The Control as part of the Scientific Method has been worn away by attrition over the last Century or two whereby in most modern scientific publications it is rarely given any sort of notice.
"... I have never seen one with a specific methodology FOR the control,it is just assumed that it has been performed adequately."
I have also never seen this - aside from Dr Harold Hillman's work but he was also more or less making the this point. If having a control methodology section was required for publication and peer review, I rate accepted science would look a lot different today.
This project is going to be an epic example of how science should be carried out, first of its kind - easily understandable and accessible to all (for its betterment or it's decline).
"Standards are written very generally, rarely specifying exactly how to construct a control. It is specified more that positive and negative control should be used."
-- correspondence in 2023 with SIS about virology validation (Swedish Institute for Standards)
It’s timely you should write this article. Just yesterday I had a discussion on Anthony Colpo’s brilliant piece on virology, with a young woman in the comments who is not on board with team no-virus and claimed to have ‘seen’ contagion occur on many occasions. I gently explained to her (doing my best Tom Cowan imitation) that she had merely observed something that she assumed to be contagion because that is what she’d been told. I then explained that to prove that what she’d observed was contagion she’d have to carry out an experiment with at least one control. She doubled down, saying she didn’t need to do an experiment, she’d ‘seen’ it. So I replied that, unless she’d seen a microscopic particle pass from a sick person to a healthy person and make the healthy person sick, she’d seen no such thing. She liked that comment and did not reply. I then posted the link to Tom’s video from June 26, where he masterfully describes the illogic of assuming contagion, yet again. I hope I caused a small crack in her certainty and started another journey into the world of critical thinking 🤷🏻♀️
Jamie, I guess this proves Unicorns will neither cause nor prevent sunburn. Sunscreen producers can breath easy that Unicorns will not compete for their business. Gates' sun dimming though may wreck the sunscreen business and the Ray Ban business at the same time. We'll have to control for that next episode.
“If a component of a process is not adequately controlled or refuted by controls, it loses its relevance and validity. This is then a falsification of the component. I illustrate how a lack of controls can have a negative impact throughout a process chain:
A) No controls are in place. This lays the foundation for potential errors that can go undetected in the later stages.
B) The subsequent participant does not check the results of the first stage and continues to build on this uncertain basis, falsely assuming that the previous results are correct.
C) The ongoing deficiencies accumulate, leading to further inconsistencies and exacerbating the errors of the original process.
D) Others notice the inconsistencies and repeat the first stage process, this time with adequate controls, and find that the original observed effect is not specific or reproducible.
This chain of events shows that without proper verification and control of the individual steps, the end result can be not only flawed but also misleading. The implementation of scientifically prescribed control experiments is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of any process.
A part of a scientific study can be refuted by falsification if the falsification itself or subsequent investigations show that the original results were flawed or the methods were flawed.
If scientific work builds on one another without the underlying evidence being comprehensively examined and confirmed in a coherent framework, this can lead to a chain reaction of errors. Any research based on it could be on shaky ground, jeopardizing the reliability and credibility of the entire chain of knowledge. This problem is particularly serious in areas where flawed initial studies are cited and reused without being checked, perpetuating the errors and potentially leading to incorrect conclusions or ineffective technologies or policies developed based on these results.”
I have been a practicing veterinarian for 35+ years, and have seen over and over the irreparable harm that vaccines cause in our pets. Currently, the rabies vaccine mandates are over the top as many clinics will not let even a sick pet in without updated vaccinations.
I am gathering information to try to stop this madness, including an attempt to change the laws in my state.
I am wondering if you have any rabies-specific information that would further falsify its existence. I have the historical information on Pasteur and how the whole narrative started, but anything more concrete would be really helpful.
I just made a donation on The Way Forward towards your work, and I'm certain I can rally more funds if you are able to provide more information on the rabies issue. There are many very frustrated pet parents out there.
Thank you for reaching out to me, for your kind words and your generous donation!
Rabies is really their favorite old school virus bought to you by their King of Germ Fraud Mr. Pasteur himself. It is very hard to get away from that name here in France as nearly all towns and cities have at least one road or street with his name on it.
Now when it comes to Rabies it is isolated ONLY by Cell Culture. The beauty of this project is that if you know how to represent the studies it isn't "virus" specific.
The falsification of the initial step of isolation means that EVERY point of reference downstream is bought into disrepute.
