She wasn't passing tests, she was doing commercial research. And yes, they could tell a whole lot about the viruses and distinguish between them in excruciating detail... When she gets going my eyes glaze.
Listen to Kary Mullis' lectures. Not saying they don't exist nor that there aren't any with a substantive enough side effect but the fact that the very idea of HlV being the root cause of AlDs was contested by one of the most distinguished scientists in medical history should be cause to question.
The explanation given by this other guy I watched was that, quite simply, they can't see what they say they can see. They've been taught/groomed differently than scientists in other fields so they simply don't know what's wrong with their methods because they have no other methods to compare it to. He talked about how when oncologists look at (or maybe that was this lady) look at parasitic cysts, they ask why they're being shown a cancer cell. They've never seen a parasitic cyst before and they didn't realize they were indistinguishable from cancer cells.
These different specialties are siloed from each other to an enormous degree. They might all be experts in their respective fields but they have no idea that people in other fields have different understandings of the very same things they look at and different verbiage for it too. They all get smarter and smarter as they suppose, in their chosen fields, without the context of what the other fields have to offer and invariably arrive at bad conclusions. Why else would cancer still be such a mystery to oncologists? Why else would anti-parasitic medication be so effective on cancer and oncologists never knew?
Conspiracies? At the top, maybe. Further down the line, it's just knowledge/expertise/observational silos.
Very interesting. May I read what this other guy wrote? Is it an article or a video?
Because Kary himself alluded to the idea that not even his own PCR test was foolproof. That, theoretically, with enough cycles and just the right orientation of primers and stray particulates, you could synthesize something you never were testing for.
If that's the case, I have a few questions in mind regarding viral isolation, not that c19 ever was, lmao. When isolating, what cells are they using to culture said viruses? When putting the growth medium into a centrifuge, how sure are they that they are separating the viral particulate from the rest? I assume they're testing at different levels and extracting any differentials they see between the growth medium and control? Furthermore, could said differential simply be refuse or waste as a result of the cell undergoing some kind of self defense mechanism?
Zinc chaperoned by metallothioneins is one such example, so clearly an infected sample could carry a higher concentration of metal binding proteins. Are they putting any of this into account or are they just simply running it through a centrifuge to see what literally sticks?
She wasn't passing tests, she was doing commercial research. And yes, they could tell a whole lot about the viruses and distinguish between them in excruciating detail... When she gets going my eyes glaze.
Listen to Kary Mullis' lectures. Not saying they don't exist nor that there aren't any with a substantive enough side effect but the fact that the very idea of HlV being the root cause of AlDs was contested by one of the most distinguished scientists in medical history should be cause to question.
The explanation given by this other guy I watched was that, quite simply, they can't see what they say they can see. They've been taught/groomed differently than scientists in other fields so they simply don't know what's wrong with their methods because they have no other methods to compare it to. He talked about how when oncologists look at (or maybe that was this lady) look at parasitic cysts, they ask why they're being shown a cancer cell. They've never seen a parasitic cyst before and they didn't realize they were indistinguishable from cancer cells.
These different specialties are siloed from each other to an enormous degree. They might all be experts in their respective fields but they have no idea that people in other fields have different understandings of the very same things they look at and different verbiage for it too. They all get smarter and smarter as they suppose, in their chosen fields, without the context of what the other fields have to offer and invariably arrive at bad conclusions. Why else would cancer still be such a mystery to oncologists? Why else would anti-parasitic medication be so effective on cancer and oncologists never knew?
Conspiracies? At the top, maybe. Further down the line, it's just knowledge/expertise/observational silos.
Very interesting. May I read what this other guy wrote? Is it an article or a video?
Because Kary himself alluded to the idea that not even his own PCR test was foolproof. That, theoretically, with enough cycles and just the right orientation of primers and stray particulates, you could synthesize something you never were testing for.
If that's the case, I have a few questions in mind regarding viral isolation, not that c19 ever was, lmao. When isolating, what cells are they using to culture said viruses? When putting the growth medium into a centrifuge, how sure are they that they are separating the viral particulate from the rest? I assume they're testing at different levels and extracting any differentials they see between the growth medium and control? Furthermore, could said differential simply be refuse or waste as a result of the cell undergoing some kind of self defense mechanism?
Zinc chaperoned by metallothioneins is one such example, so clearly an infected sample could carry a higher concentration of metal binding proteins. Are they putting any of this into account or are they just simply running it through a centrifuge to see what literally sticks?