IMO it is. Not here and there, mainly here. Why that IVM censorship and discrediting without real facts at all?!?! Why twisted FDA (court case) and other authorities facts about ? BTW: I have not said that both couldn't have coexisted very early. The contrary is actuality true. It would have been the best. I only said if IVM had got EUA the vaccines had probably not. But there would have been IMO a legal solution. The vaccines get EUA, IVM and co. off label use. They don't need EUA, they are approved drugs already within their therapeutic dose range. And even if not, then they could have changed the laws as they did many times either way. But I say the fact that they didn't care about proper and full informed consent at all is a clear fact to me that they care for capital first, far less for anything else. An real informed consent for instance with conventional drugs, too Like: (just a crude imaginary example to be worked out) We have 2 different meds. One completely new vaccine based on mRNA's gene therapeutic properties to make proteins and for instance 2 off label drugs. Make clear all them have RCT studies where they are promising to work. Share all studies if asked for. Answer any question that can be answered. The vaccine is not fully approved, is experimental (because the recipe has changed during time without testing in humans first) has potential side effects (listing them) and is supposed to protect against severe outcomes. There are studies. Then we have IVM. IVM is approved already it has a very good safety (listing adverse events). It is supposed to protect and to work for speedier recovery, less chance of severe outcome. There are studies. And we have Budesonide for the lung, also already an approved drug. The adverse evens are low and well known (listing them). It's supposed to help against lunge issues (lung inflammation, breathing, O2 saturation). There are studies. Do you first want to take the vaccine, or wait and take later the other drugs. Or you want to try IVM prophylaxis? If taking the vaccine and should get sick anyway off label drugs such as IVM and Budesonide would have been additionally there for them, too! Suppressing them was a huge mistake! And only when having a honest and true informed consent the potential consumer is able to make a proper decision. The suppression and the lack of....both indicate dominant affinity to capital IMO. Except you would say: To leave out some facts here and there are politically justified. Then I would be out. I am no politician and for me there's no justification at all. As soon as there are news from the research, they have to be included.
You know, just by watching some of these vehement conspiraloons (and I don't put all of them in the same category - there were some very reasonable people amongst them with well reasoned grounds for asking all the right questions, questions of procedures, power allocation, decision making process, the inequity in all of this sorry saga, on so many levels) I wonder if they would have allowed their opponents to write and publish as much as they were allowed by the "authorities"...
The first FDA court trial is over. The judge accepted to open a further trial since FDA overstepped their competences. Here is the pdf https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/22-40802/22-40802-2023-09-01.pdf?ts=1693611027 So the thing isn't over yet. IMHO the FDA is the institution that caused the unreasonable vendetta against IVM AND the doctors using it. Some (physicians) have lost their jobs.....many more people could have been saved IF the FDA would have done their jobs as they are supposed to. IVM was available before the vaccines already. Also other drugs such as Budesonide and Fluvoxamine. Studies like RCTs and anecdotal evidences from professionals also available. The influence of the FDA is not restricted to the US alone. They have caused world-wide harm. Drugs like monoclonal antibodies and Remdesivir have been approved by studies which had a far far lower study power than IVM...we all know Remdesivir doesn't work at all, monoclonal ABs only at one particular variant. Both were expensive as hell and not available for a broad public. Off lable and established drugs, though, were available world-wide and for everybody. There is one important difference: Those were NEW and not off patent. A sole capitalist decision, far off from scientific reason. This FDAs behavior killed people unnecessarily.
The experiment continues, double standards are still applied. (Compare that to the artificial hurdles of off lable drug authorizations) Here is the Pfizer paper for their 23/24 booster authorization. (XBB.1.5 and XBB.1.16) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee June 15, 2023 Meeting Presentation- Pfizer: 2023-2024 COVID19 Vaccine Formula- Clinical and Preclinical Supportive Data (fda.gov) The claims which were sufficient for further authorization: No safety data at all! Only mice efficacy data. N=10 mice only. Test: Neutralisation Titers only against a pseudo virus, no real virus. So if you want a new experimental vaccine (changed formula) that hasn't got safety tests at all, has been tested at 10 mice only and is against 2 variants which are actually already obsolete, then go and get your inoculation. It's unbelievable!