Rabies is classically "Immunostained" for "Antibodies" to verify a culture. However if you don't know WHAT you are looking for it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what "antigen" it *should* pair with.
This is a long winded way of refuting it but one that we have right now.
We are however doing control studies of Antibodies and Immunostaining processes which would add to your case.
Ontop of this when we do more TEM I will keep a keen eye out for "Rabies" looking particles and also we will be cross refencing for ALL "viral" genomes when conducting our genetics controls.
We will be releasing a pack on HOW to use this data, in a legal manner when we have collected all the data.
In the mean time I am happy to talk via email, if you want to drop your address here, to explain further.
Kudos to you for standing up against this, it really is the essence of the project and I hope I can help you achieve your goals.
Thanks Jamie, I would be very interested to learn more. From what I see on the CDC website, the fluorescent antibody test is the standard for rabies testing in animals, but they only do it on brain tissue, so the animal has to be destroyed to test for something that never existed in the first place! It is all so very barbaric.
A Nature Methods article, "Defining the scientific method," attempts to redefine the scientific method, including the argument that the scientific method itself is unnecessary.
"The rise of 'omics' methods and data-driven research [...] stimulates disagreement over how science should be conducted and even how it should be defined."
The article asks if "Modern biological research methods [...] are altering the nature of scientific inquiry?"
Then goes on to correctly state, "the scientific method involves a question and suggested explanation (hypothesis) based on observation, followed by the careful design and execution of controlled experiments, and finally validation, refinement or rejection of this hypothesis."
They then argue against this definition, citing data generated by the Human Genome Project.
"The Human Genome Project was considered by many at the time to be a serious break with the notion that proper biological research must be hypothesis-driven. But the project proceeded because others successfully argued that it would yield information vital for understanding human biology."
They then make a leap of logic to argue that the Human Genome Project which involved direct sequencing of isolated human DNA and followed the scientific method, makes a case for biological models to replace traditional hypothesis-based scientific method.
"Methodological developments are now making it possible to obtain massive amounts of 'omics' data on a variety of biological constituents. These immense datasets allow biologists to generate useful predictions (for example, gene-finding and function or protein structure and function) using machine learning and statistics that do not take into account the underlying mechanisms that dictate design and function—considerations that would form the basis of a traditional hypothesis."
But, to take it one step further (with a leap of logic,) they reach their final conclusion, that the Human Genome example leads naturally against data driven traditional experimentation:
"Now that the bias against data-driven investigation has weakened, the desire to simplify 'omics' data reuse has led to the establishment of minimal information requirements for different types of primary data. The hope is that this will allow new analyses and predictions using aggregated data from disparate experiments."
And to further their argument against actual experiment-based science, they play the "expert" card arguing that even the model method is outdated and that causation and correlation ought be considered equally valid:
"Last summer, the editor-in-chief of Wired, Chris Anderson, went so far as to argue that biology is too complex for hypotheses and models, and that the classical scientific method is dead. Instead, he called for these methods to be replaced by powerful correlative analyses of massive amounts of data."
So, a leading scientific journal openly advocates for pseudoscience to replace true science. Are we surprised? Haven't they already made acceptance of pseudoscience standard practice?
Great article, Jamie! Lots of good points. But it could be even better if it were edited for grammar, because a number of things are hard to follow.
Reading it through again carefully you may see what I mean. Here are a couple things to look out for:
1) Run on sentences that make things unclear
2) Twice you use the phase: "falsified the hypothesis that Unicorns don’t cause sunburns."
But the hypothesis that has been falsified is that unicorns DO cause sunburns.
There are other things that are unclear where I can't decipher your meaning. If these things can be cleared up, I would consider reposting this article, if that's good by you.
By the way, I'm very excited about the work you are doing with the control experiments. Can't wait to see more updates!
I have been so used to writing threads on Twitter for the past 4 years I think it has warped my English literacy skills.
Just getting used to Substack, which thus far has been quite buggy. I can’t seem to write on the phone app as it constantly deletes passages and does all sorts of weird things.
When I write on my desktop, it doesn’t run a spell checker before I publish, I have to publish THEN edit and only then does it run a spell checker.
I have a problem with my phone connection right now and I kept thinking my comments weren't getting sent and trying to resend them. Later I discovered multiple messages were sent.
