Time you took your own advice mate. No building stands on rotten foundations - period. Not running away, just facing a truth based in reality. PCR is a great lab research tool, not a clinical diagnosis whatever Drosten claimed 9and made a bundle of money from).
If the foundation of the claim is false, ALL ARE FALSE that stand on that foundation. IT IS THAT simple. Basic engineering, basic logic, and good reasoning skills are needed, in fact maybe not - just a bit of simple thinking anyone can do. A subset stands on the primary which if false knocks the lot down.
The PCR is an amplification process which relies on knowing how it works, AND having a reliable reference to identify what is amplified against that reference. Poor reference or porr technique and the results are rubbish. Since February 2020 I have figured out how the PCR amplification works and then went looking for a virus the evidence for which appears to live in the minds of some Virologists because they say it exists. Not good enough for me to accept ANY PCR claimed evidence as solid.
Sorry Brian, that just walked me around in a circle and I found i was looking at the beginning again. I di NOT say anything about 'unlikelihood' in sequential so called PCR tests. I am simply saying ALL PCR 'tests' are suspect results - ie random results. Anyone using a PCR must know from the design that at some point they will gat a positive depending upon the sample AND the Ct number chosen for that run. PCR amplifies EVERYTHING, thats all it ever can do. Then if you are looking for X it is only a matter of how high the Ct to show an X assuming there is a X in the sample to start with. how can anyone call that a Clinical Diagnosis tool beats me.
I've been meaning to comment on this post, however similar to the previous ones leading up to this one I was still trying to parse the data (I do, however, understand Akira! Probably not something I should have watched while little...).
With that being said, I do appreciate your attempts to construct your hypothesis. As we've come to witness, there's a great deal of hubris in science that doesn't make room for corrections or negative results, so it's nice to see a hypothesis constructed but then reassessed due to looking at different information. I think we need more people willing to be wrong in this space. It's the only way we can add to the discourse.
What if it is not a viral epidemic but something else again? The so called Spanish Flu epidemic (pandemic?) of 1918 has been said to have been a Bacterial one, that may also have been propagated by a Bacterial Vaccination project. Considering what many are claiming to have found and identified in the blood of sufferers, almost all of whom have received two or more shots, and the arguments suggesting shedding as a transmission medium for 'infection' (to those unvaccinated?), surely other possibilities than a viral impact should be considered. Seeing all through a lens of Virology may be a monumental error limiting investigation to a myopic one.
(I need to change my screen name to "Not A Scientist"); however, I'm having trouble understanding how a virus that was "first seen in the west in January 2020" could have propelled AZ to develop a vaccine that was ready for Trials on April 23, 2020. Talk about the speed of science! /s
I greatly appreciate your willingness to entertain a hypothesis, investigate it thoroughly, and then change your perspective based on the results. This is obviously how the scientific method is supposed to work, but seldom how it actually works (which is sadly true now in both the mainstream and skeptic worlds).
I still find your lab-mouse origin story for the Omicrons quite convincing.
I wonder if the strange transmission dynamics of the pre-Omicrons might play into the strange evolutionary dynamics.
The earlier variants were not fit enough to infect most people (i.e. most people avoided infection despite no adaptive immunity) except in certain "super spreader" situations that appeared to be driven by particular hosts or particular environmental conditions. The BA variants, on the other hand, seem to be behaving more like a typical respiratory virus.
Hello and many thanks for your article.
The variants of concern were all the minds of those who made it all up. All faked and imagined. I did some imagining myself. I am not PC.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/12/02/various-variants-covid-19/
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/05/11/100-up-and-stupid-20-variants/
An early 2020 paper on Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. My brain hurts just reading the abstract, but it seems interesting:
Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry.
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/31826992
Time you took your own advice mate. No building stands on rotten foundations - period. Not running away, just facing a truth based in reality. PCR is a great lab research tool, not a clinical diagnosis whatever Drosten claimed 9and made a bundle of money from).
If the foundation of the claim is false, ALL ARE FALSE that stand on that foundation. IT IS THAT simple. Basic engineering, basic logic, and good reasoning skills are needed, in fact maybe not - just a bit of simple thinking anyone can do. A subset stands on the primary which if false knocks the lot down.
The PCR is an amplification process which relies on knowing how it works, AND having a reliable reference to identify what is amplified against that reference. Poor reference or porr technique and the results are rubbish. Since February 2020 I have figured out how the PCR amplification works and then went looking for a virus the evidence for which appears to live in the minds of some Virologists because they say it exists. Not good enough for me to accept ANY PCR claimed evidence as solid.
Sorry Brian, that just walked me around in a circle and I found i was looking at the beginning again. I di NOT say anything about 'unlikelihood' in sequential so called PCR tests. I am simply saying ALL PCR 'tests' are suspect results - ie random results. Anyone using a PCR must know from the design that at some point they will gat a positive depending upon the sample AND the Ct number chosen for that run. PCR amplifies EVERYTHING, thats all it ever can do. Then if you are looking for X it is only a matter of how high the Ct to show an X assuming there is a X in the sample to start with. how can anyone call that a Clinical Diagnosis tool beats me.
I've been meaning to comment on this post, however similar to the previous ones leading up to this one I was still trying to parse the data (I do, however, understand Akira! Probably not something I should have watched while little...).
With that being said, I do appreciate your attempts to construct your hypothesis. As we've come to witness, there's a great deal of hubris in science that doesn't make room for corrections or negative results, so it's nice to see a hypothesis constructed but then reassessed due to looking at different information. I think we need more people willing to be wrong in this space. It's the only way we can add to the discourse.
I love how open you are with your scientific reasoning, including the blind alleys and red herrings you encounter. Two thumbs up!
https://hiddencomplexity.substack.com/p/covid-infection-causes-long-lasting?utm_medium=email
Just saw this and wonder if the effects on the microbiome could somehow be responsible for variants?
What if it is not a viral epidemic but something else again? The so called Spanish Flu epidemic (pandemic?) of 1918 has been said to have been a Bacterial one, that may also have been propagated by a Bacterial Vaccination project. Considering what many are claiming to have found and identified in the blood of sufferers, almost all of whom have received two or more shots, and the arguments suggesting shedding as a transmission medium for 'infection' (to those unvaccinated?), surely other possibilities than a viral impact should be considered. Seeing all through a lens of Virology may be a monumental error limiting investigation to a myopic one.
(I need to change my screen name to "Not A Scientist"); however, I'm having trouble understanding how a virus that was "first seen in the west in January 2020" could have propelled AZ to develop a vaccine that was ready for Trials on April 23, 2020. Talk about the speed of science! /s
I greatly appreciate your willingness to entertain a hypothesis, investigate it thoroughly, and then change your perspective based on the results. This is obviously how the scientific method is supposed to work, but seldom how it actually works (which is sadly true now in both the mainstream and skeptic worlds).
I still find your lab-mouse origin story for the Omicrons quite convincing.
I wonder if the strange transmission dynamics of the pre-Omicrons might play into the strange evolutionary dynamics.
The earlier variants were not fit enough to infect most people (i.e. most people avoided infection despite no adaptive immunity) except in certain "super spreader" situations that appeared to be driven by particular hosts or particular environmental conditions. The BA variants, on the other hand, seem to be behaving more like a typical respiratory virus.