A relative of mine told me that any vaccine released to the population that isn't properly tested is given out in batches of the real serum and just plain water. Medical staff have no idea what that batch is; but they all think it's the real thing. In this way, they can "test" it. Is there any truth to this?
There is a Danish study who found a correlation of batches and severity of adverse events. I had posted it here: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/coronavirus-discussion.81224/page-243#post-1795180 The yellow batches show actually no adverse events. Professionally assessed this correlation looks like placebo. There is a rule: No event without adverse event. Means no adverse event, no event at all. Secondly there is a report of NMR analyses of 4 batches in which they found no phosphor at all. A complete mRNA must contain phosphor. If there is no phosphor found then there is no mRNA = the active drug found. Here is the analyse: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/want-to-know-whats-inside-the-vaccine Here some chemical explanation in an easy way: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/coronavirus-discussion.81224/page-218#post-1749352 So yes there is evidence that some Pfizer batches have been placebo. BUT: This should not worry you at all. The contrary. A placebo does no harm. At the Danish study there is also the blue batches which did an awful lot of harm. Pfizer has for sure huge problems at manufacturing the gene therapeutic. This results to impure and dangerous batches. The most shocking findings of Kevin McKernan proves what nobody ever had imagined. https://osf.io/b9t7m/ One impurity all the analyzed batches have got are plasmids. This applies to Pfizer AND Moderna!!! And all them far above the allowed upper limit. And even more those plasmids are also wrapped in the liquid nano particles so they also can easily enter our cells. For those who do not know what plasmids are: Those are circular active DNA!!! They are used at the vaccine manufacturing process to make bacteria to produce the drug. Actually those should be cleaned out, but this is a hardly realizable process. Here is BioNTech who makes the Pfizer vaccines to plasmids: https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-strengthens-manufacturing-capabilities-first-house/ Here is what The Australian govt said to the question: Can the 'vaccines' alter human DNA? https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/...is-it-true-can-covid-19-vaccines-alter-my-dna Check out their reasoning. They say: No, because mRNA is not DNA / cannot become DNA. My comment: At least not become that easy (reverse transcriptase could do that). It actually doesn't matter, because: Now their argument is void. The impurity found IS vector dsDNA (a plasmid). What this plasmid does is absolutely unknown. Since it is vector DNA, though, which can arrive at the nucleus, it can alter human DNA. Besides of that we know they can survive AND replicate also in gut bacteria. They multiply which each bacterium that carries that plasmid and divides. So one could produce spike protein forever, forever poking the immune system, it could lead to auto immune disease and cancer in the future. It could change human DNA and by that switch off several factors. I have said it many times already: This is the biggest pharma scandal humanity has got. And even a crime since those 'vaccines' are still recommended. Kevin McKernan's findings are discussed heavily at the scientific community, but nothing on MSM. At the Kevin McKernan PDF the own and initial discussion is on page 12.
After rereading your question I think I might have missed your point, eventually. If you mean how to test vaccines at a clinical study. Yes. You usually have 2 groups. The group that gets the real drug / vaccine, verum, the treatment group. And the group that gets no drug, the placebo, the control group. An injection that contains no drug at all. At double blind studies neither the study participant nor the administering doctors / experimenters know who gets what. After the predefined goal of the study is reached (study time is over), it gets unblinded. Means revealed who's got what. Now you can check statistically if the predefined goals / purposes are met by comparing both groups and also sub groups.
