Mullis was an actor hired to play a very specific role. He never stepped foot in a lab in his entire life and wasn't even part of the team who "invented" PCR. He's a fraud like the rest of them.
I don't know how people miss this? He was arrogant enough to make the claim that he deserved the Nobel Prize on his own even though he could not do the experiments to prove it. Another team had to be assigned to help him with it...
It seems that people have taken 3 videos of him and invented a reality dramatically different to what he really did... He supposedly developed the tech that shut the world down... I mean...
Dear Omarj, are you the Omar Jordan of the Dark series? I think many have asked you. If not, you are still free to use the omarj name of course. If yes, why not admit it or use an unrelated SS name to begin with if you don't want to admit it? Myself included, we have learned a lot from Omar of the Dark series.
Better we all were able to meet and have a beer, but not so easy... Anyway, I'm glad we finally hooked up and we can follow each other closely. I'm very weak-kneed about Chinese software, but then again they probably got all their ideas from IBM.
If that it he, then what he wrote there is much more palatable to me than implying pregnancy tests do not work by any valid known methodology (even while admitting they work...by magic?). If I was only reading the aforelinked, I would think he is on our side. But reading his comments on this blog post direct me to think he is pushing us to radicalization in order to discredit ourselves. Maybe he became consumed by this to such a degree that he lost his ability to be circumspect and question the limitations of his own powers of discernment?
“But reading his comments on this blog post direct me to think he is pushing us to radicalization in order to discredit ourselves. Maybe he became consumed by this to such a degree that he lost his ability to be circumspect and question the limitations of his own powers of discernment?”
The author of the above link I posted and his comments on this article IS radical. Some radicals, ie those determined to get to the root of an issue or an idea or a hypothesis, use bona fide methods, while others do not. “By their fruits you shall know them.” It would be a fun and interesting and adventurous discussion to compare notes on how to cultivate the gracious gift of discernment. Thanks for the reply.
What I mean more specifically as outlined by the numerous comments I added to this blog last night, is (assuming the same Omar posting here as the resource you cited) he is ostensibly sowing discord, directing us to radicalization in the form of cliques of intolerance — first by needlessly attacking Kary Mullis turning us away from a (i.e. derailing the) discussion of the virology junk science facts towards politics and interpersonal conflicts.
Further amplified by posting private life dirt (nude photos) alleged to be another of our no-virus-came (NVC) tribe, which evidently triggers the compulsion of those who want to self-segregate on (not even verified) presumptions of morality and ideology thereof. It’s the typical divide-and-conquer strategy that bad actor priests employ to lead their flock astray and under a form of hypnotic control.
Our scapegoating (of even the elite) conveniently encourages us to deny our own self-responsibility and thus complicity in the outcome. I adopt the generative essence thesis that society enables power vacuums when we abrogate self-responsibility. For example one of our tribe was triggered enough by said photo to label the alleged member of our tribe a leftist. It’s at best myopic on his part, and possibly a manipulative intent (ostensibly cultivated by the cunning Omar) to scapegoat our plight on leftists or what have you (again the handiwork, cunning strategy of how priests take control of society).
By displacing self-responsibility with instead the clearly popular collectivized control aka politics/statism — the metaphorical woodchipper conservatives love to insert their arms into — we willfully, collectively (if somewhat hypnotically) amplify the power vacuums that drive our enslavement and outcomes.
Conservatives develop this hypnotic groupthink by attending the synagogues which Jesus critiqued in Matthew 6:5, being coaxed by priests who have every incentive to amplify their power and financial gain by encouraging/seeding the discourse and devolution into amplification of power vacuums.
The abstract concept mostly correlates to loving versus hating, e.g. war (on drugs, viruses, Islam, etc) justified via fear porn/scapegoating to “keep us safe.” Society functions because we come together to the benefit of everyone, but power vacuums always MUST be captured by the most ruthless otherwise the more ruthless will take the power from the less ruthless because power projection is maximized ruthlessly.
The paradigmatic mistake of many if not most conservatives is that they believe in virtuous, collectivized power (tying their shoelaces together). As if they could hodl power vacuums with virtuous, benevolent leaders. Power is always evil. Reason our founding forefathers were against standing armies because the most ruthless power ends up finding a ruthless utility for the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about.
The resulting centralized action is blind to feedback loops and doesn’t anneal optimally (analogous to gradient descent which get stuck in local minima versus randomized simulated annealing in optimization problems).
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
The only relevance I can see for posting someone’s private sexual life here on this blog is to derail the discussion of whether virology is a junk science by triggering politics and morality. Entirely orthogonal to the quest for the virology facts. I do not even know if it is the alleged individual (nor do I have any fetish to pry into his private life!). Nor do I know who posted it publicly to dropbox. Even if you’re claiming you know he is the alleged and the alleged authorized the publicity, it’s still skulduggery in the context of this supposed to be a science discussion blog. It undermines our efforts, because not only turning us against each other, but also if any outsiders come by to read, they are going to see this sewer noise instead of a sober, esteemed intellectual discussion. I hope I do not have to defend this point further!
In any case, I want no association with such nonsense. I am here purely for the science discussion. I am just making it very clear to any outsider that reads my participation here, that I objected.
Any political movement should be forked off to a separate political community blog.
I remain more skeptical than others on my Team about anybody, whoever it is. At any rate, the number of people who are "fooled" by Mullis is very small. And it doesn't make sense that a wealthy powerful Cabal which has plenty of resources to fabricate resumes would not simply have padded Mullis's resume and provided him with suitable qualifications.
There are likely plenty of people who have worked in labs for years who nevertheless defend the Mainstream Narratives, so I don't see why it's necessary to say Mullis never worked in a lab in order to prove he's a Mainstream shill. Besides which such a challenge as you pose would be virtually impossible to find, given that the Cabal likely can manufacture "evidence" anyway. Indeed, the absence of such details is fishy from the opposite end, so to speak. If the Cabal wanted to groom/manufacture a shill, why would they be so stupid as to not provide him with the proper vita & resume for his credentials?
Because they know that gullible people like you will fall for it, hook line and sinker, as you've displayed here. They gave the man the Nobel Prize. Only insiders get that award. Figure it out.
This one is all on Jamie. The chap has done some good back work and I am trying to get him off the twitter threads and on to something more structured. I need to work on my persuasion skills.
I don't think Kary was a shill. His statements to me are scientific and cautious. As background, I led a team that unraveled the PCR fraud from 2020-2023. I will include our report at the end of this comment. He is known for demanding a paper that proved HIV caused AIDS. That was the right thing to do.
He said that to use the PCR diagnostically, that a gold standard must be met, and it's an impossible one. In his mind, attaining the gold standard meant being able to prove a pathogen is real, and show that it has effects, so that a threshold level can be found; and then the PCR can be a diagnostic tool -- reluctantly.
So he throws down a gauntlet that nobody can meet. We don't need him to say there is no virus. He said the right thing as a scientist: PROVE THAT THERE IS ONE, and that it has demonstrable effects. We don't need more than that. Even in 2020, people were far out on a limb asserting that there is no virus, and you make it sound like this is some kind of easy territory.
What is your personal history with belief in viruses? Where did you stand on 1/1/20?
To answer your question on when I started on this. I was only exposed to Cowan in 2020. If you read some of my earlier work you would see that I got onto No Virus by hearing Cowan explain that the 1954 Enders paper contained a control test that blew the entire experiment up. That was enough to convince me of the fraud that is Virology. I cannot speak for Jamie but he was also banned from twitter in 2020 for exposing the truth about Killingley's failed transmission studies over the last 10 years. Not entirely sure why this is relevant but there is some history.
