"The Nobel Prize acts as an implicit advertisement for the pharmaceutical industry by highlighting and validating groundbreaking medical research." ~ChatGPT
Not sure about Mullis…currently digging into a little more research on him.
It doesn’t really matter about what his intentions were or what the CDC said in 2007. The bigger point is how it IS used now…the gold standard pandemic linchpin.
I read Mullis's autobiography - Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Its a helluva fun read, and a quick one too. Combining that read with the number of interviews and speeches by him and one gets a pretty good understanding of him. I, like so many others, wish he was still with us. No doubt in my mind he would have continued his assault on Fauci in particular. Not surprising he had huge health issues that eventually killed him given his chosen profession and his admission to having been overexposed to extremely dangerous chemicals from an early age and throughout his career. Or.... Did the 'aliens' he encountered in Norcal visit him again and take him home ?!? Yeah. His close encounter is in the book. Sarah! You gotta read it. Guaranteed, you will want to do a full book review on it. Can't wait ...
Reading this piece, aka as a short book, by Sarah, reminded me of reading about Kary Mullis two or three years ago, where I came across an article commenting on his manner of death, approaching it similarly to your observations here. And yet in all this crazy as shit time since then, crickets about this. For me, this was originally addressed on Truth Barrier, where I remember Celia Farber mentioning that Mullis's wife at the time of his death, presented oddly immediately following his death, creating a hint of suspicion. My hit was: she was told not to say anything. It has stood out in my mind, as I have seen nothing else related to it since then, as though reverything about him was relegated to the STFU file. That footage of him with Gary Null gave me such a sense of his humanity, his love, his quiet brilliance, and sense of humour. I just put the book on hold at my library.
Bhavana. We live in most strange times. Upside down world. Open air nuthouse. Wetiko in full view. Nothing we see and hear can be taken at face value anymore. Mullis comes across in all forms as being genuine. Yet, his book reads like a novel - the genre he admits he wanted to write more of
I'm interested in your take on it. Pm me through my substack homepage if you're up for it after you read the book.
Mullis is on record saying that PCR should not be used as a diagnostic tool; that it does not prove infection; and that it can be used to detect anything in anybody. He also sought, unsuccessfully, from the HIV folks a reference to a paper to support that HIV causes AIDS.
The Gary Null interview of Mullis is enlightning and has his clear opinion of Fauci.
It seems you have a bit of a personal beef with Mullis.
I on the other hand don't worship him or anyone despite your innuendo.
However despite that he believed in germ theory Mullis nevertheless asserted quite clearly in support of the lack of connection between HIV and AIDS including in the full 1997 corporate greed aids video where he also clearly states his opinion that AIDS is not a single disease but is instead a label for a group of disparate diseases/symptoms. Your beef seems to be that he didn't support your cause enough.
Let's take a quick look at your SHOUTING:
'when Mullis made some comments in front of a red brick wall that people are MISINTERPRETING!! Mullis did NOT say what people THINK he said. Mullis NEVER used the "D" word - "diagnostic"!!'
First let's see what the dictionary gives as the accepted meaning of the word:
diagnostic /dī″əg-nŏs′tĭk/
adjective
Of, relating to, or used in a diagnosis.
Serving to identify a particular disease; characteristic.
Pertaining to, or furnishing, a diagnosis; indicating the nature of a disease.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
It's true he didn't say diagnostic but you can see from what he actually said, combined with the accepted definition, that he is saying it's _not_ a diagnostic.
Here is what actually he said in regards to PCR starting at 51:54 in part 2 of
"it DOESN'T tell you that you are sick, it doesn't tell you that the thing you've ended up with it really was gonna hurt you or anything like that"
next you gave a reference to an unsigned hit piece against Mullis that asserts all manner of things without references, such as this assertion about an "exact quote" here's the assertion:
----
Here’s the exact quote from 1997: “Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”
----
Versus from the video, you can see that's not "the exact quote" which is ever so slightly longer and doesn't mention anything about "if you run it long enough" and the part about not telling you are sick is way way further on.
Here's the full video which is worth a watch all the way through, that's for others since you were there right....
Mullis talks from 1:27:49 in the first part through into the beginning of part two for around 20 minutes and then again towards the end of part two starting at 48:37
'the actual in-lab work was conducted by a team of technicians that didn’t include Mullis. That team was headed by Dr. Henry Erlich. .'
To the contrary as you know it is usual in scientific papers for the person doing the lab work to get first place in the authors and for the person whose lab it's in, who usually doesn't do the lab work, to be trailing the list of authors.
So now note Mullis name in front on the original paper:
Then there's a whole host of other unsupported assertions presuming Mullis' behavior and motives, mind-reading!
Next there's the assertion that DNA does not exist based on the logic that you can't see it because the "microscopic images are created by computer algorithms"
Well guess what? Based on that same logic there are no atoms either...
DNA comparison has found several relatives of mine that would not be found by other means and while I'm not convinced of DNA as proscribed there's definitely something going on there.
Atoms are a good narrative too, though I've never seen one.
I could pick many many more holes in that unsigned document but I won't for now there's other fish to fry.
WOW! And JUST when I thought the comments section here on substack was becoming more mature! LOL! Did you even take the time to read my freakin' BIO at: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about ...??? You, sir, have EARNED a BLOCK due to your snotty, disrespectful and ILL-INFORMED reply. BELIEVE ME, I have HEARD ALL of this before....MANY TIMES! I simply do not have the time right now in my personal life to keep repeating and RE-hashing all of this CRAP which SHOULD be obvious to anyone with half a BRAIN!
Here, now, once again, for all who may have reading comprehension difficulties is the TRUTH!