"We can’t even get past hurdle one with Virology it has NO Independent Variable as shown by OUR Control Studies Falsifying the Cell Culture Isolation Methodology."
Well, Drosten was accused for fraud in science and fabrication. Unfortunately, there is no more responses eventhough she (her colleagues) is responsible to investigate the Drosten's fabrication. Probably she doesn't want to lose her job so she is silent.
Of course, if she doesn't obey, she will lose her position. She is just another oppotunistic order follower, co-responsible for the deaths of millions due to upholding the germ theory lies.
There were cases against virologists inside Research Integrity (RI) Offices in Germany, United Kingdom, WHO, France and few more countries. Basically, RIs didn't want to start investigation, or started something like sharing informations with relevant departments but without logical solutions to stop fabrication. A lot of variety of excuses :)) There are fancy answers:
1. We don't want to interfere scientific discourse.
2. Absence of controls do not constitute enough fabrication.
3. Our scientists are not obligated to check genome assembly.
4. We are not obligated to answer to semi-anonimus messages.
5. Be sure, our departments will do everything neccessary.
Court cases are useless since the court system is part of the governmental system, which is the root of all problems. Reason is that government is what enables "the controllers" behind the scenes to oppress the people.
Hi Jamie, a while back Rod suggested I ask you about this case of Chimeric woman and using DNA to prove it. If this comment isn't right for this thread you can delete it and reply on the thread it is in here:
If there is no way to determine with certainty that a cell culture is without virus particles BEFORE the experiment, the experiment is over before it has begun.
Those in the pro virus camp who are now desperately trying to categorise the results (CPE in a cell culture to which a patient sample was never added) are talking out of their asses.
In future, so-called virology will boil down to statements like this: may be, may not be, possibly, possibly not, unclear, clearly ambiguous.
In other words, everything as before. Pure arbitrariness and room for interpretation from the vastness of the Grand Canyon, conservatively estimated.
Jamie, on donations: https://thewayfwrd.com/donate/ only contains mainstream donation options. You know what happened to people who donated to the truckers in Canada, right? I'd love to donate, but only through Monero (or another privacy-centered crypto, but Monero (XMR) is preferred).
Hi, Yes I understand. We were going initially just to set up a go-fund-me but opted not to for that reason that someone would probably dox us and get funds frozen.
We can accept Bitcoin. I am not too sure how Monero works but we can work something out. If you want to leave an email if you would like to talk in private?
HI Jamie, love to talk more. I've asked someone we both know to share my email address with you. Or, if you have an email address you can publicly post, please do so here.
This is such a good point -
"... I have never seen one with a specific methodology FOR the control,it is just assumed that it has been performed adequately."
I have also never seen this - aside from Dr Harold Hillman's work but he was also more or less making the this point. If having a control methodology section was required for publication and peer review, I rate accepted science would look a lot different today.
This is the difference and the point to this project in essence.
We are not trying to appeal to the scientific community with this project, such as convince them of anything or indeed get it published.
We are doing something MUCH greater which is documenting EVERY part of the Methodology in written AND video format.. you can SEE it take place.
This is FOR everyone and should satisfy the logical of mind and the scrutiny of The People.
I envisage this as a much better, Truer and more useful way of conducting Science for the 21st Century.
Brilliant!
This project is going to be an epic example of how science should be carried out, first of its kind - easily understandable and accessible to all (for its betterment or it's decline).
Love it ❤️!
Laboratory work and laboratory personnel will be in a video?
Correct
Amazing ❤❤❤
"Standards are written very generally, rarely specifying exactly how to construct a control. It is specified more that positive and negative control should be used."
-- correspondence in 2023 with SIS about virology validation (Swedish Institute for Standards)
It’s timely you should write this article. Just yesterday I had a discussion on Anthony Colpo’s brilliant piece on virology, with a young woman in the comments who is not on board with team no-virus and claimed to have ‘seen’ contagion occur on many occasions. I gently explained to her (doing my best Tom Cowan imitation) that she had merely observed something that she assumed to be contagion because that is what she’d been told. I then explained that to prove that what she’d observed was contagion she’d have to carry out an experiment with at least one control. She doubled down, saying she didn’t need to do an experiment, she’d ‘seen’ it. So I replied that, unless she’d seen a microscopic particle pass from a sick person to a healthy person and make the healthy person sick, she’d seen no such thing. She liked that comment and did not reply. I then posted the link to Tom’s video from June 26, where he masterfully describes the illogic of assuming contagion, yet again. I hope I caused a small crack in her certainty and started another journey into the world of critical thinking 🤷🏻♀️
Jamie, I guess this proves Unicorns will neither cause nor prevent sunburn. Sunscreen producers can breath easy that Unicorns will not compete for their business. Gates' sun dimming though may wreck the sunscreen business and the Ray Ban business at the same time. We'll have to control for that next episode.