To understand covid you first have to go back in time to research being done on the HIV virus. At the time, circa 1983, there was a gold standard for investigating a virus and it was laid down by the Louis Pasteur Institute (LPI). The scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr, Luc Montagnier, worked at the LPI and a member of his team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the LPI committee that laid down the gold standard in the 1970s. The standard is based on purifying a suspected viral material then looking at it through an electron microscope. If a virus is there it will be comprised of well-defined particles of similar size since they must have the same density (weight/unit volume). Although Montagnier is credited with discovering HIV he did not claim to have discovered a virus, only to have inferred a virus. He freely admitted in an hour-long interview that can still be found on the Net that he did not see HIV on an EM as required. He used an entirely different, scientifically questionable method to infer HIV. In the video, his lab technician is quoted as claiming that the team did not see a virus at any time. I find this disturbing scientifically. If he was following a protocol established by the LPI, which he claimed to be doing, why did he proceed when he could not see the virus on the EM? Why did his assistant Barre-Sinoussi not complain about the breach in the method she helped establish? It seems obvious to me that they compromised due to the immense pressure they were under to find a cause for AIDS. Montagnier's background was in the retrovirus field which was in it infancy in 1983. There was in-fighting as to its accuracy and some scientists rejected it. Montagnier employed a controversial technique from the theory based on reverse transcriptase (RT), an enzyme claimed to be a marker for a retrovirus. A pioneer in the field warned scientist not to jump to that conclusion since RT is a common enzyme in a normal human body. However, Montagnier based his inference of HIV based on finding RT in RNA strands (not an entire genome) in a sample from a man with AIDS. He thought that was sufficient at the time but much later he changed his mind. He claimed in the same video that a healthy immune system will handle HIV and the HIV is not the cause of AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. Since those days, every virus claimed, including all the SARS viruses, of which covid is one, has ignored the positive ID offered by an electron microscope and accepted the inferential method claimed by Montagnier, that a virus can be claimed based on a few strands of RNA which have never been proved related to a virus. The bird flu and the swine flu were based on the same inferential method. Also, all the current covid tests are based on the same questionable theory. Although the discovery of HIV is controversial that is not where the real controversy lies which is in the RNA/PCR test used to identify viruses like HIV and covid. Because HIV could not be seen on an electron microscope, even though fraudulent image and depictions of it are all over the Net, Anthony Fauci and David Ho tried to produce a method for amplifying HIV using the PCR method for DNA amplification. Conversely, why would you need to amplify a virus if it was readily apparent? Right away, the inventor of the PCR method pointed out the problem. Kary Mullis claimed that PCR could not be used diagnostically to amplify a virus that could not be seen on an electron microscope. His logic was impeccable. If the virus cannot be seen on an electron microscope, because it cannot be isolated from the suspected viral mass, then amplifying will not reveal a virus either. Everything in the mass will be amplified equally and it will still appear as an unrecognizable mass, only larger. Fauci went on to have the clout to make his test be accepted even though it was fraudulently based on bad science. He also had the clout to ruin the careers of eminent microbiologist, Peter Duesberg, who discovered the first cancer gene, allowing him to be the youngest scientist of his time to be inducted into the National Academy of Science. Fauci was in charge of funding and simply ensured that Duesberg would never be funded again. It was Duesberg who first saw the flaw in the HIV/ID theory, claiming adamantly that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. Eventually, Montagnier agreed with him. Yet here we are years after using the same flawed theory to claim covid and base a test and a vaccine on the fraudulent theory. Fauci did not like Dueseberg making such claims and cut off hi funding. I am in no way in denial of the horrible tragedy relate to covid in which many people lost their lives. I am simply questioning the accuracy of the tests which many eminent scientist have deemed fraudulent. Bad tests, which test positive for a papaya, will keep this bad theory going for a long time to come. The vaccines were foisted on us after a few months testing when the regular testing period would have been 6 years. There is still no vaccine against HIV some 40 years after its proclamation as the cause of AIDS, yet e magically discovered a vaccine for covid in 3 months. That leads me to suspect that the vaccines were imposed on us out of hysteria. Officials were desperate to find a cause and a solution, just like with HIV/AIDS which was imposed without peer review. Figures began appearing after the covid vaccines were issued showing clearly that 70% of people hospitalized and dying of covid had already received multiple vaccine shots. The basis of Pfizer's claim that the vaccines were 95% effective against covid was a lie. Expert, Dr.Robert Malone, who was a pioneer in the mRNA basis of the vaccines, declared mRNA could not possibly prevent a covid infection. His claim was met with charges of misinformation and he was banned from platforms like Google. Pfizer also lied when they claimed mRNA would not infect cells or cause cells damage. A study from Sweden revealed that immediately following a shot, the mRNA was largely absorbed in the liver where it proceeded to alter cells. That should be no surprise. Pfizer has been fined 5 billion dollars over the years for lying about their products. They are followed closely by Johnson&Johnson who have been fined 3 billion. It's all there on Google from official sources. I am not questioning whether covid exists or not, I am merely questioning the pathetic science upon which its identity has been claimed. And, the deprivation of human rights that accompanies the pathetic science.