First, anyone who claims that I had a PERSONAL "beef" with Mullis not only lacks crucial CONTEXT but is PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of these issues! Mullis' so-called "dissident activities" were such a long time ago that he probably would not have even remembered me. Knowing Mullis' affinity for illicit substances, Mullis may have forgotten about me THE NEXT DAY, FFS! The most damning references against Mullis being an HONEST "dissident" are Mullis' OWN CV: https://www.karymullis.com/pdf/karymullis-cv.pdf which, along with the REST of MULLIS' OWN WEB SITE, PROVES MULLIS' ORTHODOX ties THROUGHOUT his career, INCLUDING the 8 years or so way back in the 1990s when he was PRETENDING to be a so-called "dissident". The other damning reference is Mullis' PATENT application for the so-called "PCR" which he claims HE invented: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/14/bf/0a414f77b2d203/US4683195.pdf If one TAKES THE TIME to search for the term "diagnos", one will see there are NUMEROUS TIMES where Mullis HIMSELF claims that "his" invention, the "PCR" can INDEED be used to diagnose or as a diagnostic tool FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES in his OWN patent application!
Next, the reference I gave: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc was NOT an "unsigned hit piece"! It HAS the author's freakin' NAME RIGHT AT THE TOP of the document!! LOL! Also, that article is COMPLETE with MANY references! HINT: the HIGHLIGHTED text are LINKS to EXTERNAL documents that SUPPORT the claims made in that article by the author Omar Jordan!! If anyone is REALLY concerned about a LACK OF REFERENCES, they should have a gander at Mullis' one and ONLY "scientific paper" that he published on so-called "HIV" and "AIDS" from a so-called (and HALF-*SSED) "dissident" perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7744261/ Anyone who can get the FULL-TEXT of this paper can plainly see that Mullis provides ABSOLUTELY ZERO REFERENCES in that paper! (Mullis' buddy Peter Duesberg was the editor of that "special edition" of that journal, so go figure...)
Anyone who may be upset that Mr. Jordan misquoted Mullis in the 1997 seminar which I helped to produce should keep the following fact in mind. Trying to figure out what a self-admitted DRUG ADDICT and DRUNK like Mullis said here or there and (actually MEANT) during his days as a so-called "AIDS" dissident is like trying to determine the number of fairies that can fit on the head of a PIN! However, I will gladly let other readers decide how much deviation Mr. Jordan inflicted on his readers by missing Mullis' "actual" quote "if you do it well" versus "if you run it long enough"....
IMPORTANT NOTE: Furthermore, as I believe I mentioned in one of the audio interviews I did, Mullis comments at that 1997 seminar I helped to produce NEED to be kept in their proper **CONTEXT**! Mullis' comments back then were reflective of the fact that **AT THAT TIME** the ONLY so-called "infectious agent" that the establishment was claiming to supposedly "detect" by the use of the so-called "PCR" was so-called "HIV"!!!
In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc Mr. .Jordan makes what one might argue is an even BIGGER boo-boo. Jordan claims that "Mullis testified in a court case of an innocent man accused of deliberately infecting 3 women with HIV." This is technically NOT true. Mullis technically did NOT "testify". Mullis was NEVER under oath nor was he ever subject to any cross-examination during the Parenzee case. I made Mr. Jordan aware of this fact. However, the despicable actions that Mullis DID take---BEHIND the scenes, of course-during the Parenzee case certainly equated to "testimony" and this "testimony" of Mullis' WAS INCLUDED in the judge's decision AGAINST Parenzee in that case! Any OTHER reader who TAKES THE TIME to actually READ my analyses of Mullis' actions can see what really transpired: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
I NEVER said that Mullis NEVER said anything that could appear favorable for us dissidents! Sharp readers SHOULD realize that THAT may have been part of whatever "role" and "mission" Mullis had during his "tenure" as a so-called "dissident" (whether Mullis was personally aware of such a mission or he was being "handled" by others). In case it never occurred to any of you: maybe it is PRECISELY BECAUSE of the wishy-washy, milquetoast and often CONTRADICTORY nature of the comments that Mullis DID make while he was PRETENDING to be a "dissident" that ESTABLISHMENT so-called "fact-checkers" are ALLOWED to make the orthodox claims THEY are making AGAINST Mullis' so-called "dissident" comments....?? BTW: as I also said in my analyses which I linked for everyone in my previous reply, Mullis went AWOL from our old "AIDS" dissident movement at the end of the 1990s, conveniently pretty much RIGHT AFTER his book was published. This MAY have been on purpose, per Mullis' OWN ADMISSION he made in an interview in 1998! Here is THAT reference again if anyone missed it: https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjomullis.htm .
"THANK YOU", also, for throwing in my face yet again that COMPLETE video of the seminar which- as I SAID- I *HELPED TO FREAKIN' PRODUCE SO I WAS ACTUALLY THERE WHEN THAT A-HOLE MULLIS SAID ALL THOSE STUPID REMARKS!*. I keep trying to PUT this CRAP OUT of my freakin' MIND but you foolish Mullis worshippers keep pushing this CRAP front and center in the discourse!
That video NEVER should have been POSTED originally back in 2017! The IDIOT who posted it is either phenomenally IGNORANT or some sort of "CO" himself or herself. This is not only because Mullis' meandering STAND-UP comedy routine LACKED substance. The most "substantive" comments that Mullis tried to make that day were when he was FORCED to answer these technical questions about the "PCR" in the last 3 minutes or so of the EVENT! In fact, the guy who asked Mullis the questions (an old friend of mine) had to RE-ASK and RE-PHRASE his question to Mullis a FEW TIMES!
