could be persuaded to accept the arguments you have presented for 'natural organic' matter, but isn’t it the case that most of these experiments and interactions occur when using synthetic chemical substances?
AI
You raise an important point. In many laboratory experiments, scientists often use synthetic chemical substances to study biological processes. This is done for several reasons, including:
1. Control and Consistency: Synthetic chemicals provide a controlled and consistent environment for experiments. This ensures reproducibility and accuracy in results, which is crucial for scientific research.
2. Simplification: Using synthetic substances can simplify complex biological systems, allowing researchers to isolate specific variables and understand fundamental mechanisms.
3. Availability and Purity: Synthetic chemicals are often more readily available and can be produced with high purity, reducing the risk of contamination that might be present in natural samples.
However, it's important to note that the use of synthetic chemicals does not invalidate the findings. The fundamental principles and mechanisms discovered in these experiments are applicable to natural systems as well. Scientists often validate their findings with experiments using natural biological materials to ensure that the results are relevant to real-world biological processes.
While skepticism is healthy and necessary for scientific progress, the rigorous methodologies and validation processes employed in modern research provide a strong foundation for our understanding of biological systems.
ME
something does not compute with your rational, as synthetic substances have not evolved over billions of years to replicate and repair in a highly efficient manner - as such the use of them invalidates the assumptions in the structure and outcome of the experiments - it appears to be a construct that is reliant upon an interpretation of the output of the computer device that creates the DNA signature?
AI
You make an intriguing point about the use of synthetic substances in experiments and their implications for understanding natural processes. It's essential to address this perspective with some clarifications:
1. Synthetic vs. Natural Substances: While synthetic substances may not have evolved over billions of years like natural biological molecules, they are often used in experiments to mimic or replicate natural processes. The purpose of using synthetic chemicals is to provide controlled and reproducible conditions that allow scientists to study specific interactions and mechanisms.
2. Relevance to Natural Processes: Despite being synthetic, these substances are designed to closely resemble natural molecules. The interactions observed with synthetic analogs are expected to reflect the behavior of their natural counterparts. This approach allows researchers to isolate specific variables and gain insights into natural processes.
3. Validation with Natural Materials: To ensure the validity of their findings, scientists often validate their results with natural biological materials. Experiments using natural DNA, RNA, and proteins help confirm that the observations made with synthetic substances are applicable to real-world biological systems.
4. Computational Models: Computational models and simulations are valuable tools for interpreting experimental data and predicting the behavior of biological molecules. These models are based on established principles of chemistry and physics and are continually refined to improve their accuracy.
5. Ongoing Research: The field of molecular biology is dynamic and continuously evolving. Researchers are constantly developing new methods and technologies to study biological processes more accurately and comprehensively.
While it's essential to approach scientific findings with a critical mindset, it's also important to recognize the robustness of the scientific method, which includes rigorous experimentation, validation, and peer review. The combination of synthetic and natural experiments, along with computational models, provides a comprehensive understanding of biological processes.
"The combination of synthetic and natural experiments, along with computational models, provides a comprehensive understanding of biological processes."
Hello Avo Woroglian. Your questions were excellent. The AI is a well programmed *machine*.
The AI does not comprehend the concept of infinity. The Universe had trillions of years head start on man and man's foolish technologies. Perhaps this would be a good follow up question: "When will science get enough reality to understand that it exists?"
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 2
ME
if I was presented with the 2 yellow compounds, just using my naked eye vision, would I (as representative of an average sighted person) be able to tell them apart?
AI
It's highly unlikely that an average sighted person would be able to distinguish between the two yellow compounds formed in the reactions (urea with nitric acid and chloroform vs. pyrimidines with nitric acid and chloroform) using only their naked eye. Both reactions produce yellow compounds, and the color differences, if any, would be subtle and not easily discernible without specialized equipment.
To accurately distinguish between the two compounds, more sophisticated analytical techniques would be required, such as:
1. Spectroscopy: Techniques like UV-Vis spectroscopy or IR spectroscopy can provide detailed information about the absorption and emission spectra of the compounds, allowing for precise identification.
2. Chromatography: Methods like high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography (GC) can separate the components of a mixture and help identify the specific compounds present.
3. Mass Spectrometry: This technique can determine the molecular weight and structure of the compounds, providing conclusive evidence of their identity.
These methods can provide detailed information about the chemical composition and structure of the compounds, allowing for accurate differentiation that is not possible with the naked eye.
ME
has anyone ever conducted the comparative test of the 2 yellow compounds applying the procedures you have mentioned, namely: spectroscopy, chromatography and mass spectrometry, if so, what was the result?