I have seen Mullis demanding a paper that proved HIV caused AIDS. This was a great first step but some context to this is perhaps required... He made this statement on the House of Numbers series. A series where they also interviewed the Perth group, Eleni and Val, etc. People that were adamantly advocating for No Virus. People that were perhaps the most diligent scientists and researchers that the No Virus movement will ever see. Mullis had access to them... I am fairly sure that he would have been able to phone Eleni any time as she spent a lot of time on the phone with other people explaining the subject to them. Mullis however did not do this. In fact, he was perhaps one of the most arrogant "scientists" of that time. Especially after receiving the Nobel prize, or rather [part of] the Nobel price for the discovery of the PCR. Some more context on who he was can be found in this article:
To add to the above Mullis even had contact with Stefan Lanka and instead of collaborating with Stefan he only had bad things to say about him. As reported by some of the Perth group members that was at a seminar where Mullis and Lanka was present. I find it kind of strange that someone that would demand to see proof that HIV cause AIDS would go out against others that actually went much further than this...
You mention the following: "He said that to use the PCR diagnostically, that a gold standard must be met, and it's an impossible one. In his mind, attaining the gold standard meant being able to prove a pathogen is real, and show that it has effects, so that a threshold level can be found; and then the PCR can be a diagnostic tool -- reluctantly."
I have not seen any proof of the above. Please can you send me links to review on this topic? Even though I'd like to see how he worded this it makes absolutely no difference to what Jamie has written... These tests are not specific and the presumed caveat that Mullis placed on the PCR (as per your claim) has absolutely no bearing on the reality we experience currently.
You also mention: "We don't need more than that. Even in 2020, people were far out on a limb asserting that there is no virus, and you make it sound like this is some kind of easy territory."
The above is only possible because of people like Mullis who instead of doing diligent research fell in with the mainstream way of "science" stemming from inventive theories. The Perth group as well as Lanka had a perfect opportunity to bring down the virus lies and instead of getting support from someone like Mullis they received the PCR which is a massive part of the scam as this tool is being used to fortify the lie that is virology.
In my view this cannot be any more clear. Mullis is the Enders of our time. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Enders only gave us a tool for virus isolation and the we just need to use the tool correctly. I vehemently appose this line of thinking and the proof of that has been demonstrated by Jamie in this article as well as various other people who have already dismantled the fraudulent "virus isolation" method.
Enders wrote his paper in 1954 proposing the isolation method and the use of monkey kidney cells in the process. In 1959, F Rapp (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224866/pdf/43.pdf) published a paper stating that monkey kidney cells cannot be used for these types of investigations. I believe, like I've stated in the above paragraph, we have an opportunity now to stop this nonsense.
If you have any comments on the content of this article I am sure Jamie would be happy to clear it.
Thanks, we will review this. Mullis made the statement in a video; it would take some digging to find it, if I can. But he was clear: you have to know you're looking for the right thing.
The only other person I've heard take him down like this was Thomas Melendy at SUNY Buffalo, a mainstream virologist and vaccinologist who fed me other BS that proved to be very useful lies later in my work.
We must account for politics within this game of inherently *political science* where patents sell for a quarter-billion (and Mullis did not hold the patent). I guess I'm old school in that I prefer to use a sharp instrument and make a precise cut when I am discrediting someone. Mullis, whom I did not know, had a lot of issues; but he had an idea, that like other ideas, was based on previous ones.
The Perth Group were a third rail in mainstream science, where Mullis did business.
That all said, the PCR is one of the great travesties in science history, and I put years of my life trying to understand it starting 2000, and I will say this. I got to know a lot of the "good guys" on "team no virus," and most of them were next to no help understanding the problems. The most helpful, and not such a good guy, was Stephen Bustin, and he did not mean to be.
Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to wage a character assault on Kary Mullis. He had no part in covid, he spoke out about the problems with the PCR and HIV in a time when that was extremely dangerous, and he is not here to defend himself.
I suggest you pick on Pasteur, Flexner and Rockefeller. They too are dead, but were prime movers of the current disaster, and their roles are well documented. There is no need for inference.
I have also viewed that Mullis video. It does exist. I also do not understand how this vendetta against Mullis helps further anything here? Seems like a distraction at best, and makes us look more like unhinged wackos. Mullis was eccentric (confirmed by the linked Berkley article). Equating this with he was complicit in some cabal is loony tunes. Oh I guess anything is possible, but why even go there? I question the motivation of pushing such a narrative.
I appreciate many of dpl’s blogs, but what is psychologically driving this overzealous overreach? Also this blog article is perplexing as well. Is it suggesting that pregnancy tests do not work or not by any known mechanism thus some form of magic or coincidence? (Actually I can not seem to make any logical sense of what the blog is claiming about pregnancy tests) They sure worked damn well for us 9 months ago when my financee was trying to get pregnant and we had numerous failures before finally succeeding and the pregnancy tests were entirely accurate in aiding this quest. I am also suspicious of this anonymous @omarj. Is he controlled opposition in the form of a planted psyop disinfo to encourage us to discredit ourselves?
Also Einstein was notoriously weak in the rigor of math. Do we discredit him just because he depended on others to fill in some of the gaps in his rigor. Mullis was not likely reasoning out all possible implications of his creativity until after the fact. As Einstein later came to realize the dangers of nuclear war. The jury may still be undecided of whether PCR can only be used for evil and never for good. This blog was not particularly convincing for me on that subject. Maybe I just need to dig deeper and study this when not so sleepy.
He did not hold the patent; his employer did. He was paid $10,000 for his breakthrough (work under hire) and his employer sold the patent for about 200m, the highest-prieced patent sale at the time, if I am not mistaken. He did win the Nobel in "chemistry or medicine," as his category was known.
He also made the statement (asking for a scientific paper that outlined HIV being the probable cause of AIDS) in the Foreward to the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Prof. Duesburg - before the documentary House of Numbers (I think?) ...corrected after initial posting
I want to repeat this -- I was working with clean hands on the PCR story, with an impeccable track record covering toxins for 38 years. Most of the no-virus people were useless in assisting my work, when all I would do was validate their work. Two rather dark players -- Melendy and Bustin -- were the most help.
They at least manned up to interviews and told me what they knew, making admissions against interest. Finally, the Baileys helped me pull things together, as did Kevin Corbett. Along the way, for as long as he lived, David Crowe provided useful information. But a long list of top no-virus people were either useless, ignored me, or blew smoke. Franky they suck as a coalition and I was the only accredited reporter doing the story. So I don't know what went on between Mullis and other people.
And I don't know who you are, and why I have not heard of you until now, when you discredit a dead man who cannot defend himself, and who as far as I am concerned did what he could do. You can say, he should have done more. But tell me: could you have done more? And now that the pandemic is being rolled out again, why are we talking about Mullis and not going right to the issues?
Also: he only develops the PCR. He is not responsible for realtime, quantitative, PCR, which was dead in the water in 2007 after the Dartmouth Hitchcock incident and two others. I think it's hilarious that I remain the ONLY writer to raise that issue.
First of all Eric, you've made a claim about a gold standard and you said you'd link me up to the work that would back that up. I've waited to see if you'd respond with this information...
Secondly, aside from the unbacked claim you made you are stating that Mullis "did what he could".... Can you please clarify what he did?
Besides the above I've not seen you review the information in this article but you seem to be stuck on a few words which is an opinion based on the information contained in the article.