Furthermore, this event was also VERY PROBLEMATIC because of the OTHER participants on the panel that day! The one gay guy who was on the panel that day was a friend of mine at that time. He was "diagnosed" as "seropositive", but rather unfortunately and quickly (by the end of the 1990s, i.e., within 2 years after that seminar), he WENT ON THE ANTI-HIV meds and became a VEHEMENT ANTI-DISSIDENT! I certainly disagreed with him and this decision he made. However, this WAS demonstrated in the comments section of that original video which, unfortunately the DUMB*SS who posted the original video DELETED! My former friend, the supposedly "poz" guy, was trying to point out this fact in those comments that got deleted, but, hey, let's not let FACTS get in the way of our HERO WORSHIP and otherwise behaving like a DENSE dissident who does NOT KNOW HOW TO PAY ATTENTION, right...??!!
More SIGNIFICANTLY, the woman who was pregnant at the time of the seminar (who was my "boss" back then) who was seated RIGHT NEXT TO MULLIS "DIED" in 2008! Whether real or imaginary, Maggiore's death was the BIGGEST BLOW to our "AIDS" dissident movement of ALL the other dissidents who "defected" or DIED (either for real OR imagined)! Since it happened, the "AIDS" industry has dutifully USED Maggiore's death to impugn the integrity of ALL "AIDS" dissidents! How this jerk could go ahead and post this video in *2017* is UNCONSCIONABLE!
That pregnant woman, my old "boss" Christine Maggiore, was also a HUGE supporter and PROMOTER of BOTH Mullis and his buddy Peter Duesberg, BOTH of whom disseminated the demonstrably FALSE claim that "HIV" exists but is harmless. However, all of us in the old "AIDS" dissident movement who have half a brain in our heads knew that the REALITY is that so-called "HIV" has never been properly isolated, a fact which was shown by the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the "Perth Group" of researchers that she led (See: https://www.theperthgroup.com/whatargued.html ).
One could argue that Mullis was even MORE ORTHODOX than Duesberg, because Mullis insisted that so-called "HIV" cannot cause "AIDS" *BY ITSELF*!! (See again Mullis' "dissident" paper, the one which has NO REFERENCES: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7744261/)
At any rate, much has transpired since the 1990s. Despite the ignorance of many in the present-day dissident movement, some of us "longtime dissidents" who are still dissidents today have managed to learn and *EVOLVE* since that time. I am only interested in interacting with others who have similar goals for their own journeys!!
From part of my TLDR comment the substack algorithm does not allow ...
"I also read Kary Mullis's book and thoroughly enjoyed it enough to imagine he could have had a successful career as a writer if he had so chosen. HIGHLY recommended.
And though he did live on the edge, still ... I can't help but to be reminded that the chorus of 'correlation does not prove causation' seems to soar loudest when it is most convenient for parties with clear conflicts of interest ... e.g.
• gutting small farms and landowners with natural' fires, 'livestock-only' viruses, or a carbon-free ecosystem for we carbon-based lifeforms (phuck, what an oxymoron!)
• Putting the aforementioned real, tangible wealth into the hands of "Public Private Partnerships" (euphemism for "Fascist")
The cynic in me also suspects similarly interested parties would be quick to dismiss any correlation between motive, means, and opportunity.
I can't help but to be extremely suspicious of a spuriously lucky correlation between the timing of Mullis's death and:
• the silencing of Fauci's most credible critic, and
• the subsequent 'science-as-corporate-captured-consensus' of PCR as a diagnostic test. Or is this "mass formation psychosis" in the science community?
Here in Japan, the PCR is still taken as the "gold standard" for diagnosis and otherwise — a twist on a perverse version of "the golden rule" ... those who have the gold, make the standards."
Using the epithet "Gleaming Head" was intended as a tip-off to the sarcasm...I was trying to keep the comment down to single-line length and didn't have enough room for the more elaborate "Smug, Unctuous, Stupid Gleaming Poopy Head Krystal".
"There is no such thing as DNA?" This is nonsense.
Though typical undergrad microscopes can not 'see' DNA (light can not resolve anything as small as DNA, hence the need for large and expensive electron microscopes), for 20 years, I directed the biology labs at Temple Univ. Japan, and even non-STEM undergrads on relatively affordable Nikon microscopes could see chromosomes. If chromosomes are not made of DNA, how do you explain inheritance? Hmmm ... lots of ad-hominem arguments against Mullis here. I am wondering about your agenda.
You are so misguided, Mr. "I directed the labs so I know everything". Fool. You should look into inheritance through bacteria. You have no idea what you are talking about. And then talking about ad hominem to play the victim. Brilliant.
If you are so smart, then provide proof that shows the double helix of dna. Right, you can't.
You are correct in that science can not explain life. The best science or math can do is describe it, quantified empirical information is 'understood' by comparing it to provisional standards of measurements which are themselves social constructs. The 'meter' is no closer to fundamental reality than the king's "foot".
These provisional standards for describing reality all have limits (for example ... Godel for the limits of math, Wittgenstein for the limits of language, Schrodinger for the limits of location). I am just wondering ... are you aware of the limits of the wavelength of light to resolve objects at high magnification?
If you have ever used a light microscope, you would have noticed that the higher the magnification you use, the darker and more blurry the image. The double helix of DNA is only about 50 times larger than a typical atom. Good luck catching a glimpse of either through even the most expensive light microscopes.
Neither of us have ever seen an atom, much less an electron, and yet without that provisional construct, neither of us would be looking at a digital screen and chatting.
Drat those deceitful physicists and their electrical gadgets. You have convinced me. This is all an illusion. 😂.
