Thank you, thank you thank you! Your work is much appreciated. I've added this (along with your Jan 31 article) to a summary of reports on this subject for researchers and truth-tellers who can use it:
Farcical, Fraudulent Use of PCR Testing for Diagnosis, Case Counts & Contagion
Great article Jamie, I had never quite appreciated a) that the supposed mechanical way these enzymes are working makes little sense when they are in solution and b) that they supposedly exhibit exemplary patience and obedience, working in a nice sequential way when they are all part of the same solution…
All factors being the same in a series of PCR reactions, I guess the question is WHAT is the characteristic of the different samples that causes the exponential phase to happen earlier than others… but I’m sure you’ll get to it ;)
This is all way above my grade level, but I do understand what Jamie is getting at. I’m a visual learner, as I suppose many people are, so those cartoons are designed to satisfy our basic needs. But those visualizations are based on things that NOBODY has seen , so how do they know that’s what is happening? It’s like the pretty creative art depicting the coronavirus. I’m willing to bet a lot of people believe that is what a “virus” looks like. They are the same people who think Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the last supper is like a photograph of that event.
I have higher degrees in microbiology- convid compelled me to take a look at viruses and based on the evidence virology and contagion is fraudulent- but now I am questioning genomics- and every sacred truth we were taught- photosynthesis- the Krebs cycle - stem cells- i spent 3 years in a lab making transgenic flies- in hindsight I realize how all recombinant DNA techniques could all be deceptive in some way and the results we were seeing could be explained away through something in the medium or substrate. It's possible that all cloning was a deception. Any GMO strains of life could simply be a result of cross breeding using the same techniques as dog breeding. The scale of the deception is staggering- like a movie with a radical plot twist in the last scene that inverts the whole plot
Okay, thanks Jamie. I love you, but you make my head hurt😖 I’ll read it 7 more times and see if my brain can take it in & sort it out. This is certainly not my gift or my forte, but I do appreciate, and try to understand, your work 👍🏼
It would be interesting to see a PhD try to respond to your points, one by one. Have you attempted to engage with any of the defenders of this supposed dogma?
I leave this information open for any criticism.. 1000s of "phd's" have had superficial criticisms but none have ever provided a full scientific rebuttal.
Thank you so much! I've already followed your posts on virus isolation and your investigations, and despite the complexity of the topic, you managed to expose the scam even to a layperson.
I also find this post about PCR very interesting—the tool of fake diagnosis that Christian Drosten used to build the pandemic narrative (with his article on Eurosurveillance on January 23, 2020).
I'll need to read it a few more times to fully grasp it, but one thing already comes to mind: every time a Nobel Prize is awarded, a scam is probably in the making... it might be a great clue to predict the future!
Corman & Drosten fabricated a test from a procedure which was NEVER a test. The whole thing has been debunked by many eminent and genuine scientists. Tedros then promulgated the myth as part of the convid psy-op.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. They are using components of bacteria to test to see if bacteria is present. But they are introducing components of bacteria so even if bacteria wasn’t present, they have introduced it as part of the test so the test always comes up positive? That might sound stupid. I hope I’m not way off but I’m just trying to boil this down to something I can understand and share. I got the part about how they identify things (enzymes for example) as being present by introducing other things that produce the same effect as the thing they are looking for would produce. Then claiming that the predictably similar result is proof that the thing they were looking for is present. Sounds more like gaslighting than science. Do I have any of this right?
Lol... imagine if they were getting those enzymes from hot pond scuzz too..
I appreciate you going into the details because I don't have the patience reading sci fi pseudoscience.
The basic premise of PCR makes no freaking sense.
Amplifying is not a digital exact copy. After so many copies of copies, it's full of static.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/pcr-fails-logic-from-the-start-sorry
Thank you, thank you thank you! Your work is much appreciated. I've added this (along with your Jan 31 article) to a summary of reports on this subject for researchers and truth-tellers who can use it:
Farcical, Fraudulent Use of PCR Testing for Diagnosis, Case Counts & Contagion
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/farcical-fraudulent-use-of-pcr-testing
It's put into context of more than 750 reports here:
Covid-19 Reporting Corruption & Fraud – Censorship & Suppression of Evidence & Testimony – Measurement and Data Integrity Issues – Misinformation & Manipulation of Reporting – Propaganda & Narrative Control
https://birdseyeview.xyz/research-and-testimony-library/covid-19-virus-a-summary-of-independent-reports-on-the-virus-governments-response-to-it/covid-19-virus-testing-measurement-reporting-censorship/
They just attach imaginary stories to chemical reactions. They certainly want to complicate things so that it would not be easy to expose the fraud.