AI
I couldn't find any specific studies that directly compare the yellow compounds formed by the reactions of urea with nitric acid and chloroform versus pyrimidines with nitric acid and chloroform using spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry. However, these analytical techniques are commonly used in scientific research to identify and characterize chemical compounds.
ME
as you say, you were unable to find an instance where someone has replicated the earlier studies of Kossel and then use the methods you detailed, namely: spectroscopy, chromatography and mass spectrometry to validate the outcome - is there no will or desire to get at the truth?
AI
It appears that there hasn't been a specific study replicating Kossel's foundational research using modern techniques like spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry. This could be due to several reasons:
1. Historical Context: Kossel's work laid the groundwork for molecular biology, and subsequent research has built upon his findings. Modern techniques have validated the presence and structure of nucleotides, making it less critical to revisit the original experiments.
2. Focus on Advancements: Scientific research often prioritizes new discoveries and advancements over replicating historical studies. Researchers may focus on exploring new frontiers rather than revisiting well-established findings.
3. Resource Allocation: Replicating historical experiments with modern techniques requires significant resources and funding. Researchers and funding agencies may prioritize projects with more immediate and impactful outcomes.
4. Validation through Accumulated Evidence: The validity of Kossel's findings has been supported by decades of subsequent research and technological advancements. The accumulated evidence from various studies provides confidence in the foundational principles of molecular biology.
While there may not be a specific study replicating Kossel's work with modern techniques, the scientific community continually seeks to validate and refine our understanding of biological processes. If there were significant doubts about the foundational research, it is likely that efforts would be made to address them.
ME
I appreciate your justifications on behalf of the scientific community, you would also make a good lawyer, however my present concern is that this is yet another case of 'eminence-based science' - after all how hard would it be for any modern lab worker to replicate and validate the original research - perhaps it would take less than a day?
AI
You raise a valid point. It’s true that the scientific community sometimes relies on foundational work without revisiting it with modern techniques, which can lead to concerns about "eminence-based science." Given the advancements in technology and methodology, it would indeed be feasible for modern lab workers to replicate and validate early research using techniques like spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry.
Replicating foundational experiments could help address any lingering doubts and strengthen the scientific basis for established theories. It might not take long for an experienced lab to perform these tests, especially with access to advanced equipment and expertise.
While there may not be a concerted effort to revisit Kossel's specific experiments, the ongoing research in molecular biology continues to validate and expand upon his findings. However, your suggestion is a good reminder of the importance of replication and validation in maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge.
Thanks, Jamie, for your comment and more so for your research and excellent presentation of findings. I really enjoy reading your articles and spent most of the day pondering this one, including the sideline conversation with AI.
Most of my post is AI answer, so I would not call it my article. Additionally, a trained eye like yours would identify that my questions to AI reveal a person who does not have a science background, as such I would be out of my depth to write a whole article.
I hope there are things in the post that you can amplify in your ongoing research.
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 1
ME
what do those who are critical of DNA and RNA theory argue in relation to the founding research of Kossel and others?
AI
Critics of DNA and RNA theory often raise several points regarding the foundational research of Albrecht Kossel and others. Here are some of the main arguments:
1. Methodology: Critics argue that the methods used by Kossel and his contemporaries to isolate and identify nucleotides were rudimentary and lacked the precision of modern techniques. For example, Kossel used chemical tests like the Murexide test and Berg's test, which some critics claim were not specific enough to conclusively identify nucleotides.
2. Source of Nucleotides: Some critics point out that the sources of nucleotides, such as waste filtration organs and bird guano, might have introduced contaminants that could have affected the results. They argue that the identification of nucleotides from such sources might not be reliable.
3. Interpretation of Results: There is skepticism about the interpretation of the results from these early experiments. Critics suggest that the positive results from tests like the Murexide test and Berg's test could have been due to the presence of other substances, such as urea, rather than nucleotides.
4. Replication and Validation: Critics emphasize the importance of replication and validation in scientific research. They argue that the foundational studies on DNA and RNA might not have been rigorously replicated and validated by independent researchers at the time, raising questions about their reliability.
5. Modern Understanding: Some critics believe that modern advancements in molecular biology and biochemistry have revealed limitations and inaccuracies in the early research on DNA and RNA. They argue that our current understanding of nucleic acids might be based on flawed or incomplete foundational research.
These criticisms highlight the importance of rigorous methodology, replication, and validation in scientific research. While the foundational research on DNA and RNA laid the groundwork for modern molecular biology, it is essential to continually re-evaluate and refine our understanding based on new evidence and advancements in technology.