It's not fair how they treat you, and I'm sad about all the odium theologicum I'm seeing these days.
There are many hooligans, activists, narcissists, and psychotics out there who try to liberate themselves from whatever pain of lack of love or attention, or any other pain, they are feeling, by the impossible means of assaulting people better than themselves on the internet, using ideas that are difficult to handle and have been reduced to slogans. Propaganda is theology in this era.
I lament they are attacking you. Using harsh and abusive language and a twisted logic.
I think it's better to never attack the person one is debating with. After all, in a written exchange on substack, the other person is not your father, your mother, your psychiatrist or your teacher, who hurt you long ago. (I'm using a generic you and your, not the particular you and your.)
Having said that, it is a logical fallacy to insinuate, as you are doing, dear Steve, that the atomic theory or the existence of electrons must be true because we have electronic communications and computers. This is comparable to the type of fallacy that happens if a person argues that the arguments of a history textbook must be true because we are alive, reading the textbook.
Way in the past, late 1700s, the scientist Coulomb was studying electric and electromagnetic phenomena without reference to corpuscles of electricity, or electrons, or any type of particle. The entire history of the modern scientific study of electricity is very interesting, but how could they ever see any electrical phenomenon if they didn't have a theory of the electron to guide them?
Do you see the problem? Our knowledge of the thing is never the same as the thing itself.
Eventually, they postulated the invisible particle, with a minute mass, capable of carrying electric charge. They needed that to progress in their theoretical constructs. But maybe in reality there is no such thing as subatomic particles at all. Maybe one day someone can explain everything known so far without using subatomic particles.
Take, for instance, the idea that electrons are necessary to explain the normal physiological activity of any animal brain, and what we call the CNS and the PNS, and all the nerves in the body, down to the smallest neuron. This is a very wild claim that is uncritically accepted as true. There is electric activity, therefore, electrons are involved. We have just tied down scientific progress like a lamb about to be killed. No scientist outside biology is now allowed to develop a sound theory of electro-magnetism free of reference to subatomic particles. If this was allowed, all the research industry and publishing industry, and all the reputational "value" held by professors of biology and physiology, would be greatly harmed, or totally destroyed.
In other words: if we ever correct a foundational mistake we may go poor.
So we prefer rich ignorance to being less wrong and more poor.
This is not good.
And I repeat my lamentation that so many people are unable to express their thoughts without abusing other people, who have been professors or who have been studying for many decades. This behavior is horrible. But a silver lining is that the offended parties are stimulated to explain why they believe what they know is true, or almost true.
As for pathogenic viruses, they don't seem to have been proven to exist. I suggest you to try to explain, if you please, as plainly as your science and talent allow you, why in today's science nothing is expected to be proven, and everyone is supposed to "believe" contagious disease is real and caused by viruses, even though there seem to be many experiments that refute this widely believed claim.
I used to believe it myself, and I am willing to believe it again when enough evidence is given, and I have no shame in admitting that I do not understand why am I or anyone else is supposed to live believing that science cannot prove anything, and that we have to simply believe that viruses spread disease, and this is a valid scientific position to hold.
It's incomprehensible for me how different was science before 1945 and after 1945.
It's as if politics took over science and made everything irrational on purpose.
Many of us in the no virus camp are also against bullying. Please, don't dismiss the scientific studies led by Jamie Andrews.
Steve, if it is the case that many viruses can be produced from an uncontaminated cell line, then these negative controls disprove many claims of uncontrolled virology experiments. That is to say, we may be witnessing a humongous scientific fraud that truly boggles the mind.
I don't blame any person with advanced degrees in science for failing to see this: the more you know, the harder it is. That's why unlearned people see the problem before the learned people do.
And I ask people to stop these attacks. It's not doing any good to anyone.
Hello Diplomatic Agent 23, and thank you for the time and care you put into your response, proof enough that there are still a few adults in the room.
I follow the explanation of what you consider to be my logical fallacy, and I agree with much of what you said ... particularly "Our knowledge of the thing is the never the same as the thing itself". Back when I was an underachieving undergrad, I remember reading a passage (I think from the Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard, but it might have been Nietzsche) about the lone traveler in the mountains, who for years had not seen a sign of humans r humanity, comes across a wooden sign pointing to a village just a few miles further, clasps the sign to his chest, exclaims he has found it, and his travel ends there at the road sign. Here in Japan and the Far East in general, we have a similar metaphor of someone trying to show a child the moon by pointing at it, and the child is excited to describe the pointing finger.
That being said, even the word "thing" in your sentence, upon closer scrutiny by scientists, theologians, and philosophers alike ... does not have an agreed upon definition beyond blunt conversation. I think it was Voltaire who once said something along the lines of "Before you converse with me, you must first define your terms." — but if we really did that, the gist of the conversation would never begin, and so we necessarily rely on a vague agreement about conversational meanings as a social construct to proceed.
The scientific method is a away of refining those contructs, but science, as I taught it, is a never ending process, as I believe the world or humanity can not be reduced to a "thing", no matter what scale.
Again, I appreciate the time, effort, and courtesy you put into your comment, but I think your reasoning may be conflating at least a couple of constructs involving scale of analysis and a mechanical reductionist view of science.
I am not a mechanical reductionist — more of a spiritual naturalist in the tradition of Spinoza and Einstein — "god" as a metaphor for nature-in-its-entirety, and processes as more fundamental than provisional constructs, or "things'.