Spike proteins are a bit of a joke in themselves. The only way to see them is using an electron microscope and the preferred method is with a TEM which requires the sample viral product to be sliced to a thickness of a few nanometers. Otherwise, electrons won't pass through them to give the required image. Can you imagine a spike being retrieved from an actual virus and analyzed for its DNA or RNA makeup? Or can you imagine real viruses being examined to see if they can penetrate the fibres of a mask? In reality, the RNA content is guessed as is the genome of a virus, pieced together from imaginary RNA strands thought to be from a virus. Virology has become hacker science even though lone voices in the wilderness, like Dr.Stefan Lanka, is making a stand for real science. I agree, this has been a huge scam by Big Pharma who have taken advantage of a horrible situation.
You got it right the first time, actually. I was asking if some Pfizer batches were placebo. I got vaccinated with the first and second dose in 2021 and I was hoping for the placebo ones. From what I've read, after these doses, there has been shown side-effects but in my case I felt nothing, in both times. Only arm pain, but that's about it, no reactions whatsoever. At the time, I wasn't informed about the vaccine and with chaos and panic that was in my country, I gave in. I felt bad about this decision though.
I don't blame you, people were bullied into accepting the vaccine based on the hysteria of politicians.
You have to be careful when arguing for 'overdoing' the pandemic and / or questioning scientific methods. I agree generally, though. 'They' have overdone the pandemic in many ways. Sure there was a lot which are valid arguments. But some are just wrong. Right for instance is that PCR positive does not mean sick by COVID and also right is that masks do not statistically protect when used in daily life. Right is also that the spike is a strong pathogen. They (vaccine makers) have chosen it as antigen which was a systemic mistake!!! Why all them have chosen the spike?!?!? No it is no guesswork, the sequencing is a valid scientific procedure and method. And no, not only because things are small, they are hard to detect, this is no valid argument. Consider simple drugs, just as Aspirin. An ASA molecule is far far smaller than a spike protein or even a complete virus. Anyway there are robust and valid scientific methods and experiments to detect them properly. Nobody ever could make visible a molecule such as ASA by any microscopy at all, anyway there are scientific methods to detect it, even to clarify its structure. Here is a brand new research about spikes: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA - PMC (nih.gov)
Not according to Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean. I'll try to post a link for you but I'll need to look it up first. He provides an impelling argument that the entire field of virology is based on bad science. He has traced viral theory back to its roots a couple of centuries ago, As late as 1935, one scientist lamented that no virus could fulfill the requirements of Koch's Postulate. Modern virology actually has its roots in the 1950s when the discovery of the DNA molecule's shape refocused biological science. In the early 1970s, the notion of a retrovirus came into play and some scientists to this day think the theory is wrong. Lanka is one of them. I cannot comment on that since I am a layman in that field. However, when Luc Montagnier tied his HIV theory to RNA, after being unable to see HIV on an electron microscope, viral science took a wrong turn, IMHO. Montagnier and anyone studying retroviral theory had been warned by a pioneer in the field, circa 1970, that reverse transcriptase, a marker for RNA, is a common enzyme in the body and that claiming a virus based on it is questionable. That applies equally to the RNA in covid tests and vaccines. No one has ever proved it comes from a virus since the same RNA is common in other bodily processes, especially in those with poor health. Yet, that's exactly what Montagnier did as have all scientists since who have used the same theory to infer viruses like the SARS family, bird flu, and swine flu. The Wuhan scientists who announced covid in January 2020 admitted they had not isolated a virus but had used strands of RNA in the material extracted from the lungs of covid infected people. Christian Drosten, credited with the covid RNA/PCR test, had his find anointed by the WHO without peer review. He admitted that he had not isolated covid, he had simply gone on what the Wuhan scientists claimed. Same with HIV, it was introduced without peer review. Furthermore, any scientist who objected to the claim that HIV caused AIDS was ostracized and had his career ruined. The same happened with any science who opposed the covid paradigm. No one has ever seen an ASA molecule, they are far too small to be seen on an electron microscope. However, aggregates of million of molecules could be seen even with an ordinary optical microscope. Some of these molecular structures can be identified partly by the angles of the crystal lattice in which they are contained. Not so for an aggregation of viruses. They are peculiar items for which their action is inferred more than measured. I don't think anyone has ever