As an indoctrinated biochemist - microbiolgist it's a hard one for my usually sharp bullshit analyzer to take on. You have to remember when we sat in the pews of science in rapture at the miracle discoveries of the father saints being pontificated by the high priest- to question the basic methodology and inherent flaws was actually unthinkable. Who could question God in the temple? But my cognitive dissonance is palpable- to reject this is hard for me it actually hurts- the programming runs very deep.
Could you please please please look into the poster boy of medicines- insulin discovery. I'm a type 1 diabetic and am dead in hours if I don't have it. I'm sure there's something very fishy about this one. It was the moon landing for medical science and it's structure and mechanism is hands down the most well researched of all. And to be honest the narrative makes sense. But I wouldn't be surprised that they poisoned people to trash the pancreas in certain types with the cure in hand to land that eagle and put the old medical ways to rest and launch the drug discovery golden bullet paradigm shift.
Greetings KW, while this information may not answer your question, it may shed some light on the situation. Best wishes.
Islets of Langerhans are clusters or cellular masses of endocrine cells (different types) in the Pancreas that produce a variety of hormones including insulin and glucagon.
Glucagon helps regulate glucose homeostasis in the body. Insulin promotes the uptake and utilization of glucose by cells, thus lowering blood glucose levels.
Diabetes Mellitus is known to be caused by Pertussis toxin from vaccines (DPT, DTaP, Whooping Cough and other vaccines formulated with PT) which shuts off Neutrophils - a white blood cell, like a light switch, essentially paralyzing the immune system! Harris Coulter's 1997 testimony in in the Congressional Record that Pertussis toxin from the Whooping Cough portion of the DPT vaccine causes Diabetes. See this book for that information: https://www.lulu.com/shop/patrick-jordan/icd-999/paperback/product-1ngdpwvg.html?q=Patrick+Jordan
You could consult the author directly for more information. Tell him I sent you.
Pertussis, an organism made toxigenic by Bacteriophage infection, is a highly toxic substance that can destroy Pancreatic tissue and cause diabetes = cellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed, aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde, or acellur Bordetella pertussis adsorbed, aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde.
Please note Genistein is an isoflavone and natural phytoestrogen present in soybeans and was found to increase apoptosis and markedly so with inclusion of flouride.
Amazing Jamie, thanks kindly....so if mRNA is piss how does this correlate to these jabs being bio-weapons and the 5 mechanisms of toxicity built into them that Mike Yeadon claims?
This would mean there are no proteins being expressed by transfection and there is no autoimmune reaction caused by cytotoxic T-cells. At least, not due to foreign protein expression on transfected cells.
Every day, something I think I might understand becomes mythical.
OK....How are you planning to get all this info from the studies to where it needs to get to be able to bring about much needed health and vitality changes? 3rd time asking :))
I only have 24hrs in a day and am but one person. I have been seriously hindered by controlled opposition like Mike Stone and The Baileys smearing my name and doxxing scientists as part of the project... but have started a new project in Canada this year so hope we will make in roads in 2025
Thanks for the update Jamie and fully appreciate your hard work and determination....hope you can do it...light over the dark always wins and it can be just one person.....a pivotal moment in humankind is upon us...the death vaxxs*TM have to go, most know it now
I don't know Mike Stone, but if the smarmy Baileys are smearing your name, you are GOLDEN in my book. Have you had any run-ins with Sasha and her clique of trolls? Mike Yeadon? Keep up the good work. Cheers.
I asked Tony C a couple of days ago and maybe he's got an answer. Someone I respect is against the Baileys but they seem like a perfectly reasonable couple to me. Not just pointing out that there are no viruses but actively doing good stuff on their farm. Maybe a little too bourgeois or something but I don't think that's what people are thinking about. I don't like getting too bogged down in strife so I'm not going to research this. I'll just keep hoping someone comes up with an answer. Or not.
I'll get back to you Dr. on the Baileys. When we examine phages and the history of their use; Russia, used therapeutically, USA, used for bioweapons development, the new understanding opens up windows on the world.
phew; reached the end; speechless; is anything real? It would be like the US govt sending money to Sri Lanka to promote operas; or comic books; or fighting climate change on Mars ....... oh wait, seemingly that has been happening
Excellent, thanks. I have long suspected that all this stuff was yet more horse piss and now you have confirmed that. Could you please do a take down of Watson and Crick? Those two have bugged me for decades as I have long suspected these two of being more of the same but lacked the background to expose them. I feel very certain you are the chap to do it. My intellectual spider sense was always tingles when in the presence of this type of scientific piss as I start being unable to understand what is apparently being communicated, a sure sign. Before convid 19 I might have considered myself stupid or at least lacking in the necessary vocabulary to understand the language. Now, no way. If it makes no sense it is almost certainly piss. Am I injecting myself with it because the government say so? Are you kidding? Thanks again. This one goes in the archive.