I'm also not sure what you imply by you've not heard of me before... Was I supposed to report to someone before I posted this article?
Not sure what your beef is with me. I don't cover Mullis and I'm not sure what your beef is with him either.
I cover the problem with the abuse of reverse-transcriptase, real-time, quantitative PCR, which Mullis did not invent. Some of these problems extend into DNA test kits as well (i.e., pertussis at Dartmouth-Hitchcock).
When I say that Mullis did what he could, I mean that at the outset of covering this issue, I watched many videos of his (formal interviews and informal talks) that filled me in on what to look for with PCR fraud. And in particular, his admonition that what he called the Gold Standard be met prior to claimed diagnostic use of the PCR. And it comports with various EUAs that say "this test cannot detect infection."
And then when you follow the studies and "follow the science," you find out that the Gold Standard is NOT being met; the primers are in silico, and you find out that the Gold Standard is, in effect, an elaborated version of Koch's Postulates (i.e., we need some logic here).
And then you find out that various priests and deacons are calling the PCR itself the "gold standard" over and over again in interviews, when that term re PCR *came from Mullis and represented something else*.
Mullis is one of the presenters I learned a few things early on, and then went on to grasp the deeper issues, in particular, the provenance of the amplicons (a/k/a the primers). He was one step in my understanding, as were many people; without using the word, he was saying YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT PRIMERS/amplicons (i.e., one element of the Gold Standard as he defined it). So I then was determined to find out about the primers, and that is how I developed the story.
This issue is not about Kary Mullis. It's about a globalist takeover that was nowhere near his mind when he figured out that polyerase + heating and cooling could cause the manufacture of a molecule fragment. It's about a new jurisdiction. If your argument is that he or anyone else is "not no virus enough," that is a woke argument: if you're not anti-racist enough in MY eyes, then you're a racist.
Somewhere in there, he also said: how dangerous could something be if you have to magnify it a trillion times to even find it?
These are all good questions, and they provided me with some guidance: pool is a game, the pockets are in the corners and on two sides. Aim for the pockets.
Apologies if I was direct in my last reply. It was late and there was other things also keeping me occupied after a full days work. Only got to respond past midnight and no, I do not have beef with you. In fact I do not know you... It just seemed that you were intentionally avoiding the main issue.
You are correct about the Primers used (Tac Polymerase). The salient point is that they are CHOOSING it based on what they ASSUME is in the sample.
This is the case for EVERY part of the PCR with Primers, Dyes, Buffers, Gel type, Gel mix, voltage, time left to migrate... Each variable drastically changing the outcome so much so that the experiment is meaningless.
The main point is that ALL the iterations of the PCR test also works with Protein... it is a complete ASSUMPTION that there is Nucleotides in there.
This is verified by looking at the blinded output which has an accuracy rates of less than 10%.
Can we take a test case that does not involve virus? What about the possibility of a PCR test kit for known and identified mold in wine; using a low Ct. Something that can be verified by other means of analysis. Does that have a shade of a chance of being valid? Or is PCR off the table even for research?
And sorry, I don't have the link, but I'm telling you from whom I heard the term and in what medium. It was in the churning chaos of 2020. I am considered a reliable source. It's out there somewhere.
Define sexual deviant? Do you have an issue with sexual freedom? Entitled because the people who are supposed to be presenting a coherent case for no virus were unhelpful in doing so? I have found his interview with Bustin to be helpful to my understanding. Whereas, this blog attempts to imply that pregnancy tests do not work or not by any known mechanism thus some form of magic or coincidence? (Actually I can not seem to make any logical sense of what the blog is claiming about pregnancy tests) Thus you appear to be controlled opposition to me so far. Do you have a non-anonymous identity?
EDIT: I noticed many times in life that those who are busy digging up dirt on others and accusing others of something, are directing attention away from the skeletons in their own closet and often doing the exact same thing they are accusing others. It takes one to know one well. I am very, very suspicious of people who sabotage others.
Even if he is leftist what relevancy does that have to no virus cause? Segregating into cliques based on broad taxonomies is akin to tying your shoelaces together as soon you will be a group of only yourself as you exclude everyone else based on the impossible intersection of what could be orthogonal traits and activities.
I can make the same claim about right-wing zealots. Religious zealotry is not exclusive to either side of the extremist spectrum. If that is a photo of the person alleged, I found his interview with Bustin to be on point and helpful, so your heuristic failed at least in that case. I found your other comments on this blog article to be well reasoned but I am not buying into this inkblot of stereotyping people based on a photo.
Isn’t it even a bit suspicious to you that this Omar character expends effort digging up dirt on the private lives of people who have contributed to our understanding of the PCR test? That’s unprofessional and smacks of a bad actor subversion/subterfuge. And you condone that by chiming in? Do you want him digging up dirt on your private life? Seems inconsistent with your other posts herein which I mostly agree with.
He seems to sent to sow radicalization among us. Cause us to splinter off into cliques of intolerance.
He began with driving a wedge between us and the confused doctors which seems reasonable on first thought:
Odd; I distinctly thought I already answered this earlier, but now I see my reply has vanished. Let me try again...
The whole tableau has an ambiance of dissolution, of "the West all around us is devolving so let's join in and have fun". If our last two centuries had real artists like the 19th, one could render it as an oil painting, titled,
Among the many communication problems the No Virus camp has is their stubborn (and silly) insistence that their stance is not radically egregious relative to the Mainstream norm's paradigm.
You didn't critique methodology, you claimed that no virus people insist...., totally bypassing the topic of the article. Have a nice day complaining about no-virus people.
Here, let me do my Christine Massey impression (not as good as my Christopher Walken, but here goes...):
"Don't tell me what I'm doing! How dare you tell me what I'm doing! Are you the boss of substack???"
Anyway, that habit I alluded to in my original comment is part of the methodological problems of the No Virus Camp; and secondly, I was commenting on a specific commenter's comment involving another methodological problem that the No Virus Camp tends to indulge (an extremist In Group/Out Group posture).
Actually, people who advocate for germ theory are radicals/conspiracy theorists based on the actual scientific experiments currently on record......not sure who you are, or what you're trying to prove, but you need to slink away now....
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now you're gaslighting, telling me I'm imagining what is overwhelmingly evident. "radically egregious" doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means virtually the entire motherfucking Mainstream disagrees with you. The Mainstream has developed a sociocultural situation where they in effect determine Reality, and opponents to their narratives thereby acquire an aura of strangeness by contrast -- all the more so if one's opposition is based in a stance markedly, startlingly different, which No Virus is. That's just the unfortunate sociocultural/political situation we find ourselves in. It won't go away by pretending it's not there for fuck sake.
actually, the no-virus position is WAY more valid considering the EVIDENCE that we can review...the studies themselves, which you have access to review for yourself....your position is based ONLY on propaganda and hypotheses (NEVER PROVEN IN REALITY)......when they actually tried to infect people, they could NEVER do it....EVER....so stand down now...I do not want you to address me again..
"your"? He is not a germ theory advocate. Do you have selective reading comprehension. Why are you so radicalized that you can not even handle a conversation without getting so emotional that you lose your reading comprehension.
I also hold the no virus view, but I bet I can communicate it much better than anyone has done up until now. Your clinical paranoia is not helping your cause.
So because the no-virus people hold a position that is radically different from the mainstream, that makes us strange - but not necessarily wrong - which you have stated above.
Then what is the issue? Thank GOD we have a different opinion, or the world would be a lot more boring.
