I passed a car on the road last week with a bumper sticker that made me chuckle. It read: “Critical thinking — the other national deficit.” I’ve been thinking about that bumper sticker a lot lately — ever since my essay “What is Luciferase” (exclusively on Substack) set off a firestorm. The corporate media issued the same blanket denial with the same regurgitated sentences (a cut and paste journalism job if ever there was one!) seemingly around the world: there’s no such ingredient secretly hiding inside the experimental vaccines!
Did any of these so-called journalists do the homework? Did any of them actually perform a fact-check? Of course they didn’t. Most of them didn’t even read the essay. (Let’s be honest: most of them don’t read anything at all.) I had left the instructions for fact-checking my claim right there for everyone to see:
-
Go to the MODERNA website.
-
Click: the PATENTS page.
-
Click: PATENT US 10,703,789
-
Do a keyword search for: Luciferase.
This was too difficult a task for our dishonest horde of corporate journalists. At least one brave soul bothered to do it — and that honest man happened to be a Google software engineer named Zach Vorhies.
Let me repeat: Luciferase is INCLUDED in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent! So I’m right — and the corporate media is wrong. Does this surprise anybody?
The corporate press has already admitted that Luciferase was used in the testing phase of the vaccines as well. So it’s listed in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent AND it’s used in the testing of the vaccines but I’m a conspiracy theorist?
One more thing: the new COVID-19 antibody test is called SATiN and it uses Luciferase. No, I’m not kidding. Just click here to see for yourself.
Let me repeat that information: the antibody test is called SATiN.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not getting anywhere near this dark stuff. Just listen to how the SATiN test works:
“We basically incubate those three little molecular biological pieces with a prick of blood,” Stagljar says. “And if there are antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the blood, these antibodies will ‘glue’ the three parts of luciferase into a functional molecule that will start shining.”
In other words, you need to have COVID-19 antibodies present to make the enzyme glow. When the glow occurs, the researchers can then measure the amount of light emitted with an instrument called a luminometer. The more antibodies a person has, the brighter the luciferase will shine. There’s something very wrong here. You know it and I know it. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand: names matter. It’s not an accident that they’ve given this name to this test. It’s a warning.
He who has ears, let him hear.
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/luciferase-was-bad-but-it-gets-worse
It was the paper provided by the OP. It was their evidence. I was just evaluating it.
See, this right here is why you and I are going to struggle to connect.
There are no falsifiable foundations to your belief system. It is completely impossible to disprove.
My beliefs are falsifiable. I may not have seen evidence yet that serious contests my beliefs about, say, evolution, but I can tell you EXACTLY what that evidence would look like. I can tell you EXACTLY what to prove or disprove to beat me. And I'm usually happy to do so.
What possible evidence could defeat your beliefs? How can I possibly prove to you literally anything you don't want to believe? If you believe that literally every piece of information that contradicts you comes deliberately from the Deep State, what is the type of evidence I could present to you that could prove you wrong? Can you even describe what it would look like?
Because if you can't, then your belief isn't falsifiable. It's ultimately based on your faith in your conclusion, not the evidence. Because if it was based on the evidence, then it would be possible to present evidence to you that could defeat your belief, even if you don't think that evidence exists.
There would be some person who could tell you that you're wrong who you would believe. Some paper you could read. Some fundamental piece of evidence you accept that would have to be shown to be false.
But I can't figure out what that would be for you. And if it doesn't exist, and you're holding a nonfalsifiable belief system, then we aren't really going to be able to talk at a level that involves research.
Because research can't take place on a hypothesis that is impossible to disprove.
We're talking about falsifiability.
You completely dodged the part of my post where I've asked you to tell me how to defeat your belief. It's not a game. That's how scientific legitimacy works. If you have a good theory, you not only CAN be defeated, but you will tell people how to do it.
I can tell you how to defeat evolutionary theory. You could find an adaptation that provides no benefit to its host but benefits another species, for instance. That would cause problems for evolutionary theory. That's one way to do it.
It doesn't matter whether the evidence DOES exists. It doesn't matter if it's being censored. It only matters that it COULD exist in some real, tangible, accessible way.
What's one way I could defeat your belief? What evidence would you have to see? What person would have to tell you that you're mistaken? Is there any?
No. Falsifiability of your beliefs.