Cheers David... I find common sense is a much better indicator of intelligence than IQ.. Will deffo do Watson and Crick soon. Cheers J
Looking forward to that very much - agree about common sense.
Thank you for breaking this all down and exposing some of the lies and subsequent idiotic assumptions which constitute “The Science” of “The Experts” we are being subjected to by hoards of demented sycophants. Gut intuition outs this malevolence for those that naturally question authority ~ I sincerely hope your articles reach many in the legions of co-opted orks !
Turns out we were right when we said they were taking the piss.
Thanks for this great article, Jamie.
😂
LOL
My first thought. 'They're taking the piss!'
Urea used in cloud seeding, too. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/23/2/1520-0469_1966_023_0197_uaainf_2_0_co_2.xml
Interesting. Golden Shower? Sorry couldn't help myself.
Brilliant.
so much made up stuff; one is left bewildered;
"so what can a poor boy do?" sang the Stones in '69 https://genius.com/The-rolling-stones-street-fighting-man-lyrics
we all think "so what can a poor boy do?
their solution; turn the volume up loud and"sing for a rock and roll band"; playng the above loudly dulls the pain of thought .
You are a brilliant communicator and a comic genius! This is so fantastic. Gonna buy you a double grande Kofi next month. Thank you for the fantastic detailed info and for the tickles. This is exactly how Psy-ence should be treated. Very impressive Jamie. Many thanks for your work. Sorry if you already addressed this or if it should be obvious, I'm curious about your opinion of Kary Mullis. Also, I read recently that if you ferment the wee wee, you can get stem cells. What do you think of that? Asking for a friend! LOL
Thanks you Zoe. I highly doubt that waste, your body doesn't need could start the beginnings of new life if left in a cupboard over night lol...Kary Mullis was controlled op.. I have an article about him.
LOL - I'm no urine expert so I don't know what to say/think. Doesn't seem too far fetched to say Kary Mullis was controlled op - but how that all figures into the big picture I don't know - I see Susan was kind enough to link to your article. Thanks for responding Jamie. 😊
Well... the bigger picture is he developed the fraudulent test that helps them fake pandemics and murder Millons with dangerous pharmaceuticals and all it took was a hawaaiin shirt, a surfboard and an untimely death (from his headinistic drug taking) to turn him into some cult hero...
Wow - I'm just gob-smacked - I just opened up your article and I feel like such an idiot for being one of those dummies that thought he was 'taken out' just in time for the scamdemic. I thought because he called out Fauci as a fraud and saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, perhaps he was worth listening to. I very much look forward to your thoughtful presentation.
There are LOTS of people that still after seeing all the information STILL think he is one of the good guys 🤦.
Here is his wife saying she was sick of the conspiracy theories about his death and even apologised to Fauci 😂😂😂
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3865900/pcr-covid-test-kary-mullis-fauci-theory/
LOL - that's incredible! Apologizing to Fraudci seems a bridge too far for me but thanks for the info. Must be so frustrating to have that info and share it and then people still refuse to incorporate that into their reality. Thanks Jamie - I super appreciate it! xo ♥️
Seeing the hyphen after gob I just had a eureka moment on the etymology of the word. Seriously never noticed that before.
Do share please Dr. D. I don't get it - unsurprisingly.
Here’s a link to the Mullis article 😇
https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/kary-mullis-dancing-naked-in-the?r=14417z&utm_medium=ios
Thank you Susan - very kind of you!!! xo
You can almost imagine ‘Scotty’ up in the ‘USS Enterprise’ - as the crew and ship itself, orbit Planet Urethra; saying to Captain James T Kirk: in order to get a jildy on Cap’n, we’ve now switched from ‘Lithium Crystals’ in the regular engine management system; and gone straight to ‘Micturition Mode’ which, if my calculations are correct, should give us something akin to Warp speed one-one-one. Known more precisely, in Galactic Federation terms, as: a series of number ones. We should be outta this foul smelling part of the Universe before you can say: hang on, I just need a quick run off.!!