Also, the mainstream is equivalent to consensus. You're only allowed to be "mainstream", if you agree with the nonsense the controllers put out there. It is strategically controlled. All of it. And its controlled by those with the most money to throw around for research and by those with the power to shut down something they don't like and destroy a persons reputation, if need be.
Logic & critical thinking have NOTHING to do with consensus. It is about finding the truth. Not about who has the most money & power to control a narrative and push an agenda.
I didn't say the NVP are strange *because* their position radically differs from the Mainstream Narrative; they manage to be strange (in terms of communication to the world outside the NV Camp) all on their own, for reasons I have yet to fathom.
I support the endeavor of the NVC. For the NVC to broaden its sociopolitical influence, it has to persuade outsiders. I've noticed they're not having an easy time, and when people raise skeptical questions -- or even just questions of curiosity that persist because they're not sufficiently answering previous questions -- the NVP get strangely defensive, prickly, and paranoid. This is the Goddamned problem.
I am mostly anti-Mainstream on all major narratives. But I need some cogency on a new counter-narrative and good faith discussion about matters of curiosity & concern before I join the party.
Ive seen quite the opposite. The No-Virus position has taken off exponentially and I am seeing people bringing this up in the most unexpected places, even on YouTube, and even on videos that are not specifically about viruses or germ theory. Perhaps you need to expand your bubble.
This movement has grown significantly in the last few years - it went from being an unknown topic for most people, to now having a massive amount of people who believe, and a large amount of people who are curious, open-minded, and still in the discovery phase. And then there are LOADS of people who don't believe but they are absolutely aware of it.
Hmmmm. So you’re saying that only proteins definitely exist, but nucleotides -- defined as “any of a group of compounds obtained by hydrolysis of nucleic acids, consisting of a purine or pyrimidine base linked to a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), which in turn is esterified with phosphoric acid” -- are only assumed to exist. Is this correct?
If so, I ask “Well then, do nucleic acids exist? Do purine or pyrimidine bases exist? Do sugars exist? Does phosphoric acid exist?
What chemicals exist? What elements exist? What molecules exist? What compounds exist?”
Where does the demarcation between what exists and what doesn’t descend into absurdity?
> “Given this charge is constant... it must be to do with quantity and not molecular weight IMO?”
The force (flux) in an electric field is proportional to its cross-section in the field, thus the quantity of the material is irrelevant because the more quantity the more cross-section it occupies.
If nucleic acids don’t exist (and I’m not claiming that this is your position), then how are proteins synthesized during development of the embryo and the fetus? How do tissues become differentiated.
There are probably many causes for diseases, sicknesses, (severe and mild) illnesses. Examples: poor sanitation, radiation, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, pollution, malnutrition and stress.
I’m simply asking that if genetic material doesn’t exist, then what are the mechanisms for protein synthesis and tissue differentiation during the development of the embryo and the fetus. Any proposals?
Well yes.. it is an existential problem within science. How to characterize something that you cannot see.
When it comes to proteins I would also agree that the fundamentals of observable cause and effect when characterising a protein are electromagnetic in nature.
Alot of Microbiology is assumed using Inventive Reasoning... I question most of it.
The light microscope and mass spectrometry and the election microscope and quantum mechanics opened up new vistas into the previously unseen universe.
It seems reasonable to me that life itself -- certainly bodies -- are electromagnetic. I think that biofields/auras exist. Some people claim to be able to observe them. I’ve witnessed only one.
Questioning is fine. But implying pregnancy tests do not work by any valid known methodology (even while admitting they work...by magic?), turns your entire body of work which I appreciate into an easy to label kook zone. Pregnancy tests work. My financee and I were recently using them extensively to know all our monthly failures and when the test result was positive then she was indeed pregnant. You are reaching too far and opening yourself to ridicule.
The inventive reasoning of an electromagnetic hypothesis can probably end up just as perverted as our current situation.
The entire tableau has a Leftist, casually dissolute "the West is morally devolving so let's have fun" ambiance. If our last two centuries had actual painters like the 19th had, it could be an oil painting titled "Three Jews Having Fun".
Might as well enjoy, because none of us are going to stop the devolution on the West. Assigning the cause to just one thing (as if his sexual freedom is a threat) is daft. It is the whole shit and caboodle, including 30 year mortgages pulling income forward by 30 years, etc.. The entire paradigm of the West (empire, reserve currency of world, population out of touch, population at the apogee of science as a religion, etc) must collapse by 2026 will begin the hard down phase into abject totalitarianism, Brace for impact.
His sexual freedom isn't a threat, but it reflects one glimpse into a broad and deep assault on the moral fabric & moral infrastructure of the West on all levels -- family, sex, children's innocence, etc.
Attempting to reduce everything to one scapegoat is not going to progress our understanding of reality. That you would condone scapegoating a member of the no virus movement and the posting of dirt on his private sexual life, reminds me yet again why I am living among the Planet of the Apes. I mean as everything is collapsing around us, we could at least retain our sense of decency and mutual respect for our fellow human beings. Especially those are on our side, putting in the effort to research PCR. If he was advocating grooming my kids, he would looking down the barrel of my 12 gauge. But then again, I wouldn’t be sending my kids off to government schools. With self-responsibility, we need less control over others. And thus freedom would reign. The more control and projection you push for, the more you will enslave yourself (the typical woodchipper the conservatives put their fingers in.) Grooming exists because parents abrogated their responsibility, not because of leftists. It would analogous to blaming ants for being all over your floor if you spilled honey on it and did not clean it up. Ditto blaming a daughter for ending up with a chad if spoiled her rotten and failed to raise her on a farm shoveling manure daily. Instagram is more to blame than leftists. Reducing blame to scapegoats is daft and for the incapable.
The best take of the science behind the PCR test that I have read is by Tam in this article - https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
Can't believe anyone thinks it's a valid test for anything.
Take down *
Mullis was an actor hired to play a very specific role. He never stepped foot in a lab in his entire life and wasn't even part of the team who "invented" PCR. He's a fraud like the rest of them.
Yes Omar,
I don't know how people miss this? He was arrogant enough to make the claim that he deserved the Nobel Prize on his own even though he could not do the experiments to prove it. Another team had to be assigned to help him with it...
It seems that people have taken 3 videos of him and invented a reality dramatically different to what he really did... He supposedly developed the tech that shut the world down... I mean...
While I value Omar, he is easier to read in short versions:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-kary-mullis-lab-secret
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star
Dear Omarj, are you the Omar Jordan of the Dark series? I think many have asked you. If not, you are still free to use the omarj name of course. If yes, why not admit it or use an unrelated SS name to begin with if you don't want to admit it? Myself included, we have learned a lot from Omar of the Dark series.
Proton Magic
We need to get you on telegram man 😁
Better we all were able to meet and have a beer, but not so easy... Anyway, I'm glad we finally hooked up and we can follow each other closely. I'm very weak-kneed about Chinese software, but then again they probably got all their ideas from IBM.
Proof?
Are you the Omar Jordan who writes here? https://mega.nz/file/sAB3BRbQ#SEy2C3tNwlsmEFscyRXdaDjqfMZzO7-QKTyJ7dOh5as
If that it he, then what he wrote there is much more palatable to me than implying pregnancy tests do not work by any valid known methodology (even while admitting they work...by magic?). If I was only reading the aforelinked, I would think he is on our side. But reading his comments on this blog post direct me to think he is pushing us to radicalization in order to discredit ourselves. Maybe he became consumed by this to such a degree that he lost his ability to be circumspect and question the limitations of his own powers of discernment?
