Dear Jamie, I haven’t yet read this article, though I will do so, noting that it’s a huge piece of work. The cell culture method of “isolation” of “viruses” (for which there’s no scientific evidence of existence) alone tells us something VITALLY important to appreciate.
It’s not only that it’s Bad Science. Leaving out appropriate controls renders the results meaningless. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together know this. Anyone who has ever worked in a well run research laboratory knows this. Medical doctors are assumed to know this, too, though that’s a dangerous assumption. Their training excludes a deep education about “the scientific method”, which sits at the heart of the post-Renaissance philosophy of how we can understand anything in the world around us. The Royal Society in its earlier incarnation would have rejected “virology” as pseudoscience (at least, they ought to have done so).
The VITAL thing I’m pointing at?
It’s that FRAUD sits at the heart of this pretend scientific discipline.
Once you’ve detected unequivocal fraud in any aspect of some field, and certainly when that fraud sits at the centre of the field, it’s between implausible and impossible for any other aspects of that discipline to be well-founded, sound and honest.
A person with normal thought processes examines additional aspects of the said discipline with much greater demands for clarity and evidence of honest behaviour. As I turned to look at other “pillars of existence” supposedly supporting “virology”, what comes into focus isn’t just bad science but fraud.
Interesting analysis. I don't know whether you are familiar with the work of Harold Hillman, but it looks like all the observable features in electron microscopy may be artifacts:
They, meaning the virologists, could in effect take just about any of those pictures and enhance them or add to them or subtract from them or alter the shading or the shapes and call them new viruses. Using A/i, they could invent anything similar and term it a virus. The new descriptors would be added to the "Bible of Viruses" and become irrefutable dogma for the next 10,000 years. New viruses = new vaccines and new drugs = more profit = more illness and disease.
Good collection of things! What a set of lies They - the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet - push to create fear in Us. To get Us in Their pHARMa/mediKILL industry.
Thank You, and I hope everyOne on the planet reads this!
New subscriber here, first time ever offering up a little money for a cause online ....thanks for the huge effort that produced these images. Even apart from the comparisons of the industry's photos to your own, the obvious is the impossibility of assigning identity to a non-isolated entity, or just about anything else within the mash of distorted "stuff" or "debris" these two dimensional pics represent.
On a different topic, following from your "charge" info, starting with electrophoresis, this funny little story from the Jessica Rose article, showing how a group of little gremlins get it all done:
"We used Oxford Nanopore sequencing to sequence the DNA. The idea is that individual molecules are passed through a tiny protein pore (nanopore) and changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured. This allows for real-time, long-read sequencing without the need for amplification or chemical labeling. We actually used a method that attaches a motor onto the lead sequence and fed in ATP to get the DNA through the pores. This helps to control the rate at which the DNA strand passes through the nanopore by processively unwinding the DNA and consuming ATP as an energy source .....So all in all, qPCR counts DNA copies as they’re made by watching glowies (different kind of glowies), fluorometry measures DNA (or RNA) by how much it glows when a dye sticks to it, and Oxford Nanopore sequencing reads DNA or RNA like a ribbon passing through a tiny hole, powered by a molecular motor."
In the comments under this article, a comment questioning how this "charge" is used to establish molecular identity has apparently now been scrubbed, but the same commenter asks:
Marty Ellenbecker
"Does this procedure follow or replace electrophoresis?"
Hi Matt, thank you very much for your support. Fantastic work for keeping an eye out on the messaging boards for things like this.
Yes, when you know what questions to ask, or roughly how they are pulling off their magic tricks, what they are doing becomes very transparent, laughable even. Stay in touch. Cheers Jamie
I fell prey to mistaken commenter identity up above. The comment was not scrubbed. Here is the unanswered question, from commenter "mejbcart" in reference to "The idea is that individual molecules are passed through a tiny protein pore (nanopore) and changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured.".....(with cute little "molecular motors" herding them through the holes, no less....)
Nov 13
"Just would like to know, HOW the 'changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured.'?? Each base pair has the same charge about 2qe- per base, so how do you distinguish the 4 different bases specifically? Sorry must be trivial answer."
Dear Jamie, I haven’t yet read this article, though I will do so, noting that it’s a huge piece of work. The cell culture method of “isolation” of “viruses” (for which there’s no scientific evidence of existence) alone tells us something VITALLY important to appreciate.
It’s not only that it’s Bad Science. Leaving out appropriate controls renders the results meaningless. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together know this. Anyone who has ever worked in a well run research laboratory knows this. Medical doctors are assumed to know this, too, though that’s a dangerous assumption. Their training excludes a deep education about “the scientific method”, which sits at the heart of the post-Renaissance philosophy of how we can understand anything in the world around us. The Royal Society in its earlier incarnation would have rejected “virology” as pseudoscience (at least, they ought to have done so).