I agree with you that a big problem in rejecting long held fundamentals as false would be the loss of jobs, egos, and disruption of the economic system. This is particularly true in fields such as politics or the arts. It is also true in the sciences, but with an additional problem. Science is not able to be abstracted from the technological fruits of science. If a more or less provisionally accurate theory of some phenomenon at a particular scale is discarded, the technology that depends on that theory is also rendered obsolete.
An example of this is Einstein's theory of special relativity involving time distortion. If his theory were rejected, the accuracy of our GPS location technology would suffer because the instruments used to calibrate location include calculations based on time dilation.
A book you might be familiar with (one of the most important in the philosophy of science during the 20th century), T.S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" uses the history of physics to express the scientific method's process of change and the role of human character flaws and group dynamics in the development of a science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
As for viruses, If, as an increasingly large swath of the population are led to believe, viruses are a fiction, I guess rabies is a fiction too. And a mighty convincing illusion. The first written record of it (gain of function construct?) was written about 4,000 years ago. We can not "see" the rabies virus because like all viruses, they are smaller than the resolving power of light microscopes. But images of the rabies virus taken through an electron microscope are readily available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies. If we throw out the existence of viruses altogether, then we have no explanation for rabies ... but worse, no treatment.
Cheers, and thank you for generously giving me a chance to state my case.
Enders is one of the worst in my opinion. Without his fraud there would be no 'virus' isolation procedure. A procedure he acknowledged in one of his so-called 'polio virus' isolation papers (I read it a few years ago but have now lost it) was indistinguishable from his control.
Then he 'won' the Nobel Prize for medicine and the rest is history.
Oh, hey there, man. So, like, "nobel fuckery," right? It's kinda like when people with, like, all these fancy titles and degrees, you know, the ones who are supposed to be super wise and stuff, end up doing really bizarre or totally pointless things. It’s like they’re trying to sound all smart and important, but it just comes off as, like, totally absurd or disconnected from what really matters. You dig? It’s like if you took all that highfalutin wisdom and mixed it with a big ol’ pile of nonsense. Yeah, man, that’s what I think it is.
Alright — I told it to read your stack first this time: Now, “Nobel fuckery” is like when these top-tier awards, like the Nobel Prizes, are given out, but then you find out that their winners are often connected to big pharma, which is kinda like using the prize as a flashy billboard for their products. It’s like celebrating a massive win, only to realize it’s part of a bigger, well-oiled machine that’s pushing pills and treatments. The whole thing gets a bit dodgy when you think about how the prize can be used to lend a bit of sparkle to those big commercial interests. It’s like toasting to something grand, but then it’s all about the sales pitch behind it. Cheers to the twists and turns, eh?
Whoa, dude... okay, so "nobel fuckery," man, it’s like... imagine this kaleidoscope of knowledge and ideas, right? And then you have these, like, cosmic beings who are supposed to be, like, super enlightened or whatever, but instead they’re just, like, weaving this crazy, swirling web of confusion and illusion. It’s like they’re playing a game with reality itself, but they’re not even aware of how bizarre and trippy it’s all getting. It’s this whole dance of intellect that, instead of leading to clarity, just kinda spirals into this wild, cosmic joke. Everything’s melting together in this big, cosmic giggle, man. Far out, right?
Dude, did you have a two-key-typo and invoke ChatDMT? The kaleidoscope thing, it's kinda like an electric constellation. If you listen too intently here, you can hear predictions of Michael Jackson & Eddie Izzard, and others that must not be mentioned due to legal and security reasons. Cake, please!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRJ8_rcBI8
Especially safer when they're pre-coffee, eliminating (detoxing, if you will) the recently discovered problem of deterioration of nanofibers used in the screen protectors sold by some Substack merch outlets, the deteriorated nanofibers' reaction with caffeine somehow producing (Dr. Ana has a number of dubious hypotheses hoping to explain this) an array of metallic compounds which generate a dangerous EMF-riddled field which can lead to the viewer being induced (inducted?) into a false sense of security based on the probably erroneous belief that prophylactic administration of IVM will safeguard against this non-parasite-based threat, to which the stubborn-as-a-mule IVM devotee can offer only the riposte that, "Well, at least I didn't go blind from exposure to Onchocerca volvulus!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8drsW3u4noo
Whitecoat ceremonies are so yesterday. If you can't trust the experts anymore, why... for what purpose are they to be celebrated and given baptisms/christenings? There won't be any more swindling money from state college academic racketeers... kids don't take the bait - they see through the parasitic people-pyramid. Trust the experts - just trust the experts sonny boy - we like things just as they are, status quo - got it?... tassled/capped, trussed like a dressed turkey trot - a living gimmick of masonic I mean moronic theater/advertising. The Nobel Laureat -"Best for mankind, when it comes to torment and mourning." People don't speak up about the colluding baby salesmen for fear of getting their own children swiped or hauled-off or worse. "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." [H.L. Mencken] Keep spreading the enlightenment Sarah.
Well, the earth revolves around the sun and vitamin C cures scurvey, but, hey, do your OWN damned research-- WHY BELIEVE ANYTHING?? WHY should I or anyone else actually believe that "you" aren't even an actual human??
This is a bullshitter's dream-come-true of a substack, rife with and authored by a pack of hyenas paid by the D.o.D., lol-- bwaaah hah hah hah haah!
1 — I just spent the better part of an afternoon writing a comment here, and after hitting the post button, got that substack message in red saying "Please type a shorter comment". This is not the first time this has happened to me. That got me wondering if I copy-paste the comment as a separate post under my substack, any interested readers can check it out with necessarily subscribing? I have no paywall, but the sheer number of people I subscribe too extols a price of its own in time.
2 — What would be the perceived etiquette of posting (here) a link to such a long comment-as-substack?