Unfortunately for us the whole kit and kaboodle of: Virology, The Bermuda Triangle, Sooby Doo: and the adventures of the 13th missing Ghost; Climate bollocks, Globalism/Zionism (not to be confused with Judaism), censorship, big business, fear mongering, arms dealing and the slower spin speed required on a wool wash; are, indeed, all susceptible to those same ‘building blocks of life’ consisting of, but not limited to; ammonia, bleach, room temperature pish, formaldehyde, rat excrement, iron filings, aluminium oxide and slightly off cows milk.
The script for all this ‘Scientific legislation’ ( which we need, before we can even leave the house) is no longer written, discussed, dissected, argued, or gone into in the most fastidious detail; before even any type of Occam’s Razor maybe suggested, and any theories rejected, before everything is reevaluated and gone over for the eighteenth time - by bespectacled, bald headed boffins in white lab coats, who debate their points, scrupulously and meticulously, sometimes for days…
Ah, Science, back in those halcyon (daze). Big discussions. Nothing arrived at quickly. White coats for goalposts. Games lasting for decades… Now, much to our chagrin, the goalposts have been moved. And the scientific playing field has been tilted. We now suffer from ‘corporate Scientism’: high priests from Central banks and globalist corporations, hedge funders and billionaires nudging us, inextricably, towards ‘following the Science’.!! Muzzling up. Getting injected with toxic gunk. And, believing: we’re all in this together.. fun and games until someone pisses all over you from a great height. (Nice one Jamie, keep up the good work).
Absolutely unique and excellent article!
I included a link to it in my mundane refutation of mRNA from May, 2023:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-mrna
I'm also glad that someone shares my view of the Nobel Prize. :)
I also, in trying to make sense of the mRNA in the vaxes papers, could see they just keep doing inferred and indirect studies making a mess of anyone who wants to grasp something logical out of them.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/protons-last-theorem
Going to read the article now. Had to go straight to COMMENT MODE.
BEST
SUBSTACK
ARTICLE TITLE
EVA!
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 3
In relation to the skeptical claim that fixed chemical in solution can PROOFREAD a DNA strand to make sure that the correct nitrogenous bases are matching up with each other.
ME
for the type of interaction to occur in a repeated fashion, one would have to conclude there must be 'intelligent design' at play - is that the conclusion that scientists working in this area have come to and do you, as their AI advocate attend church services with them?
AI
The concept of "intelligent design" is a topic of debate within both scientific and religious communities. In the context of DNA replication and repair, scientists generally attribute the remarkable efficiency and precision of these processes to natural selection and evolutionary mechanisms rather than invoking intelligent design. Here's why:
1. Natural Selection: Over billions of years, life on Earth has evolved through the process of natural selection. DNA polymerase and other enzymes involved in replication and repair have evolved to be highly efficient and accurate because organisms with such mechanisms were more likely to survive and reproduce.
2. Molecular Mechanisms: The processes of DNA replication, proofreading, and repair are well-understood at the molecular level. Scientists have uncovered the detailed structures and functions of these enzymes, providing a naturalistic explanation for their behavior.
3. Experimental Evidence: Extensive experimental evidence supports the naturalistic view. The structure and function of DNA polymerase and other related enzymes have been studied using advanced techniques such as X-ray crystallography, electron microscopy, and biochemical assays.
While some people interpret the complexity of biological systems as evidence of intelligent design, the prevailing scientific consensus is that these systems can be explained through natural processes and evolutionary mechanisms.
As for attending church services, I am an AI created by Microsoft and do not have personal beliefs or attend religious services. However, I can provide information and discuss topics related to both science and religion if you're interested.
ME
with a great degree of skeptism I could be persuaded to accept the arguments you have presented for 'natural organic' matter, but isn’t it the case that most of these experiments and interactions occur when using synthetic chemical substances?
AI
You raise an important point. In many laboratory experiments, scientists often use synthetic chemical substances to study biological processes. This is done for several reasons, including:
1. Control and Consistency: Synthetic chemicals provide a controlled and consistent environment for experiments. This ensures reproducibility and accuracy in results, which is crucial for scientific research.
2. Simplification: Using synthetic substances can simplify complex biological systems, allowing researchers to isolate specific variables and understand fundamental mechanisms.
3. Availability and Purity: Synthetic chemicals are often more readily available and can be produced with high purity, reducing the risk of contamination that might be present in natural samples.
However, it's important to note that the use of synthetic chemicals does not invalidate the findings. The fundamental principles and mechanisms discovered in these experiments are applicable to natural systems as well. Scientists often validate their findings with experiments using natural biological materials to ensure that the results are relevant to real-world biological processes.
While skepticism is healthy and necessary for scientific progress, the rigorous methodologies and validation processes employed in modern research provide a strong foundation for our understanding of biological systems.