seen a virus attach to a cell with a spike and no one has certainly seen the claimed action of the virus inside a cell. As far as detaching a spike and assessing its genome, good luck. Much of the inference about viruses and spikes is done through inference. BTW, there are images on the Net of virus spikes attaching to cells but even to my uneducated eye they are fake. For one, they are all in glorious colour whereas EM images are always black and white. For another, thy are far too perfect, coming straight from a computer image. Yet another issue is the lack of a size marker to indicate the scale. There are many fraudulent images of covid published and only an experienced eye like that of Stefan Lanka can tell the difference between a virus an associated viral material. He has laid down the gauntlet, challenging all modern viruses and the claim they have been physically isolated. He has offered 100,000 Euros to anyone who can supply scientific information to prove the measles virus was isolated. He had one challenger who won in a lower German court but who lost in a higher court. Even the court-appointed expert agreed with Lanka. A quote from the article... "Spike protein pathogenicity, termed 'spikeopathy', whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a 'synthetic virus', is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology". The key phrase here is 'increasingly understood' but according to Lanka that is an exaggeration. In essence, this science is based on scientists creating products in their research and claiming those products as spike or virus products. It is discouraging to me to see the smoke and mirrors used in modern science. For example, covid tests and vaccines are based on strands of RNA claimed to be from a virus. There is not a shred of evidence that is the case. From those strands, researchers use a computer model to splice together various strand to claim a genome. Luc Montagnier once claimed that the alleged covid virus appears to have full sequences from HIV in it. According to Lanka, that is exactly what is done. Sequences of RNA are pulled from a hat and claimed to be part of a genome. Sorry, I just cannot trust this science anymore. That began for me when Dr. Peter Duesberg had his career ruined by Anthony Fauci for daring to claim that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. Fauci, by then, held the purse strings for the funding Duesberg needed and without the funds he was relegated to teaching lab classes. Ironically, Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, came to the same conclusion much later. In an hour-long video he claimed HIV would not harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle. I don't think any scientist should be ostracized for opposing a paradigm.
Do folks in Canada, the United States, the UK, or other European nations, use masks during hay fever days? I think that is early spring, yes? Incorrectly named, too < hay fever > - - - an interesting story about language and medicine, too. Anyway, here in Japan, the use of masks for all sorts of things, but notably during those early spring days; --- the use of masks was very common way before the Covid trouble started. So it was no big deal to get all of the population to wear masks and is still mandatory at my hospital where I have had to go for years for my cancer treatment. Had to stay as an in-patient for about six months during the relapse and we had to wear masks in the hospital if we left our rooms or the bed area we might have in a ward. My relapse started in that first year of the Covid trouble, and because of the Covid, the relapse came super close to doing what no bullet, explosion, stupidity was able to do --- do me in. I got super lucky to have some connections to get my waiting time reduced and then to get a doctor chief of the team treating me to sort of break protocol/rules to save my life. Actually, he was surprised I made it. Even it was obvious the relapse was a bad one when discovered at the hospital close to this residence, I was going to be asked to wait an awfully long time before being able to get into treatment that required that drip style using that darn metal tree thing. I understand a lot of cancer patients, and other troubles, died because of not being able to get treated because of the Covid trouble. Covid didn't just kill directly, but also indirectly. I remember we used to use a style of vocabulary when I was flying, collateral damage, and I think that is what Covid also caused. I think school children at young ages that may have had to attend schools for a couple of years and wearing those masks may suffer some thinking troubles. That isn't proper medical vocabulary "thinking troubles" but I'm not sure I remember how to spell that fancy medical word for brain function trouble. Anyway, what about "western" folks and masks before Covid? Funny, that designation "western" isn't it? I am a western folk who lives in a nation west of my own. I suppose I am a west westerner, yes?
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that spray stuff. Actually, I rarely have trouble with that hay fever trouble, even now after all the chemo stuff and other medicines they've been putting into my system. My wife was always into the mask thing around hay fever time. Not my daughter, though.