“But reading his comments on this blog post direct me to think he is pushing us to radicalization in order to discredit ourselves. Maybe he became consumed by this to such a degree that he lost his ability to be circumspect and question the limitations of his own powers of discernment?”
The author of the above link I posted and his comments on this article IS radical. Some radicals, ie those determined to get to the root of an issue or an idea or a hypothesis, use bona fide methods, while others do not. “By their fruits you shall know them.” It would be a fun and interesting and adventurous discussion to compare notes on how to cultivate the gracious gift of discernment. Thanks for the reply.
What I mean more specifically as outlined by the numerous comments I added to this blog last night, is (assuming the same Omar posting here as the resource you cited) he is ostensibly sowing discord, directing us to radicalization in the form of cliques of intolerance — first by needlessly attacking Kary Mullis turning us away from a (i.e. derailing the) discussion of the virology junk science facts towards politics and interpersonal conflicts.
Further amplified by posting private life dirt (nude photos) alleged to be another of our no-virus-came (NVC) tribe, which evidently triggers the compulsion of those who want to self-segregate on (not even verified) presumptions of morality and ideology thereof. It’s the typical divide-and-conquer strategy that bad actor priests employ to lead their flock astray and under a form of hypnotic control.
Our scapegoating (of even the elite) conveniently encourages us to deny our own self-responsibility and thus complicity in the outcome. I adopt the generative essence thesis that society enables power vacuums when we abrogate self-responsibility. For example one of our tribe was triggered enough by said photo to label the alleged member of our tribe a leftist. It’s at best myopic on his part, and possibly a manipulative intent (ostensibly cultivated by the cunning Omar) to scapegoat our plight on leftists or what have you (again the handiwork, cunning strategy of how priests take control of society).
By displacing self-responsibility with instead the clearly popular collectivized control aka politics/statism — the metaphorical woodchipper conservatives love to insert their arms into — we willfully, collectively (if somewhat hypnotically) amplify the power vacuums that drive our enslavement and outcomes.
Conservatives develop this hypnotic groupthink by attending the synagogues which Jesus critiqued in Matthew 6:5, being coaxed by priests who have every incentive to amplify their power and financial gain by encouraging/seeding the discourse and devolution into amplification of power vacuums.
The abstract concept mostly correlates to loving versus hating, e.g. war (on drugs, viruses, Islam, etc) justified via fear porn/scapegoating to “keep us safe.” Society functions because we come together to the benefit of everyone, but power vacuums always MUST be captured by the most ruthless otherwise the more ruthless will take the power from the less ruthless because power projection is maximized ruthlessly.
The paradigmatic mistake of many if not most conservatives is that they believe in virtuous, collectivized power (tying their shoelaces together). As if they could hodl power vacuums with virtuous, benevolent leaders. Power is always evil. Reason our founding forefathers were against standing armies because the most ruthless power ends up finding a ruthless utility for the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about.
The resulting centralized action is blind to feedback loops and doesn’t anneal optimally (analogous to gradient descent which get stuck in local minima versus randomized simulated annealing in optimization problems).
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984#comment-236173
https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=2922
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics/comment/44085772
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics/comment/44086483
http://trilema.com/2013/the-story-of-pointless-and-witless/
Private life dirt posted on a publicly accessible website? How do you figure that makes any sense, logically?
The only relevance I can see for posting someone’s private sexual life here on this blog is to derail the discussion of whether virology is a junk science by triggering politics and morality. Entirely orthogonal to the quest for the virology facts. I do not even know if it is the alleged individual (nor do I have any fetish to pry into his private life!). Nor do I know who posted it publicly to dropbox. Even if you’re claiming you know he is the alleged and the alleged authorized the publicity, it’s still skulduggery in the context of this supposed to be a science discussion blog. It undermines our efforts, because not only turning us against each other, but also if any outsiders come by to read, they are going to see this sewer noise instead of a sober, esteemed intellectual discussion. I hope I do not have to defend this point further!
In any case, I want no association with such nonsense. I am here purely for the science discussion. I am just making it very clear to any outsider that reads my participation here, that I objected.
Any political movement should be forked off to a separate political community blog.
Who paid his ‘actor’ feee? Asking for a friend
If that's so, the people who hired him aren't very smart.
sure they are, they fooled you didn't they? :)
I remain more skeptical than others on my Team about anybody, whoever it is. At any rate, the number of people who are "fooled" by Mullis is very small. And it doesn't make sense that a wealthy powerful Cabal which has plenty of resources to fabricate resumes would not simply have padded Mullis's resume and provided him with suitable qualifications.
Go see if you can find any proof (outside of staged photo-ops in a studio) of Mullis working in a Lab, anytime, anywhere in the world.
There are likely plenty of people who have worked in labs for years who nevertheless defend the Mainstream Narratives, so I don't see why it's necessary to say Mullis never worked in a lab in order to prove he's a Mainstream shill. Besides which such a challenge as you pose would be virtually impossible to find, given that the Cabal likely can manufacture "evidence" anyway. Indeed, the absence of such details is fishy from the opposite end, so to speak. If the Cabal wanted to groom/manufacture a shill, why would they be so stupid as to not provide him with the proper vita & resume for his credentials?
Because they know that gullible people like you will fall for it, hook line and sinker, as you've displayed here. They gave the man the Nobel Prize. Only insiders get that award. Figure it out.
Wow, thank you so much for this, dpl and Jamie :)
Thanks Christine,
This one is all on Jamie. The chap has done some good back work and I am trying to get him off the twitter threads and on to something more structured. I need to work on my persuasion skills.
Please let him know I concur :)
I don't think Kary was a shill. His statements to me are scientific and cautious. As background, I led a team that unraveled the PCR fraud from 2020-2023. I will include our report at the end of this comment. He is known for demanding a paper that proved HIV caused AIDS. That was the right thing to do.
He said that to use the PCR diagnostically, that a gold standard must be met, and it's an impossible one. In his mind, attaining the gold standard meant being able to prove a pathogen is real, and show that it has effects, so that a threshold level can be found; and then the PCR can be a diagnostic tool -- reluctantly.
So he throws down a gauntlet that nobody can meet. We don't need him to say there is no virus. He said the right thing as a scientist: PROVE THAT THERE IS ONE, and that it has demonstrable effects. We don't need more than that. Even in 2020, people were far out on a limb asserting that there is no virus, and you make it sound like this is some kind of easy territory.
What is your personal history with belief in viruses? Where did you stand on 1/1/20?
https://chironreturn.org/chronology/
Hi Eric,
To answer your question on when I started on this. I was only exposed to Cowan in 2020. If you read some of my earlier work you would see that I got onto No Virus by hearing Cowan explain that the 1954 Enders paper contained a control test that blew the entire experiment up. That was enough to convince me of the fraud that is Virology. I cannot speak for Jamie but he was also banned from twitter in 2020 for exposing the truth about Killingley's failed transmission studies over the last 10 years. Not entirely sure why this is relevant but there is some history.