Also a good post on Next Level.
Telegram Translate:
“If a component of a process is not adequately controlled or refuted by controls, it loses its relevance and validity. This is then a falsification of the component. I illustrate how a lack of controls can have a negative impact throughout a process chain:
A) No controls are in place. This lays the foundation for potential errors that can go undetected in the later stages.
B) The subsequent participant does not check the results of the first stage and continues to build on this uncertain basis, falsely assuming that the previous results are correct.
C) The ongoing deficiencies accumulate, leading to further inconsistencies and exacerbating the errors of the original process.
D) Others notice the inconsistencies and repeat the first stage process, this time with adequate controls, and find that the original observed effect is not specific or reproducible.
This chain of events shows that without proper verification and control of the individual steps, the end result can be not only flawed but also misleading. The implementation of scientifically prescribed control experiments is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of any process.
A part of a scientific study can be refuted by falsification if the falsification itself or subsequent investigations show that the original results were flawed or the methods were flawed.
If scientific work builds on one another without the underlying evidence being comprehensively examined and confirmed in a coherent framework, this can lead to a chain reaction of errors. Any research based on it could be on shaky ground, jeopardizing the reliability and credibility of the entire chain of knowledge. This problem is particularly serious in areas where flawed initial studies are cited and reused without being checked, perpetuating the errors and potentially leading to incorrect conclusions or ineffective technologies or policies developed based on these results.”
Hi Jamie,
I have been a practicing veterinarian for 35+ years, and have seen over and over the irreparable harm that vaccines cause in our pets. Currently, the rabies vaccine mandates are over the top as many clinics will not let even a sick pet in without updated vaccinations.
I am gathering information to try to stop this madness, including an attempt to change the laws in my state.
I am wondering if you have any rabies-specific information that would further falsify its existence. I have the historical information on Pasteur and how the whole narrative started, but anything more concrete would be really helpful.
I just made a donation on The Way Forward towards your work, and I'm certain I can rally more funds if you are able to provide more information on the rabies issue. There are many very frustrated pet parents out there.
Thanks for all you do!
Judy Jasek, DVM
Hi Judy,
Thank you for reaching out to me, for your kind words and your generous donation!
Rabies is really their favorite old school virus bought to you by their King of Germ Fraud Mr. Pasteur himself. It is very hard to get away from that name here in France as nearly all towns and cities have at least one road or street with his name on it.
Now when it comes to Rabies it is isolated ONLY by Cell Culture. The beauty of this project is that if you know how to represent the studies it isn't "virus" specific.
The falsification of the initial step of isolation means that EVERY point of reference downstream is bought into disrepute.
Rabies is classically "Immunostained" for "Antibodies" to verify a culture. However if you don't know WHAT you are looking for it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what "antigen" it *should* pair with.
This is a long winded way of refuting it but one that we have right now.
We are however doing control studies of Antibodies and Immunostaining processes which would add to your case.
Ontop of this when we do more TEM I will keep a keen eye out for "Rabies" looking particles and also we will be cross refencing for ALL "viral" genomes when conducting our genetics controls.
We will be releasing a pack on HOW to use this data, in a legal manner when we have collected all the data.
In the mean time I am happy to talk via email, if you want to drop your address here, to explain further.
Kudos to you for standing up against this, it really is the essence of the project and I hope I can help you achieve your goals.
Cheers
Jamie
Thanks Jamie, I would be very interested to learn more. From what I see on the CDC website, the fluorescent antibody test is the standard for rabies testing in animals, but they only do it on brain tissue, so the animal has to be destroyed to test for something that never existed in the first place! It is all so very barbaric.
My e-mail is 62jmj@proton.me
Judy
I have sent you an email. Let me know you have received it.