The VITAL thing I’m pointing at?
It’s that FRAUD sits at the heart of this pretend scientific discipline.
Once you’ve detected unequivocal fraud in any aspect of some field, and certainly when that fraud sits at the centre of the field, it’s between implausible and impossible for any other aspects of that discipline to be well-founded, sound and honest.
A person with normal thought processes examines additional aspects of the said discipline with much greater demands for clarity and evidence of honest behaviour. As I turned to look at other “pillars of existence” supposedly supporting “virology”, what comes into focus isn’t just bad science but fraud.
The entire medical mafia is based on fraud. It can exist in no other way.
so well said
Interesting analysis. I don't know whether you are familiar with the work of Harold Hillman, but it looks like all the observable features in electron microscopy may be artifacts:
https://big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/a-serious-indictment-of-modern-cell-biology.pdf
https://big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/cell-biology-at-the-beginning-of-the-21st-century-is-in-dire-straits.pdf
thanks very much; these links seem so "on target"; such a community, contributing together.
🙏James😊 ,I will add these to my H.H. Ref file.
thanks Helen; as Blind Lemon Peel said in the Rutles,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW1iI5dC0k
"everyt'in I 'new, I learnt from the Rutles"
for me, everyt'in I 'new, I learnt from Garry!"
They, meaning the virologists, could in effect take just about any of those pictures and enhance them or add to them or subtract from them or alter the shading or the shapes and call them new viruses. Using A/i, they could invent anything similar and term it a virus. The new descriptors would be added to the "Bible of Viruses" and become irrefutable dogma for the next 10,000 years. New viruses = new vaccines and new drugs = more profit = more illness and disease.
You have more images here, than all the murky ones I have looked at
in all the other “ virology “ papers.
🙏Jamie and team,❤️
For continuing to show exactly how inconclusive, and totally open to fraudulent interpretation all TEM imaging is.
Thank you Helen, yes the session was very fruitful. Hoping it moves the understanding forward in a meaningful way.
Well done Jamie. Congrats to all your team
Good collection of things! What a set of lies They - the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet - push to create fear in Us. To get Us in Their pHARMa/mediKILL industry.
Thank You, and I hope everyOne on the planet reads this!
New subscriber here, first time ever offering up a little money for a cause online ....thanks for the huge effort that produced these images. Even apart from the comparisons of the industry's photos to your own, the obvious is the impossibility of assigning identity to a non-isolated entity, or just about anything else within the mash of distorted "stuff" or "debris" these two dimensional pics represent.
On a different topic, following from your "charge" info, starting with electrophoresis, this funny little story from the Jessica Rose article, showing how a group of little gremlins get it all done:
"We used Oxford Nanopore sequencing to sequence the DNA. The idea is that individual molecules are passed through a tiny protein pore (nanopore) and changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured. This allows for real-time, long-read sequencing without the need for amplification or chemical labeling. We actually used a method that attaches a motor onto the lead sequence and fed in ATP to get the DNA through the pores. This helps to control the rate at which the DNA strand passes through the nanopore by processively unwinding the DNA and consuming ATP as an energy source .....So all in all, qPCR counts DNA copies as they’re made by watching glowies (different kind of glowies), fluorometry measures DNA (or RNA) by how much it glows when a dye sticks to it, and Oxford Nanopore sequencing reads DNA or RNA like a ribbon passing through a tiny hole, powered by a molecular motor."
In the comments under this article, a comment questioning how this "charge" is used to establish molecular identity has apparently now been scrubbed, but the same commenter asks:
Marty Ellenbecker
"Does this procedure follow or replace electrophoresis?"
Hi Matt, thank you very much for your support. Fantastic work for keeping an eye out on the messaging boards for things like this.
Yes, when you know what questions to ask, or roughly how they are pulling off their magic tricks, what they are doing becomes very transparent, laughable even. Stay in touch. Cheers Jamie
I fell prey to mistaken commenter identity up above. The comment was not scrubbed. Here is the unanswered question, from commenter "mejbcart" in reference to "The idea is that individual molecules are passed through a tiny protein pore (nanopore) and changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured.".....(with cute little "molecular motors" herding them through the holes, no less....)
Nov 13
"Just would like to know, HOW the 'changes in electrical current as the bases pass through are measured.'?? Each base pair has the same charge about 2qe- per base, so how do you distinguish the 4 different bases specifically? Sorry must be trivial answer."