I have seen Mullis demanding a paper that proved HIV caused AIDS. This was a great first step but some context to this is perhaps required... He made this statement on the House of Numbers series. A series where they also interviewed the Perth group, Eleni and Val, etc. People that were adamantly advocating for No Virus. People that were perhaps the most diligent scientists and researchers that the No Virus movement will ever see. Mullis had access to them... I am fairly sure that he would have been able to phone Eleni any time as she spent a lot of time on the phone with other people explaining the subject to them. Mullis however did not do this. In fact, he was perhaps one of the most arrogant "scientists" of that time. Especially after receiving the Nobel prize, or rather [part of] the Nobel price for the discovery of the PCR. Some more context on who he was can be found in this article:
https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/winter-2019/intolerable-genius-berkeleys-most-controversial-nobel-laureate/
To add to the above Mullis even had contact with Stefan Lanka and instead of collaborating with Stefan he only had bad things to say about him. As reported by some of the Perth group members that was at a seminar where Mullis and Lanka was present. I find it kind of strange that someone that would demand to see proof that HIV cause AIDS would go out against others that actually went much further than this...
You mention the following: "He said that to use the PCR diagnostically, that a gold standard must be met, and it's an impossible one. In his mind, attaining the gold standard meant being able to prove a pathogen is real, and show that it has effects, so that a threshold level can be found; and then the PCR can be a diagnostic tool -- reluctantly."
I have not seen any proof of the above. Please can you send me links to review on this topic? Even though I'd like to see how he worded this it makes absolutely no difference to what Jamie has written... These tests are not specific and the presumed caveat that Mullis placed on the PCR (as per your claim) has absolutely no bearing on the reality we experience currently.
You also mention: "We don't need more than that. Even in 2020, people were far out on a limb asserting that there is no virus, and you make it sound like this is some kind of easy territory."
The above is only possible because of people like Mullis who instead of doing diligent research fell in with the mainstream way of "science" stemming from inventive theories. The Perth group as well as Lanka had a perfect opportunity to bring down the virus lies and instead of getting support from someone like Mullis they received the PCR which is a massive part of the scam as this tool is being used to fortify the lie that is virology.
In my view this cannot be any more clear. Mullis is the Enders of our time. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Enders only gave us a tool for virus isolation and the we just need to use the tool correctly. I vehemently appose this line of thinking and the proof of that has been demonstrated by Jamie in this article as well as various other people who have already dismantled the fraudulent "virus isolation" method.
Enders wrote his paper in 1954 proposing the isolation method and the use of monkey kidney cells in the process. In 1959, F Rapp (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224866/pdf/43.pdf) published a paper stating that monkey kidney cells cannot be used for these types of investigations. I believe, like I've stated in the above paragraph, we have an opportunity now to stop this nonsense.
If you have any comments on the content of this article I am sure Jamie would be happy to clear it.
Regards
dpl
Thanks, we will review this. Mullis made the statement in a video; it would take some digging to find it, if I can. But he was clear: you have to know you're looking for the right thing.
The only other person I've heard take him down like this was Thomas Melendy at SUNY Buffalo, a mainstream virologist and vaccinologist who fed me other BS that proved to be very useful lies later in my work.
We must account for politics within this game of inherently *political science* where patents sell for a quarter-billion (and Mullis did not hold the patent). I guess I'm old school in that I prefer to use a sharp instrument and make a precise cut when I am discrediting someone. Mullis, whom I did not know, had a lot of issues; but he had an idea, that like other ideas, was based on previous ones.
The Perth Group were a third rail in mainstream science, where Mullis did business.
That all said, the PCR is one of the great travesties in science history, and I put years of my life trying to understand it starting 2000, and I will say this. I got to know a lot of the "good guys" on "team no virus," and most of them were next to no help understanding the problems. The most helpful, and not such a good guy, was Stephen Bustin, and he did not mean to be.
Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to wage a character assault on Kary Mullis. He had no part in covid, he spoke out about the problems with the PCR and HIV in a time when that was extremely dangerous, and he is not here to defend himself.
I suggest you pick on Pasteur, Flexner and Rockefeller. They too are dead, but were prime movers of the current disaster, and their roles are well documented. There is no need for inference.
You probably know about this acid trip --
https://planetwaves.net/the-invention-of-pcr/
I have also viewed that Mullis video. It does exist. I also do not understand how this vendetta against Mullis helps further anything here? Seems like a distraction at best, and makes us look more like unhinged wackos. Mullis was eccentric (confirmed by the linked Berkley article). Equating this with he was complicit in some cabal is loony tunes. Oh I guess anything is possible, but why even go there? I question the motivation of pushing such a narrative.
I appreciate many of dpl’s blogs, but what is psychologically driving this overzealous overreach? Also this blog article is perplexing as well. Is it suggesting that pregnancy tests do not work or not by any known mechanism thus some form of magic or coincidence? (Actually I can not seem to make any logical sense of what the blog is claiming about pregnancy tests) They sure worked damn well for us 9 months ago when my financee was trying to get pregnant and we had numerous failures before finally succeeding and the pregnancy tests were entirely accurate in aiding this quest. I am also suspicious of this anonymous @omarj. Is he controlled opposition in the form of a planted psyop disinfo to encourage us to discredit ourselves?
Also Einstein was notoriously weak in the rigor of math. Do we discredit him just because he depended on others to fill in some of the gaps in his rigor. Mullis was not likely reasoning out all possible implications of his creativity until after the fact. As Einstein later came to realize the dangers of nuclear war. The jury may still be undecided of whether PCR can only be used for evil and never for good. This blog was not particularly convincing for me on that subject. Maybe I just need to dig deeper and study this when not so sleepy.
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
Mullis didn't hold the patent? His name is literally on the patents.
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/norman-arnheim
He did not hold the patent; his employer did. He was paid $10,000 for his breakthrough (work under hire) and his employer sold the patent for about 200m, the highest-prieced patent sale at the time, if I am not mistaken. He did win the Nobel in "chemistry or medicine," as his category was known.
He also made the statement (asking for a scientific paper that outlined HIV being the probable cause of AIDS) in the Foreward to the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Prof. Duesburg - before the documentary House of Numbers (I think?) ...corrected after initial posting
I want to repeat this -- I was working with clean hands on the PCR story, with an impeccable track record covering toxins for 38 years. Most of the no-virus people were useless in assisting my work, when all I would do was validate their work. Two rather dark players -- Melendy and Bustin -- were the most help.
They at least manned up to interviews and told me what they knew, making admissions against interest. Finally, the Baileys helped me pull things together, as did Kevin Corbett. Along the way, for as long as he lived, David Crowe provided useful information. But a long list of top no-virus people were either useless, ignored me, or blew smoke. Franky they suck as a coalition and I was the only accredited reporter doing the story. So I don't know what went on between Mullis and other people.
And I don't know who you are, and why I have not heard of you until now, when you discredit a dead man who cannot defend himself, and who as far as I am concerned did what he could do. You can say, he should have done more. But tell me: could you have done more? And now that the pandemic is being rolled out again, why are we talking about Mullis and not going right to the issues?
Also: he only develops the PCR. He is not responsible for realtime, quantitative, PCR, which was dead in the water in 2007 after the Dartmouth Hitchcock incident and two others. I think it's hilarious that I remain the ONLY writer to raise that issue.
First of all Eric, you've made a claim about a gold standard and you said you'd link me up to the work that would back that up. I've waited to see if you'd respond with this information...
Secondly, aside from the unbacked claim you made you are stating that Mullis "did what he could".... Can you please clarify what he did?
Besides the above I've not seen you review the information in this article but you seem to be stuck on a few words which is an opinion based on the information contained in the article.
I'm also not sure what you imply by you've not heard of me before... Was I supposed to report to someone before I posted this article?
Not sure what your beef is with me. I don't cover Mullis and I'm not sure what your beef is with him either.
I cover the problem with the abuse of reverse-transcriptase, real-time, quantitative PCR, which Mullis did not invent. Some of these problems extend into DNA test kits as well (i.e., pertussis at Dartmouth-Hitchcock).
