|
|
|
|
|
|
by economistbob
11 days ago
|
|
|
So, there is material there but you are unsatisfied with the thoroughness related to brand identification and want a 99.95 confidence interval on discerning between natural disease vs toxoid injection. It sounds like you believe that DNA contamination in the manufacturing process would leave the body rapidly and they are saying that it sits around in exosomes for much longer based on their observed specimen. The latest science thus being that exosomes with DNA contaminants may not clear the body in the manner previously presumed. It is highly likely that it was only presumed and nobody actually thoroughly analyzed it before. The science of how fast exosomes cleared was likely a speculation from years ago, and it may in fact be wrong now that someone has actually funded observing exosomes over the long term. Therefore, this paper is cutting edge science and annoys the establishment because it attacks some sacred presumption upon which entire edifices are built. It attacks such presumptions with observable empirical facts. That makes one have to consider how many it would take to falsify a premise, a premise that they might realize was never hypothesis tested in the first place -- since it is in fact a speculated dogma instead of an observed scientific fact. |
|
|
No. The ori1/2 sequence DNA is used in manufacturing, and what they claim to have found lacked spike protein sequences, so irrevelant other than a hand-wavy "hey something happened here." The mRNA (completely different thing) is in (exclusively) exosomes, which they heavily imply are from the vaccine (because the mRNA isn't found anywhere else, which it would be if some cells were creating spike proteins.) They give no mechanism for how the vaccine lipid containers last three years in the body, because any hand-wavy bullshit explanation would sound completely absurd, even they know this. BTW, the bands on their exosome mRNA gels are almost non-existent, making it all the more important they verify exactly what those amplicons are. NGS is extremely sensitive and they could have sequenced these very faint bands, to prove it was vaccine derived (which, again, they did for the ori1/2 bands.) Although, again, that DOES NOT prove the ori1/2 have been incorporated into replicating cells in the body, or come from the Pfizer vaccine, two more absolutely extraordinary claims.
Far from "cutting edge science", this paper is a great example of how people with an agenda can overlook basic science questions to prove their pre-formed conclusions.