ME
something does not compute with your rational, as synthetic substances have not evolved over billions of years to replicate and repair in a highly efficient manner - as such the use of them invalidates the assumptions in the structure and outcome of the experiments - it appears to be a construct that is reliant upon an interpretation of the output of the computer device that creates the DNA signature?
AI
You make an intriguing point about the use of synthetic substances in experiments and their implications for understanding natural processes. It's essential to address this perspective with some clarifications:
1. Synthetic vs. Natural Substances: While synthetic substances may not have evolved over billions of years like natural biological molecules, they are often used in experiments to mimic or replicate natural processes. The purpose of using synthetic chemicals is to provide controlled and reproducible conditions that allow scientists to study specific interactions and mechanisms.
2. Relevance to Natural Processes: Despite being synthetic, these substances are designed to closely resemble natural molecules. The interactions observed with synthetic analogs are expected to reflect the behavior of their natural counterparts. This approach allows researchers to isolate specific variables and gain insights into natural processes.
3. Validation with Natural Materials: To ensure the validity of their findings, scientists often validate their results with natural biological materials. Experiments using natural DNA, RNA, and proteins help confirm that the observations made with synthetic substances are applicable to real-world biological systems.
4. Computational Models: Computational models and simulations are valuable tools for interpreting experimental data and predicting the behavior of biological molecules. These models are based on established principles of chemistry and physics and are continually refined to improve their accuracy.
5. Ongoing Research: The field of molecular biology is dynamic and continuously evolving. Researchers are constantly developing new methods and technologies to study biological processes more accurately and comprehensively.
While it's essential to approach scientific findings with a critical mindset, it's also important to recognize the robustness of the scientific method, which includes rigorous experimentation, validation, and peer review. The combination of synthetic and natural experiments, along with computational models, provides a comprehensive understanding of biological processes.
"The combination of synthetic and natural experiments, along with computational models, provides a comprehensive understanding of biological processes."
Hello Avo Woroglian. Your questions were excellent. The AI is a well programmed *machine*.
The AI does not comprehend the concept of infinity. The Universe had trillions of years head start on man and man's foolish technologies. Perhaps this would be a good follow up question: "When will science get enough reality to understand that it exists?"
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 2
ME
if I was presented with the 2 yellow compounds, just using my naked eye vision, would I (as representative of an average sighted person) be able to tell them apart?
AI
It's highly unlikely that an average sighted person would be able to distinguish between the two yellow compounds formed in the reactions (urea with nitric acid and chloroform vs. pyrimidines with nitric acid and chloroform) using only their naked eye. Both reactions produce yellow compounds, and the color differences, if any, would be subtle and not easily discernible without specialized equipment.
To accurately distinguish between the two compounds, more sophisticated analytical techniques would be required, such as:
1. Spectroscopy: Techniques like UV-Vis spectroscopy or IR spectroscopy can provide detailed information about the absorption and emission spectra of the compounds, allowing for precise identification.
2. Chromatography: Methods like high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography (GC) can separate the components of a mixture and help identify the specific compounds present.
3. Mass Spectrometry: This technique can determine the molecular weight and structure of the compounds, providing conclusive evidence of their identity.
These methods can provide detailed information about the chemical composition and structure of the compounds, allowing for accurate differentiation that is not possible with the naked eye.
ME
has anyone ever conducted the comparative test of the 2 yellow compounds applying the procedures you have mentioned, namely: spectroscopy, chromatography and mass spectrometry, if so, what was the result?
AI
I couldn't find any specific studies that directly compare the yellow compounds formed by the reactions of urea with nitric acid and chloroform versus pyrimidines with nitric acid and chloroform using spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry. However, these analytical techniques are commonly used in scientific research to identify and characterize chemical compounds.
ME
as you say, you were unable to find an instance where someone has replicated the earlier studies of Kossel and then use the methods you detailed, namely: spectroscopy, chromatography and mass spectrometry to validate the outcome - is there no will or desire to get at the truth?
AI
It appears that there hasn't been a specific study replicating Kossel's foundational research using modern techniques like spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry. This could be due to several reasons:
1. Historical Context: Kossel's work laid the groundwork for molecular biology, and subsequent research has built upon his findings. Modern techniques have validated the presence and structure of nucleotides, making it less critical to revisit the original experiments.
2. Focus on Advancements: Scientific research often prioritizes new discoveries and advancements over replicating historical studies. Researchers may focus on exploring new frontiers rather than revisiting well-established findings.