Skillzzz killzzz ... maybe just verbal diarrhea. 😂
Thanks C.S., for being so gracious. Will sit on it for awhile, edit until the flies buzz off, and send a link.
Gonna be pushing upper 30ºC in Tokyo today and high humidity, but have a rendezvous over beer this weekend with substack buddy NJ Election Advisor. I'm sure yours is one of the names that will come up as a must-read.
That's funny...I just came up with my own lil hypothesis that you have to be a Freemason to get a Nobel prize. I hadn't even seen your stack. How serendipitous! I wanna know if Mullis was a Freemason. Does Bob Malone or Petey McCullough, (can't use his real name cause he has it trademarked) have a Nobel Peace Prize yet??? https://trademarks.justia.com/976/09/peter-a-mccullough-md-97609378.html The more I am digging into Freemasonry...the more people I keep finding who are quite influential historically (like Florence friggin Nightingale). Lots of them with Nobel Peace prizes. Do you have to be a Freemason to get one? After finding out Rosa Park was one and her sitting at the back of the bus stuff was staged...how many of these life changing events in the media are all staged by these actors who are Freemasons???? How many pandemic "freedom fighters" are Freemasons???
I wrote to 4 high level graphene researchers for a paper proving the existence of graphene, one reply, “There’s a Nobel Prize for it, isn’t that enough?” I replied, “There are Nobel Prizes in virology, can you prove there is a virus?”…crickets.
Thanks for the catch. 🙏🏼
Not sure about Mullis…currently digging into a little more research on him.
It doesn’t really matter about what his intentions were or what the CDC said in 2007. The bigger point is how it IS used now…the gold standard pandemic linchpin.
Here Mullis was undressed:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-kary-mullis-lab-secret
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star
I read Mullis's autobiography - Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Its a helluva fun read, and a quick one too. Combining that read with the number of interviews and speeches by him and one gets a pretty good understanding of him. I, like so many others, wish he was still with us. No doubt in my mind he would have continued his assault on Fauci in particular. Not surprising he had huge health issues that eventually killed him given his chosen profession and his admission to having been overexposed to extremely dangerous chemicals from an early age and throughout his career. Or.... Did the 'aliens' he encountered in Norcal visit him again and take him home ?!? Yeah. His close encounter is in the book. Sarah! You gotta read it. Guaranteed, you will want to do a full book review on it. Can't wait ...
Reading this piece, aka as a short book, by Sarah, reminded me of reading about Kary Mullis two or three years ago, where I came across an article commenting on his manner of death, approaching it similarly to your observations here. And yet in all this crazy as shit time since then, crickets about this. For me, this was originally addressed on Truth Barrier, where I remember Celia Farber mentioning that Mullis's wife at the time of his death, presented oddly immediately following his death, creating a hint of suspicion. My hit was: she was told not to say anything. It has stood out in my mind, as I have seen nothing else related to it since then, as though reverything about him was relegated to the STFU file. That footage of him with Gary Null gave me such a sense of his humanity, his love, his quiet brilliance, and sense of humour. I just put the book on hold at my library.
Bhavana. We live in most strange times. Upside down world. Open air nuthouse. Wetiko in full view. Nothing we see and hear can be taken at face value anymore. Mullis comes across in all forms as being genuine. Yet, his book reads like a novel - the genre he admits he wanted to write more of
I'm interested in your take on it. Pm me through my substack homepage if you're up for it after you read the book.
Mullis is on record saying that PCR should not be used as a diagnostic tool; that it does not prove infection; and that it can be used to detect anything in anybody. He also sought, unsuccessfully, from the HIV folks a reference to a paper to support that HIV causes AIDS.
The Gary Null interview of Mullis is enlightning and has his clear opinion of Fauci.
Mullis' demise is a
Here's few links to get you started:
Null interview Mullis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1FXbxDrDrY
Mullis questions HIV/AIDS hypothesis first 6 mins of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RJ3WT03CYs
Mullis talks about misusing PCR :. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZft4fXhQQ
And for entertainment here's a "fact check" refutation of what's in the just linked video LOL
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Hi Chris,
You need to "rethink" Kary Mullis. Please see this comment: https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/grilling-chatgpt-about-the-nobel/comment/63713561
It seems you have a bit of a personal beef with Mullis.
I on the other hand don't worship him or anyone despite your innuendo.
However despite that he believed in germ theory Mullis nevertheless asserted quite clearly in support of the lack of connection between HIV and AIDS including in the full 1997 corporate greed aids video where he also clearly states his opinion that AIDS is not a single disease but is instead a label for a group of disparate diseases/symptoms. Your beef seems to be that he didn't support your cause enough.
Let's take a quick look at your SHOUTING:
'when Mullis made some comments in front of a red brick wall that people are MISINTERPRETING!! Mullis did NOT say what people THINK he said. Mullis NEVER used the "D" word - "diagnostic"!!'
First let's see what the dictionary gives as the accepted meaning of the word:
diagnostic /dī″əg-nŏs′tĭk/
adjective
Of, relating to, or used in a diagnosis.
Serving to identify a particular disease; characteristic.
Pertaining to, or furnishing, a diagnosis; indicating the nature of a disease.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
It's true he didn't say diagnostic but you can see from what he actually said, combined with the accepted definition, that he is saying it's _not_ a diagnostic.
Here is what actually he said in regards to PCR starting at 51:54 in part 2 of
https://archive.org/details/corporate-greed-aids-part-2
"it DOESN'T tell you that you are sick, it doesn't tell you that the thing you've ended up with it really was gonna hurt you or anything like that"
next you gave a reference to an unsigned hit piece against Mullis that asserts all manner of things without references, such as this assertion about an "exact quote" here's the assertion:
----
Here’s the exact quote from 1997: “Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”
----
Versus from the video, you can see that's not "the exact quote" which is ever so slightly longer and doesn't mention anything about "if you run it long enough" and the part about not telling you are sick is way way further on.