Yes, and that is understandable and a pity! Science has got a lot of damage due to certain people of interest (organisations and authorities) and censorship. All the more the majority of scientists have participated in betraying their own profession. I could watch it from within the scientific community. What's special at my situation, though, being working at preclinical research, I am familiar with many scientific methods and what they can perform. And when it comes to Biochemistry I can ask some colleagues. So I know what is 'real' especially when I personally have applied the same scientific methods myself. It’s only details we might have different backgrounds, generally I understand you and agree with you. All the more I thank you to have joined the discussion. Let me quickly reply to those details. It’s always a matter of quantity! Each scientific method has a detection limit. Anyway you can make visible a single spike and a single virus, but not a single ASA molecule. One of the lowest detection limit can be reached by MS (Mass Spectrometry) around femtogram is not exceptional. Besides of that at sequencing and PCR you have an amplification step ahead, done by the polymerase itself. Ct cycle threshold value. At each cycle you double the previous amount. Finally one should consider the works of the Wuhan lab scientists themselves! They are able and they have published reasonable papers how to create chimeric viruses by attaching foreign spikes on known corona viruses etc etc… How could there the argument ‘the’ virus never has been successfully isolated persist? And still if in some way / to some people, what would be really the weight of such an argument? The entire SARS-COV-2 is a conspiracy in that way that big pharma always wanted to establish the mRNA technology. It's old, but never had a real chance to become established IF considering the original laws of proper R&D. Rules we have worked out hard after the Thalidomide scandal! There is absolutely NO valid argument of what mRNA could do better compared to conventional antigens. So only an exceptional 'state' such like a 'pandemic' could 'solve' that issue. The Wuhan lab released that chimeric virus and the 'others' made it sure that we really would have that exceptional state. It was the last chance that the mRNA story could turn out to be 'good' = making a lot of money for the investors finally. I fully agree. Most geniuses at science like Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. had breathtaking and paradigm shaking ideas first. But also some drifted to idiocy. Also to win the Nobel price (Montagnier) just means nothing!!! Obama has got (peace what a joke) it and Weissman and Karico got it (Malone would have deserved it!!!) At first both might be indistinguishable. Genius and insanity so to say. (Just to share it here, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic itself) My paradigm shaking hypothesis I have and always had myself is: Consciousness is fundamental. The reality as we perceive it is an illusion This also means there is no determinism and materialism. When ‘we’ go we’ll take ‘our’ world with us. IMHO this will shake Physics in the future for sure. It also will unite quantum field and relativity. So how could somebody, like me, having this weird hypothesis, not comprehend to have such ideas?
I used to take corporate and government contracts for special reasons (just three governments allowed in my case; U.S., ROK, Japan) and I remember a number of years before Covid I was given a Japanese ministry contract to do some research on Dr. Fauci and was quite surprised when I reviewed the final draft of my report. I mean, the "surprise(s)" surfaced rather early into the research for the report, but one has to set that "surprise" stuff off to the side during research. You may run into answers that remove the "surprise". It is not until you do your final draft you let stuff like that fully sink in. Even great feelings have to be set aside until a final draft. I've done some research on some folks that were absolutely great at their professions. And I have also worked side-by-side with some rather amazing professionals in certain fields. In Dr. Fauci's case, there were a few problems that weren't good and could not be resolved. Obviously, I'd have to be very careful about what I disclose in any discussion I may have, but when Covid hit two of those "surprises" were significant and his public statements weren't helping matters. But by that time I was essentially retired due to the chemotherapy and all that stuff and wasn't officially asked to do any further work on that fella. Informally, I had a couple ministry officials talk to me further about him in an off-the-record parameter. Bottom line is I am not so sure I fully trust Dr. Fauci. Obviously, he is no fool. And I don't know him. I've never done a face-to-face that could help me sort of get a feel for how his eyes handle certain topics and questions; or his other physical signals, along with spoken answers and information he might volunteer. So I am not squarely on that side of the fence to straight out state he isn't a straight shooter; but he makes me nervous. Again, I don't think I trust him. But that use of "think" is an important factor. I could be totally wrong. He might could show me how I am/was totally wrong.