Great article Jamie, I had never quite appreciated a) that the supposed mechanical way these enzymes are working makes little sense when they are in solution and b) that they supposedly exhibit exemplary patience and obedience, working in a nice sequential way when they are all part of the same solution…
All factors being the same in a series of PCR reactions, I guess the question is WHAT is the characteristic of the different samples that causes the exponential phase to happen earlier than others… but I’m sure you’ll get to it ;)
Thanks Dan, yes hopefully we can uncover that mystery together as we step through all of the pieces of the puzzle.
This is all way above my grade level, but I do understand what Jamie is getting at. I’m a visual learner, as I suppose many people are, so those cartoons are designed to satisfy our basic needs. But those visualizations are based on things that NOBODY has seen , so how do they know that’s what is happening? It’s like the pretty creative art depicting the coronavirus. I’m willing to bet a lot of people believe that is what a “virus” looks like. They are the same people who think Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the last supper is like a photograph of that event.
When everything the People know is wrong.... Good work breaking the fabrications apart!
As I’ve said many times before, I’m no STEM person but even I can understand this article.
Thank you Jamie for making this accessible to all of us ❤️
Thank you Susan.
Really enjoyed my first chemistry lecture and the mock
even more, drove the message home way better !
I have higher degrees in microbiology- convid compelled me to take a look at viruses and based on the evidence virology and contagion is fraudulent- but now I am questioning genomics- and every sacred truth we were taught- photosynthesis- the Krebs cycle - stem cells- i spent 3 years in a lab making transgenic flies- in hindsight I realize how all recombinant DNA techniques could all be deceptive in some way and the results we were seeing could be explained away through something in the medium or substrate. It's possible that all cloning was a deception. Any GMO strains of life could simply be a result of cross breeding using the same techniques as dog breeding. The scale of the deception is staggering- like a movie with a radical plot twist in the last scene that inverts the whole plot
Okay, thanks Jamie. I love you, but you make my head hurt😖 I’ll read it 7 more times and see if my brain can take it in & sort it out. This is certainly not my gift or my forte, but I do appreciate, and try to understand, your work 👍🏼
It would be interesting to see a PhD try to respond to your points, one by one. Have you attempted to engage with any of the defenders of this supposed dogma?
I leave this information open for any criticism.. 1000s of "phd's" have had superficial criticisms but none have ever provided a full scientific rebuttal.
I notice he liked your question but didn't respond to it. I wonder why?
What about LaunDrY dEterGenT with EnZymEs? May be fake, but it's good business: Novozymes market cap is $24 bn.
Good point! So are the so called enzymes truly non-existent? Just wow!!!
"Willy". LOL
Thank you so much! I've already followed your posts on virus isolation and your investigations, and despite the complexity of the topic, you managed to expose the scam even to a layperson.
I also find this post about PCR very interesting—the tool of fake diagnosis that Christian Drosten used to build the pandemic narrative (with his article on Eurosurveillance on January 23, 2020).
I'll need to read it a few more times to fully grasp it, but one thing already comes to mind: every time a Nobel Prize is awarded, a scam is probably in the making... it might be a great clue to predict the future!
Corman & Drosten fabricated a test from a procedure which was NEVER a test. The whole thing has been debunked by many eminent and genuine scientists. Tedros then promulgated the myth as part of the convid psy-op.
This is very old news.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. They are using components of bacteria to test to see if bacteria is present. But they are introducing components of bacteria so even if bacteria wasn’t present, they have introduced it as part of the test so the test always comes up positive? That might sound stupid. I hope I’m not way off but I’m just trying to boil this down to something I can understand and share. I got the part about how they identify things (enzymes for example) as being present by introducing other things that produce the same effect as the thing they are looking for would produce. Then claiming that the predictably similar result is proof that the thing they were looking for is present. Sounds more like gaslighting than science. Do I have any of this right?
Yes that's it... gaslighting instead of science