Here's the full video which is worth a watch all the way through, that's for others since you were there right....
Mullis talks from 1:27:49 in the first part through into the beginning of part two for around 20 minutes and then again towards the end of part two starting at 48:37
https://archive.org/details/corporate-greed-aids-part-1
And
https://archive.org/details/corporate-greed-aids-part-2
----
Then this assertion:
'the actual in-lab work was conducted by a team of technicians that didn’t include Mullis. That team was headed by Dr. Henry Erlich. .'
To the contrary as you know it is usual in scientific papers for the person doing the lab work to get first place in the authors and for the person whose lab it's in, who usually doesn't do the lab work, to be trailing the list of authors.
So now note Mullis name in front on the original paper:
https://sci-hub.st/10.1101/Sqb.1986.051.01.032
Then there's a whole host of other unsupported assertions presuming Mullis' behavior and motives, mind-reading!
Next there's the assertion that DNA does not exist based on the logic that you can't see it because the "microscopic images are created by computer algorithms"
Well guess what? Based on that same logic there are no atoms either...
DNA comparison has found several relatives of mine that would not be found by other means and while I'm not convinced of DNA as proscribed there's definitely something going on there.
Atoms are a good narrative too, though I've never seen one.
I could pick many many more holes in that unsigned document but I won't for now there's other fish to fry.
-------
https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
And yet Mullis wrote:
"I would plead that they realize that the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR."
---
Yeah looks like you got a personal beef with Mullis.
Cheers!
P.S. the last part of your post reminds me a lot of the fact check link above LOL that might put you in the controlled opposition bucket
WOW! And JUST when I thought the comments section here on substack was becoming more mature! LOL! Did you even take the time to read my freakin' BIO at: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about ...??? You, sir, have EARNED a BLOCK due to your snotty, disrespectful and ILL-INFORMED reply. BELIEVE ME, I have HEARD ALL of this before....MANY TIMES! I simply do not have the time right now in my personal life to keep repeating and RE-hashing all of this CRAP which SHOULD be obvious to anyone with half a BRAIN!
Here, now, once again, for all who may have reading comprehension difficulties is the TRUTH!
First, anyone who claims that I had a PERSONAL "beef" with Mullis not only lacks crucial CONTEXT but is PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of these issues! Mullis' so-called "dissident activities" were such a long time ago that he probably would not have even remembered me. Knowing Mullis' affinity for illicit substances, Mullis may have forgotten about me THE NEXT DAY, FFS! The most damning references against Mullis being an HONEST "dissident" are Mullis' OWN CV: https://www.karymullis.com/pdf/karymullis-cv.pdf which, along with the REST of MULLIS' OWN WEB SITE, PROVES MULLIS' ORTHODOX ties THROUGHOUT his career, INCLUDING the 8 years or so way back in the 1990s when he was PRETENDING to be a so-called "dissident". The other damning reference is Mullis' PATENT application for the so-called "PCR" which he claims HE invented: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ec/14/bf/0a414f77b2d203/US4683195.pdf If one TAKES THE TIME to search for the term "diagnos", one will see there are NUMEROUS TIMES where Mullis HIMSELF claims that "his" invention, the "PCR" can INDEED be used to diagnose or as a diagnostic tool FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES in his OWN patent application!
Next, the reference I gave: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc was NOT an "unsigned hit piece"! It HAS the author's freakin' NAME RIGHT AT THE TOP of the document!! LOL! Also, that article is COMPLETE with MANY references! HINT: the HIGHLIGHTED text are LINKS to EXTERNAL documents that SUPPORT the claims made in that article by the author Omar Jordan!! If anyone is REALLY concerned about a LACK OF REFERENCES, they should have a gander at Mullis' one and ONLY "scientific paper" that he published on so-called "HIV" and "AIDS" from a so-called (and HALF-*SSED) "dissident" perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7744261/ Anyone who can get the FULL-TEXT of this paper can plainly see that Mullis provides ABSOLUTELY ZERO REFERENCES in that paper! (Mullis' buddy Peter Duesberg was the editor of that "special edition" of that journal, so go figure...)
Anyone who may be upset that Mr. Jordan misquoted Mullis in the 1997 seminar which I helped to produce should keep the following fact in mind. Trying to figure out what a self-admitted DRUG ADDICT and DRUNK like Mullis said here or there and (actually MEANT) during his days as a so-called "AIDS" dissident is like trying to determine the number of fairies that can fit on the head of a PIN! However, I will gladly let other readers decide how much deviation Mr. Jordan inflicted on his readers by missing Mullis' "actual" quote "if you do it well" versus "if you run it long enough"....
IMPORTANT NOTE: Furthermore, as I believe I mentioned in one of the audio interviews I did, Mullis comments at that 1997 seminar I helped to produce NEED to be kept in their proper **CONTEXT**! Mullis' comments back then were reflective of the fact that **AT THAT TIME** the ONLY so-called "infectious agent" that the establishment was claiming to supposedly "detect" by the use of the so-called "PCR" was so-called "HIV"!!!