When I say that Mullis did what he could, I mean that at the outset of covering this issue, I watched many videos of his (formal interviews and informal talks) that filled me in on what to look for with PCR fraud. And in particular, his admonition that what he called the Gold Standard be met prior to claimed diagnostic use of the PCR. And it comports with various EUAs that say "this test cannot detect infection."
And then when you follow the studies and "follow the science," you find out that the Gold Standard is NOT being met; the primers are in silico, and you find out that the Gold Standard is, in effect, an elaborated version of Koch's Postulates (i.e., we need some logic here).
And then you find out that various priests and deacons are calling the PCR itself the "gold standard" over and over again in interviews, when that term re PCR *came from Mullis and represented something else*.
Mullis is one of the presenters I learned a few things early on, and then went on to grasp the deeper issues, in particular, the provenance of the amplicons (a/k/a the primers). He was one step in my understanding, as were many people; without using the word, he was saying YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT PRIMERS/amplicons (i.e., one element of the Gold Standard as he defined it). So I then was determined to find out about the primers, and that is how I developed the story.
This issue is not about Kary Mullis. It's about a globalist takeover that was nowhere near his mind when he figured out that polyerase + heating and cooling could cause the manufacture of a molecule fragment. It's about a new jurisdiction. If your argument is that he or anyone else is "not no virus enough," that is a woke argument: if you're not anti-racist enough in MY eyes, then you're a racist.
Somewhere in there, he also said: how dangerous could something be if you have to magnify it a trillion times to even find it?
These are all good questions, and they provided me with some guidance: pool is a game, the pockets are in the corners and on two sides. Aim for the pockets.
Apologies if I was direct in my last reply. It was late and there was other things also keeping me occupied after a full days work. Only got to respond past midnight and no, I do not have beef with you. In fact I do not know you... It just seemed that you were intentionally avoiding the main issue.
You are correct about the Primers used (Tac Polymerase). The salient point is that they are CHOOSING it based on what they ASSUME is in the sample.
This is the case for EVERY part of the PCR with Primers, Dyes, Buffers, Gel type, Gel mix, voltage, time left to migrate... Each variable drastically changing the outcome so much so that the experiment is meaningless.
The main point is that ALL the iterations of the PCR test also works with Protein... it is a complete ASSUMPTION that there is Nucleotides in there.
This is verified by looking at the blinded output which has an accuracy rates of less than 10%.
This is all explained in the interview I had with Jamie discussing this post. You can listen to that here - https://dpl003.substack.com/p/jamie-discussing-the-pcr-gene-sequencing
Also, on what Mullis said in his interviews you can get more detail here - https://dpl003.substack.com/p/a-review-of-mullis-by-rod-knoll#details
PS -- have you heard my interview with MN908947.2?
https://planetwaves.net/exclusive-interview-with-in-silico-virus-mn980947-2/
Can we take a test case that does not involve virus? What about the possibility of a PCR test kit for known and identified mold in wine; using a low Ct. Something that can be verified by other means of analysis. Does that have a shade of a chance of being valid? Or is PCR off the table even for research?
And sorry, I don't have the link, but I'm telling you from whom I heard the term and in what medium. It was in the churning chaos of 2020. I am considered a reliable source. It's out there somewhere.
I would most definitely like to see this if you do get hold of it
You sound kinda entitled as if they owed you something. Maybe they didn't want to associate with a known sexual deviant?
Define sexual deviant? Do you have an issue with sexual freedom? Entitled because the people who are supposed to be presenting a coherent case for no virus were unhelpful in doing so? I have found his interview with Bustin to be helpful to my understanding. Whereas, this blog attempts to imply that pregnancy tests do not work or not by any known mechanism thus some form of magic or coincidence? (Actually I can not seem to make any logical sense of what the blog is claiming about pregnancy tests) Thus you appear to be controlled opposition to me so far. Do you have a non-anonymous identity?
EDIT: I noticed many times in life that those who are busy digging up dirt on others and accusing others of something, are directing attention away from the skeletons in their own closet and often doing the exact same thing they are accusing others. It takes one to know one well. I am very, very suspicious of people who sabotage others.
FOLLOW-UP: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics/comment/44109977
edited below
This you, bro?
https://tinyurl.com/yt29a3pc
He looks like a Leftist.
Even if he is leftist what relevancy does that have to no virus cause? Segregating into cliques based on broad taxonomies is akin to tying your shoelaces together as soon you will be a group of only yourself as you exclude everyone else based on the impossible intersection of what could be orthogonal traits and activities.
Leftists are not reliable to the extent they let their worldview govern their emotions, thoughts and actions.
Please read my edits to my prior response. I think you are sincere. Be careful.
I can make the same claim about right-wing zealots. Religious zealotry is not exclusive to either side of the extremist spectrum. If that is a photo of the person alleged, I found his interview with Bustin to be on point and helpful, so your heuristic failed at least in that case. I found your other comments on this blog article to be well reasoned but I am not buying into this inkblot of stereotyping people based on a photo.
Isn’t it even a bit suspicious to you that this Omar character expends effort digging up dirt on the private lives of people who have contributed to our understanding of the PCR test? That’s unprofessional and smacks of a bad actor subversion/subterfuge. And you condone that by chiming in? Do you want him digging up dirt on your private life? Seems inconsistent with your other posts herein which I mostly agree with.
He seems to sent to sow radicalization among us. Cause us to splinter off into cliques of intolerance.
He began with driving a wedge between us and the confused doctors which seems reasonable on first thought:
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics/comment/40192591
But now it becomes more evident that he wants to drive wedges between all of us, until we splinter off into chaos.
(I lean right of center, but that’s not really relevant to my point)
The difference is that right wingers have virtually zero cultural control, whereas Leftists control the entire culture of the entire Goddamned West.
Hilarious what visual characteristics make that evident?
Odd; I distinctly thought I already answered this earlier, but now I see my reply has vanished. Let me try again...
The whole tableau has an ambiance of dissolution, of "the West all around us is devolving so let's join in and have fun". If our last two centuries had real artists like the 19th, one could render it as an oil painting, titled,
"Three Jews Having Fun"
Among the many communication problems the No Virus camp has is their stubborn (and silly) insistence that their stance is not radically egregious relative to the Mainstream norm's paradigm.
Amazing how you keep turning up on no-virus substacks with inane ad hominem comments.
Critiquing people's methodology is not "ad hominem"
You didn't critique methodology, you claimed that no virus people insist...., totally bypassing the topic of the article. Have a nice day complaining about no-virus people.
Here, let me do my Christine Massey impression (not as good as my Christopher Walken, but here goes...):
"Don't tell me what I'm doing! How dare you tell me what I'm doing! Are you the boss of substack???"
Anyway, that habit I alluded to in my original comment is part of the methodological problems of the No Virus Camp; and secondly, I was commenting on a specific commenter's comment involving another methodological problem that the No Virus Camp tends to indulge (an extremist In Group/Out Group posture).
Like I said, have a nice day complaining about no-virus people.
Actually, people who advocate for germ theory are radicals/conspiracy theorists based on the actual scientific experiments currently on record......not sure who you are, or what you're trying to prove, but you need to slink away now....