Barbaric indeed. Pasteur and all who have followed him are barbaric.
I suppose you got some of your history from R.B. Pearson's "Pasteur: Plagarist, Imposter".
I haven't read that one.
Mainly from Bechamp or Pasteur by Ethel D Hume
Also, What really makes you Ill? by Dawn Lester and David Parker goes into the 'real' history of many different diseases and is very interesting
Right. Pearson's book is largely based on Hume's work. Hume's is more solid in my estimation, but Pearson adds some details Hume doesn't cover.
A Nature Methods article, "Defining the scientific method," attempts to redefine the scientific method, including the argument that the scientific method itself is unnecessary.
"The rise of 'omics' methods and data-driven research [...] stimulates disagreement over how science should be conducted and even how it should be defined."
The article asks if "Modern biological research methods [...] are altering the nature of scientific inquiry?"
Then goes on to correctly state, "the scientific method involves a question and suggested explanation (hypothesis) based on observation, followed by the careful design and execution of controlled experiments, and finally validation, refinement or rejection of this hypothesis."
They then argue against this definition, citing data generated by the Human Genome Project.
"The Human Genome Project was considered by many at the time to be a serious break with the notion that proper biological research must be hypothesis-driven. But the project proceeded because others successfully argued that it would yield information vital for understanding human biology."
They then make a leap of logic to argue that the Human Genome Project which involved direct sequencing of isolated human DNA and followed the scientific method, makes a case for biological models to replace traditional hypothesis-based scientific method.
"Methodological developments are now making it possible to obtain massive amounts of 'omics' data on a variety of biological constituents. These immense datasets allow biologists to generate useful predictions (for example, gene-finding and function or protein structure and function) using machine learning and statistics that do not take into account the underlying mechanisms that dictate design and function—considerations that would form the basis of a traditional hypothesis."
But, to take it one step further (with a leap of logic,) they reach their final conclusion, that the Human Genome example leads naturally against data driven traditional experimentation:
"Now that the bias against data-driven investigation has weakened, the desire to simplify 'omics' data reuse has led to the establishment of minimal information requirements for different types of primary data. The hope is that this will allow new analyses and predictions using aggregated data from disparate experiments."
And to further their argument against actual experiment-based science, they play the "expert" card arguing that even the model method is outdated and that causation and correlation ought be considered equally valid:
"Last summer, the editor-in-chief of Wired, Chris Anderson, went so far as to argue that biology is too complex for hypotheses and models, and that the classical scientific method is dead. Instead, he called for these methods to be replaced by powerful correlative analyses of massive amounts of data."
So, a leading scientific journal openly advocates for pseudoscience to replace true science. Are we surprised? Haven't they already made acceptance of pseudoscience standard practice?
This is just what Stefan Lanka has suggested we need. Science that is accountable and accesible to the broader community!
Good work!
Great article, Jamie! Lots of good points. But it could be even better if it were edited for grammar, because a number of things are hard to follow.
Reading it through again carefully you may see what I mean. Here are a couple things to look out for:
1) Run on sentences that make things unclear
2) Twice you use the phase: "falsified the hypothesis that Unicorns don’t cause sunburns."
But the hypothesis that has been falsified is that unicorns DO cause sunburns.
There are other things that are unclear where I can't decipher your meaning. If these things can be cleared up, I would consider reposting this article, if that's good by you.
By the way, I'm very excited about the work you are doing with the control experiments. Can't wait to see more updates!
Thanks for the great work!
Hi Tobin,
I have changed the edits you suggested.
I have been so used to writing threads on Twitter for the past 4 years I think it has warped my English literacy skills.
Just getting used to Substack, which thus far has been quite buggy. I can’t seem to write on the phone app as it constantly deletes passages and does all sorts of weird things.
When I write on my desktop, it doesn’t run a spell checker before I publish, I have to publish THEN edit and only then does it run a spell checker.
Odd.
Anyway. thanks for the suggestions.
J
The phone app is terrible in quite a few ways. Try using your phone browser. It's much better.
It seems that something in the app is sending you messages 3 times too.
I have a problem with my phone connection right now and I kept thinking my comments weren't getting sent and trying to resend them. Later I discovered multiple messages were sent.
I've deleted the duplicates.
Here is another sentence that could be improved.