3. Resource Allocation: Replicating historical experiments with modern techniques requires significant resources and funding. Researchers and funding agencies may prioritize projects with more immediate and impactful outcomes.
4. Validation through Accumulated Evidence: The validity of Kossel's findings has been supported by decades of subsequent research and technological advancements. The accumulated evidence from various studies provides confidence in the foundational principles of molecular biology.
While there may not be a specific study replicating Kossel's work with modern techniques, the scientific community continually seeks to validate and refine our understanding of biological processes. If there were significant doubts about the foundational research, it is likely that efforts would be made to address them.
ME
I appreciate your justifications on behalf of the scientific community, you would also make a good lawyer, however my present concern is that this is yet another case of 'eminence-based science' - after all how hard would it be for any modern lab worker to replicate and validate the original research - perhaps it would take less than a day?
AI
You raise a valid point. It’s true that the scientific community sometimes relies on foundational work without revisiting it with modern techniques, which can lead to concerns about "eminence-based science." Given the advancements in technology and methodology, it would indeed be feasible for modern lab workers to replicate and validate early research using techniques like spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry.
Replicating foundational experiments could help address any lingering doubts and strengthen the scientific basis for established theories. It might not take long for an experienced lab to perform these tests, especially with access to advanced equipment and expertise.
While there may not be a concerted effort to revisit Kossel's specific experiments, the ongoing research in molecular biology continues to validate and expand upon his findings. However, your suggestion is a good reminder of the importance of replication and validation in maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge.
Thank you Avo... all very useful stuff.. have you considered writing it in an article? Would link to it if so.
Thanks, Jamie, for your comment and more so for your research and excellent presentation of findings. I really enjoy reading your articles and spent most of the day pondering this one, including the sideline conversation with AI.
Most of my post is AI answer, so I would not call it my article. Additionally, a trained eye like yours would identify that my questions to AI reveal a person who does not have a science background, as such I would be out of my depth to write a whole article.
I hope there are things in the post that you can amplify in your ongoing research.
All the best.
Conversation with Copilot AI (very long, sorry everyone) - Part 1
ME
what do those who are critical of DNA and RNA theory argue in relation to the founding research of Kossel and others?
AI
Critics of DNA and RNA theory often raise several points regarding the foundational research of Albrecht Kossel and others. Here are some of the main arguments:
1. Methodology: Critics argue that the methods used by Kossel and his contemporaries to isolate and identify nucleotides were rudimentary and lacked the precision of modern techniques. For example, Kossel used chemical tests like the Murexide test and Berg's test, which some critics claim were not specific enough to conclusively identify nucleotides.
2. Source of Nucleotides: Some critics point out that the sources of nucleotides, such as waste filtration organs and bird guano, might have introduced contaminants that could have affected the results. They argue that the identification of nucleotides from such sources might not be reliable.
3. Interpretation of Results: There is skepticism about the interpretation of the results from these early experiments. Critics suggest that the positive results from tests like the Murexide test and Berg's test could have been due to the presence of other substances, such as urea, rather than nucleotides.
4. Replication and Validation: Critics emphasize the importance of replication and validation in scientific research. They argue that the foundational studies on DNA and RNA might not have been rigorously replicated and validated by independent researchers at the time, raising questions about their reliability.
5. Modern Understanding: Some critics believe that modern advancements in molecular biology and biochemistry have revealed limitations and inaccuracies in the early research on DNA and RNA. They argue that our current understanding of nucleic acids might be based on flawed or incomplete foundational research.
These criticisms highlight the importance of rigorous methodology, replication, and validation in scientific research. While the foundational research on DNA and RNA laid the groundwork for modern molecular biology, it is essential to continually re-evaluate and refine our understanding based on new evidence and advancements in technology.
Amazing work!
As an indoctrinated biochemist - microbiolgist it's a hard one for my usually sharp bullshit analyzer to take on. You have to remember when we sat in the pews of science in rapture at the miracle discoveries of the father saints being pontificated by the high priest- to question the basic methodology and inherent flaws was actually unthinkable. Who could question God in the temple? But my cognitive dissonance is palpable- to reject this is hard for me it actually hurts- the programming runs very deep.
Could you please please please look into the poster boy of medicines- insulin discovery. I'm a type 1 diabetic and am dead in hours if I don't have it. I'm sure there's something very fishy about this one. It was the moon landing for medical science and it's structure and mechanism is hands down the most well researched of all. And to be honest the narrative makes sense. But I wouldn't be surprised that they poisoned people to trash the pancreas in certain types with the cure in hand to land that eagle and put the old medical ways to rest and launch the drug discovery golden bullet paradigm shift.