Hope you are doing well my friend. Have no idea what you are dealing with but do some research on mega doses of vitamin C. I know they ask you to stop such supplements during chemo but I am not so sure I would heed that advice. Linus Pauling and Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron did a study into that and concluded that 10 grams of C made a difference, especially to quality of life. A study was done at the Mayo Clinic that refuted the study but when Pauling inquired, he found to his amazement that only 250 mg of C was used in the study. Not only that, they kept terminally ill cancer patients on chemo to keep up appearances. The medical community can be seriously scary at times and more than one doctor has advised me to stay away from doctors unless it's vital. Robert Kennedy Jr. has written a book on him called The Real Anthony Fauci. It's worth the read. As far as not being a fool is concerned, Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method for DNA amplification, might not agree. He openly called Fauci a liar for preaching that PCR could be used diagnostically to isolate a virus.
Yen...thanks for the thoughtful response. I studied electrical engineering at university so I am familiar with the importance of the scientific method. I am also familiar with the fact that one should not jump to conclusions. I tend to write in a provocative manner where it may seem as if I think I know what I am talking about but from my end, I am more asking questions than stating fact. I am particularly taken by Stefan Lanka's approach to science. He was not satisfied with the science to taught to him in molecular biology, especially as related to viruses, he began researching the origins of the theory and how some of the pioneers dabbled in fraudulent science. Using what he learned he even challenged his own discovery of the first virus in the oceans. When I consult with so-called experts, I do so with a good amount of skepticism. I am not willing to believe something simply because an authority figure stated it. Here is an interview with Lanka in which he exposes an interpretation of viruses that most, including professionals, might accept based on an unknown authority. I might have done the same at one point till I read Lanka's article and became more familiar with how electron microscopes work. Having a background in electrons helped me understand what electrons can and cannot do. I challenge the wave hypothesis of electrons since they are particles with mass and could not possibly have a frequency other than the angular frequency as they orbit a nucleus, if in fact they do, which I currently doubt. By the way this is from a site challenging vaccinations. I simply don't know whether they are harmful or not. However, I don't believe in shooting the messenger. https://vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/dr-stefan-lanka-debunks-pictures-of-isolated-viruses/ Mass spectrometry is based on the EM frequencies given off by an object. I am not arguing that 'something' cannot be detected I am questioning what it is that is being detected. Re PCR, what is it you are doubling each cycle? That's the question, where did the RNA really come from that is converted to DNA and operated on by PCR? That type of RNA is readily found in humans who are not infected. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method, claimed it could not be used diagnostically to amplify something that could not be seen on an electron microscope. Seems to me, that applies to sequencing as well. How can you sequence something you cannot identify physically? Lanka claims it is done fraudulently by consulting a database of known RNA strands and compiling them into a genome using a computer model. How do we know they are actually doing that and not just claiming they have done it? I tried to explain the history of that based on HIV. Montagnier and his team admitted they could not see HIV on an EM. Their lab technician confirmed it, that at no time had they seen a virus. If they saw no virus, why did they not stop then and look elsewhere for an explanation? Instead, the team carried on to insinuate a virus based on retroviral theory, which is still being questioned by some scientists. Lanka has revealed important information since, which he introduced in a trial in Germany circa 2016. He had an independent lab perform a test to see if the cells used as uninfected cells to test for infection would die anyway due to the pre-treatment they receive to ensure they stay alive. The results were astounding, the cells died due to the pre-treatment, which consists of pre-starving them and treating them with antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection. This is major. Most major viruses that have been identified in a lab, according to Lanka, did not have a separate trial run to see if the cells would die anyway. It was presumed they were killed by infectious agents. Nevertheless, why do researchers have to stack the deck by pretreating cells with methods like pre-starving them to ensure an outcome? Agreed. Al Gore won a Nobel, did he not? I think some scientists who win it genuinely deserve to be honoured, like Niels Bohr, for his immense discovery that electrons emit electromagnetic energy as they transition to a lower orbit. I think Schrodinger, Heisenberg et al simply put the icing on the cake. Montagnier shrugged the award off lightly, claiming the main advantage was being able to do the science his way rather than being fearful of being ostracized or censored. Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR, stated the same, the Nobel freed him to do real science and to speak his mind without fear of retribution. Agreed. It bothered me the way he was censored by some new outlets for pointing out the truth, that MRNA could not prevent covid infection. Pfizer assured us it could but they have been find 5 billion dollars for lying about their products, and we gave them immunity from prosecution as a condition for issuing the vaccination.