"We can’t even get past hurdle one with Virology it has NO Independent Variable as shown by OUR Control Studies Falsifying the Cell Culture Isolation Methodology."
"Naturally, good scientific practice includes the use of appropriate controls and critical scrutiny of results for any alternative interpretations."
-- correspondence in 2022 with Rike Zietlow, Research Integrity at Charité
https://www.charite.de/en/research/research_support_services/office_for_research_integrity/
LOL, that's a pretty stark contrast with Drosten's work: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/:
"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available."
I wonder if Zietlow actually practices what she preaches. I doubt it.
Well, Drosten was accused for fraud in science and fabrication. Unfortunately, there is no more responses eventhough she (her colleagues) is responsible to investigate the Drosten's fabrication. Probably she doesn't want to lose her job so she is silent.
Of course, if she doesn't obey, she will lose her position. She is just another oppotunistic order follower, co-responsible for the deaths of millions due to upholding the germ theory lies.
https://archive.org/details/larken-rose-the-most-dangerous-superstition-iron-web-publications-2011
There were cases against virologists inside Research Integrity (RI) Offices in Germany, United Kingdom, WHO, France and few more countries. Basically, RIs didn't want to start investigation, or started something like sharing informations with relevant departments but without logical solutions to stop fabrication. A lot of variety of excuses :)) There are fancy answers:
1. We don't want to interfere scientific discourse.
2. Absence of controls do not constitute enough fabrication.
3. Our scientists are not obligated to check genome assembly.
4. We are not obligated to answer to semi-anonimus messages.
5. Be sure, our departments will do everything neccessary.
Court cases are useless since the court system is part of the governmental system, which is the root of all problems. Reason is that government is what enables "the controllers" behind the scenes to oppress the people.
Have you read Hoppe's book on democracy?
https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
Hi Jamie, a while back Rod suggested I ask you about this case of Chimeric woman and using DNA to prove it. If this comment isn't right for this thread you can delete it and reply on the thread it is in here:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star/comment/51276482
Thanks!
Hi,
Here is a short thread I did on “Genetic Chimerism”.
To me these are just ridiculous excuses to what is blatant inaccuracies in the gene sequencing process…
“oh we found a result thay cant possibly be right, let's just make up an excuse why”
https://x.com/JamieAA_Again/status/1754615015754047874?t=spoLE-Sdry1e7ETyKQ-9lA&s=19
Ah, seems Karen was the same case I heard about (it was on one of those "mystery" shows on the net). Another genetics lie, who could imagine??.
If there is no way to determine with certainty that a cell culture is without virus particles BEFORE the experiment, the experiment is over before it has begun.
Those in the pro virus camp who are now desperately trying to categorise the results (CPE in a cell culture to which a patient sample was never added) are talking out of their asses.
In future, so-called virology will boil down to statements like this: may be, may not be, possibly, possibly not, unclear, clearly ambiguous.
In other words, everything as before. Pure arbitrariness and room for interpretation from the vastness of the Grand Canyon, conservatively estimated.
Bankruptcy of a pseudo-science.
Jamie, on donations: https://thewayfwrd.com/donate/ only contains mainstream donation options. You know what happened to people who donated to the truckers in Canada, right? I'd love to donate, but only through Monero (or another privacy-centered crypto, but Monero (XMR) is preferred).
Hi, Yes I understand. We were going initially just to set up a go-fund-me but opted not to for that reason that someone would probably dox us and get funds frozen.
We can accept Bitcoin. I am not too sure how Monero works but we can work something out. If you want to leave an email if you would like to talk in private?
HI Jamie, love to talk more. I've asked someone we both know to share my email address with you. Or, if you have an email address you can publicly post, please do so here.
Starting with Monero is pretty straightforward: https://www.getmonero.org/. I use the Monero GUI Wallet from https://www.getmonero.org/downloads/, that's pretty easy. Alternatively, get http://edge.app wallet installed, that too supports Monero.
A great read on BTC is https://www.hijackingbitcoin.com/.
Hi Jamie, just fyi: some of the links in the article don't work for me (twitter and wikipedia).
Here is the article on the softdrinks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8372450/
And here is Mia's brilliant article on Hillman: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2024/02/14/why-you-should-know-about-harold-hillmans-work-on-the-living-cell/
Yes for some reason they didn't hyperlink.
If you copy and paste them they do work though.
How would you feel about a proofreader?