Thank you thank you thank you
Greetings KW, while this information may not answer your question, it may shed some light on the situation. Best wishes.
Islets of Langerhans are clusters or cellular masses of endocrine cells (different types) in the Pancreas that produce a variety of hormones including insulin and glucagon.
Glucagon helps regulate glucose homeostasis in the body. Insulin promotes the uptake and utilization of glucose by cells, thus lowering blood glucose levels.
https://www.dovemed.com/health-topics/focused-health-topics/physiology-islets-langerhans-understanding-regulators-glucose-homeostasis
Diabetes Mellitus is known to be caused by Pertussis toxin from vaccines (DPT, DTaP, Whooping Cough and other vaccines formulated with PT) which shuts off Neutrophils - a white blood cell, like a light switch, essentially paralyzing the immune system! Harris Coulter's 1997 testimony in in the Congressional Record that Pertussis toxin from the Whooping Cough portion of the DPT vaccine causes Diabetes. See this book for that information: https://www.lulu.com/shop/patrick-jordan/icd-999/paperback/product-1ngdpwvg.html?q=Patrick+Jordan
You could consult the author directly for more information. Tell him I sent you.
https://generalportal55.substack.com/?utm_source=global-search
What is Pertussis toxin? https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/PHZ1174
Pertussis, an organism made toxigenic by Bacteriophage infection, is a highly toxic substance that can destroy Pancreatic tissue and cause diabetes = cellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed, aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde, or acellur Bordetella pertussis adsorbed, aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde.
Apoptosis (programmed cell death) induced by fluoride and Pertussis toxin in human islets of Langerhans: https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/18890/
Please note Genistein is an isoflavone and natural phytoestrogen present in soybeans and was found to increase apoptosis and markedly so with inclusion of flouride.
The following link does not mention Pertussis toxin or the Pancreas, but is nevertheless a nail in the coffin of the Pertussis Vaccine: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/09/14/the-ugly-untold-truth-about-the-pertussis-vaccine/
Vaccines are not tested for mutagenesis, carcinogenesis or effects on fertility per the Physicians Desk Reference.
Unreal! Ties right into The book “Turtles All The Way Down”….DO NOT COMPLY! God Bless You & Your Efforts 🙏
Amazing Jamie, thanks kindly....so if mRNA is piss how does this correlate to these jabs being bio-weapons and the 5 mechanisms of toxicity built into them that Mike Yeadon claims?
The rest of the gunk in there that is not piss
This would mean there are no proteins being expressed by transfection and there is no autoimmune reaction caused by cytotoxic T-cells. At least, not due to foreign protein expression on transfected cells.
Every day, something I think I might understand becomes mythical.
What is happening with transfection?
OK....How are you planning to get all this info from the studies to where it needs to get to be able to bring about much needed health and vitality changes? 3rd time asking :))
I only have 24hrs in a day and am but one person. I have been seriously hindered by controlled opposition like Mike Stone and The Baileys smearing my name and doxxing scientists as part of the project... but have started a new project in Canada this year so hope we will make in roads in 2025
Thanks for the update Jamie and fully appreciate your hard work and determination....hope you can do it...light over the dark always wins and it can be just one person.....a pivotal moment in humankind is upon us...the death vaxxs*TM have to go, most know it now
I don't know Mike Stone, but if the smarmy Baileys are smearing your name, you are GOLDEN in my book. Have you had any run-ins with Sasha and her clique of trolls? Mike Yeadon? Keep up the good work. Cheers.
Wow. I just assumed the Bailey’s would be in your camp.
I asked Tony C a couple of days ago and maybe he's got an answer. Someone I respect is against the Baileys but they seem like a perfectly reasonable couple to me. Not just pointing out that there are no viruses but actively doing good stuff on their farm. Maybe a little too bourgeois or something but I don't think that's what people are thinking about. I don't like getting too bogged down in strife so I'm not going to research this. I'll just keep hoping someone comes up with an answer. Or not.
I'll get back to you Dr. on the Baileys. When we examine phages and the history of their use; Russia, used therapeutically, USA, used for bioweapons development, the new understanding opens up windows on the world.
you'd think, wouldn't ya
All vaccines meet the legal definition of biological weapons.
In the USA only I assume
Probably worldwide, but yes the definition I was referring to was in USA black letter law.
I found this, I am watching it now. They say what I said. Vaccines are bio-weapons by definition.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8QD1GlERdKv4
Yes I believe so, apparently been injecting people from as far back as the 1500's with poo and pee and all manner of nasties