Really this is yer response jeesh
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Now you're gaslighting, telling me I'm imagining what is overwhelmingly evident. "radically egregious" doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means virtually the entire motherfucking Mainstream disagrees with you. The Mainstream has developed a sociocultural situation where they in effect determine Reality, and opponents to their narratives thereby acquire an aura of strangeness by contrast -- all the more so if one's opposition is based in a stance markedly, startlingly different, which No Virus is. That's just the unfortunate sociocultural/political situation we find ourselves in. It won't go away by pretending it's not there for fuck sake.
actually, the no-virus position is WAY more valid considering the EVIDENCE that we can review...the studies themselves, which you have access to review for yourself....your position is based ONLY on propaganda and hypotheses (NEVER PROVEN IN REALITY)......when they actually tried to infect people, they could NEVER do it....EVER....so stand down now...I do not want you to address me again..
"your"? He is not a germ theory advocate. Do you have selective reading comprehension. Why are you so radicalized that you can not even handle a conversation without getting so emotional that you lose your reading comprehension.
I also hold the no virus view, but I bet I can communicate it much better than anyone has done up until now. Your clinical paranoia is not helping your cause.
clinical paranoia...hahahahahahahahahahahaha........
So because the no-virus people hold a position that is radically different from the mainstream, that makes us strange - but not necessarily wrong - which you have stated above.
Then what is the issue? Thank GOD we have a different opinion, or the world would be a lot more boring.
Also, the mainstream is equivalent to consensus. You're only allowed to be "mainstream", if you agree with the nonsense the controllers put out there. It is strategically controlled. All of it. And its controlled by those with the most money to throw around for research and by those with the power to shut down something they don't like and destroy a persons reputation, if need be.
Logic & critical thinking have NOTHING to do with consensus. It is about finding the truth. Not about who has the most money & power to control a narrative and push an agenda.
I didn't say the NVP are strange *because* their position radically differs from the Mainstream Narrative; they manage to be strange (in terms of communication to the world outside the NV Camp) all on their own, for reasons I have yet to fathom.
I support the endeavor of the NVC. For the NVC to broaden its sociopolitical influence, it has to persuade outsiders. I've noticed they're not having an easy time, and when people raise skeptical questions -- or even just questions of curiosity that persist because they're not sufficiently answering previous questions -- the NVP get strangely defensive, prickly, and paranoid. This is the Goddamned problem.
I am mostly anti-Mainstream on all major narratives. But I need some cogency on a new counter-narrative and good faith discussion about matters of curiosity & concern before I join the party.
Ive seen quite the opposite. The No-Virus position has taken off exponentially and I am seeing people bringing this up in the most unexpected places, even on YouTube, and even on videos that are not specifically about viruses or germ theory. Perhaps you need to expand your bubble.
This movement has grown significantly in the last few years - it went from being an unknown topic for most people, to now having a massive amount of people who believe, and a large amount of people who are curious, open-minded, and still in the discovery phase. And then there are LOADS of people who don't believe but they are absolutely aware of it.
Exactly !
Excellent post here. Based on what is reported in this medical science reveal, I'm never trusting government science any more.
Thanks James,
Agreed wholeheartedly. If you dig deep enough, it seems it's mostly all nonsense.
Hmmmm. So you’re saying that only proteins definitely exist, but nucleotides -- defined as “any of a group of compounds obtained by hydrolysis of nucleic acids, consisting of a purine or pyrimidine base linked to a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), which in turn is esterified with phosphoric acid” -- are only assumed to exist. Is this correct?
If so, I ask “Well then, do nucleic acids exist? Do purine or pyrimidine bases exist? Do sugars exist? Does phosphoric acid exist?
What chemicals exist? What elements exist? What molecules exist? What compounds exist?”
Where does the demarcation between what exists and what doesn’t descend into absurdity?
Are... Are the PROTEINS in the room with you right now?
> “Given this charge is constant... it must be to do with quantity and not molecular weight IMO?”
The force (flux) in an electric field is proportional to its cross-section in the field, thus the quantity of the material is irrelevant because the more quantity the more cross-section it occupies.
If nucleic acids don’t exist (and I’m not claiming that this is your position), then how are proteins synthesized during development of the embryo and the fetus? How do tissues become differentiated.
This is the same as asking that if viruses do not exist why do ppl become sick...
Apples and oranges.
There are probably many causes for diseases, sicknesses, (severe and mild) illnesses. Examples: poor sanitation, radiation, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, pollution, malnutrition and stress.
I’m simply asking that if genetic material doesn’t exist, then what are the mechanisms for protein synthesis and tissue differentiation during the development of the embryo and the fetus. Any proposals?
Well yes.. it is an existential problem within science. How to characterize something that you cannot see.
When it comes to proteins I would also agree that the fundamentals of observable cause and effect when characterising a protein are electromagnetic in nature.
Alot of Microbiology is assumed using Inventive Reasoning... I question most of it.
Seeing is believing and believing is seeing.
The light microscope and mass spectrometry and the election microscope and quantum mechanics opened up new vistas into the previously unseen universe.
It seems reasonable to me that life itself -- certainly bodies -- are electromagnetic. I think that biofields/auras exist. Some people claim to be able to observe them. I’ve witnessed only one.
Questioning is fine. But implying pregnancy tests do not work by any valid known methodology (even while admitting they work...by magic?), turns your entire body of work which I appreciate into an easy to label kook zone. Pregnancy tests work. My financee and I were recently using them extensively to know all our monthly failures and when the test result was positive then she was indeed pregnant. You are reaching too far and opening yourself to ridicule.
The inventive reasoning of an electromagnetic hypothesis can probably end up just as perverted as our current situation.
The entire tableau has a Leftist, casually dissolute "the West is morally devolving so let's have fun" ambiance. If our last two centuries had actual painters like the 19th had, it could be an oil painting titled "Three Jews Having Fun".
Might as well enjoy, because none of us are going to stop the devolution on the West. Assigning the cause to just one thing (as if his sexual freedom is a threat) is daft. It is the whole shit and caboodle, including 30 year mortgages pulling income forward by 30 years, etc.. The entire paradigm of the West (empire, reserve currency of world, population out of touch, population at the apogee of science as a religion, etc) must collapse by 2026 will begin the hard down phase into abject totalitarianism, Brace for impact.
His sexual freedom isn't a threat, but it reflects one glimpse into a broad and deep assault on the moral fabric & moral infrastructure of the West on all levels -- family, sex, children's innocence, etc.
Conservatives’ compulsions let the camel’s nose under the tent.
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics/comment/44085772
Attempting to reduce everything to one scapegoat is not going to progress our understanding of reality. That you would condone scapegoating a member of the no virus movement and the posting of dirt on his private sexual life, reminds me yet again why I am living among the Planet of the Apes. I mean as everything is collapsing around us, we could at least retain our sense of decency and mutual respect for our fellow human beings. Especially those are on our side, putting in the effort to research PCR. If he was advocating grooming my kids, he would looking down the barrel of my 12 gauge. But then again, I wouldn’t be sending my kids off to government schools. With self-responsibility, we need less control over others. And thus freedom would reign. The more control and projection you push for, the more you will enslave yourself (the typical woodchipper the conservatives put their fingers in.) Grooming exists because parents abrogated their responsibility, not because of leftists. It would analogous to blaming ants for being all over your floor if you spilled honey on it and did not clean it up. Ditto blaming a daughter for ending up with a chad if spoiled her rotten and failed to raise her on a farm shoveling manure daily. Instagram is more to blame than leftists. Reducing blame to scapegoats is daft and for the incapable.
"The half-truth Nobel Prize (Shill alert) winner was lying, there is no Virus or DNA"
Is it possible he was sincerely mistaken, rather than lying (which means conscious intent to deceive)?
nah, he was lying. :)