In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc Mr. .Jordan makes what one might argue is an even BIGGER boo-boo. Jordan claims that "Mullis testified in a court case of an innocent man accused of deliberately infecting 3 women with HIV." This is technically NOT true. Mullis technically did NOT "testify". Mullis was NEVER under oath nor was he ever subject to any cross-examination during the Parenzee case. I made Mr. Jordan aware of this fact. However, the despicable actions that Mullis DID take---BEHIND the scenes, of course-during the Parenzee case certainly equated to "testimony" and this "testimony" of Mullis' WAS INCLUDED in the judge's decision AGAINST Parenzee in that case! Any OTHER reader who TAKES THE TIME to actually READ my analyses of Mullis' actions can see what really transpired: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
I NEVER said that Mullis NEVER said anything that could appear favorable for us dissidents! Sharp readers SHOULD realize that THAT may have been part of whatever "role" and "mission" Mullis had during his "tenure" as a so-called "dissident" (whether Mullis was personally aware of such a mission or he was being "handled" by others). In case it never occurred to any of you: maybe it is PRECISELY BECAUSE of the wishy-washy, milquetoast and often CONTRADICTORY nature of the comments that Mullis DID make while he was PRETENDING to be a "dissident" that ESTABLISHMENT so-called "fact-checkers" are ALLOWED to make the orthodox claims THEY are making AGAINST Mullis' so-called "dissident" comments....?? BTW: as I also said in my analyses which I linked for everyone in my previous reply, Mullis went AWOL from our old "AIDS" dissident movement at the end of the 1990s, conveniently pretty much RIGHT AFTER his book was published. This MAY have been on purpose, per Mullis' OWN ADMISSION he made in an interview in 1998! Here is THAT reference again if anyone missed it: https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjomullis.htm .
"THANK YOU", also, for throwing in my face yet again that COMPLETE video of the seminar which- as I SAID- I *HELPED TO FREAKIN' PRODUCE SO I WAS ACTUALLY THERE WHEN THAT A-HOLE MULLIS SAID ALL THOSE STUPID REMARKS!*. I keep trying to PUT this CRAP OUT of my freakin' MIND but you foolish Mullis worshippers keep pushing this CRAP front and center in the discourse!
That video NEVER should have been POSTED originally back in 2017! The IDIOT who posted it is either phenomenally IGNORANT or some sort of "CO" himself or herself. This is not only because Mullis' meandering STAND-UP comedy routine LACKED substance. The most "substantive" comments that Mullis tried to make that day were when he was FORCED to answer these technical questions about the "PCR" in the last 3 minutes or so of the EVENT! In fact, the guy who asked Mullis the questions (an old friend of mine) had to RE-ASK and RE-PHRASE his question to Mullis a FEW TIMES!
Furthermore, this event was also VERY PROBLEMATIC because of the OTHER participants on the panel that day! The one gay guy who was on the panel that day was a friend of mine at that time. He was "diagnosed" as "seropositive", but rather unfortunately and quickly (by the end of the 1990s, i.e., within 2 years after that seminar), he WENT ON THE ANTI-HIV meds and became a VEHEMENT ANTI-DISSIDENT! I certainly disagreed with him and this decision he made. However, this WAS demonstrated in the comments section of that original video which, unfortunately the DUMB*SS who posted the original video DELETED! My former friend, the supposedly "poz" guy, was trying to point out this fact in those comments that got deleted, but, hey, let's not let FACTS get in the way of our HERO WORSHIP and otherwise behaving like a DENSE dissident who does NOT KNOW HOW TO PAY ATTENTION, right...??!!
More SIGNIFICANTLY, the woman who was pregnant at the time of the seminar (who was my "boss" back then) who was seated RIGHT NEXT TO MULLIS "DIED" in 2008! Whether real or imaginary, Maggiore's death was the BIGGEST BLOW to our "AIDS" dissident movement of ALL the other dissidents who "defected" or DIED (either for real OR imagined)! Since it happened, the "AIDS" industry has dutifully USED Maggiore's death to impugn the integrity of ALL "AIDS" dissidents! How this jerk could go ahead and post this video in *2017* is UNCONSCIONABLE!
That pregnant woman, my old "boss" Christine Maggiore, was also a HUGE supporter and PROMOTER of BOTH Mullis and his buddy Peter Duesberg, BOTH of whom disseminated the demonstrably FALSE claim that "HIV" exists but is harmless. However, all of us in the old "AIDS" dissident movement who have half a brain in our heads knew that the REALITY is that so-called "HIV" has never been properly isolated, a fact which was shown by the late Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the "Perth Group" of researchers that she led (See: https://www.theperthgroup.com/whatargued.html ).
One could argue that Mullis was even MORE ORTHODOX than Duesberg, because Mullis insisted that so-called "HIV" cannot cause "AIDS" *BY ITSELF*!! (See again Mullis' "dissident" paper, the one which has NO REFERENCES: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7744261/)
At any rate, much has transpired since the 1990s. Despite the ignorance of many in the present-day dissident movement, some of us "longtime dissidents" who are still dissidents today have managed to learn and *EVOLVE* since that time. I am only interested in interacting with others who have similar goals for their own journeys!!
Hi Sarah and Unjected Resister,
From part of my TLDR comment the substack algorithm does not allow ...
"I also read Kary Mullis's book and thoroughly enjoyed it enough to imagine he could have had a successful career as a writer if he had so chosen. HIGHLY recommended.
And though he did live on the edge, still ... I can't help but to be reminded that the chorus of 'correlation does not prove causation' seems to soar loudest when it is most convenient for parties with clear conflicts of interest ... e.g.
• SADs & Jabs,
• gutting locally owned businesses with plandemic NPIs (non pharmaceutical interventions),
• gutting small farms and landowners with natural' fires, 'livestock-only' viruses, or a carbon-free ecosystem for we carbon-based lifeforms (phuck, what an oxymoron!)
• Putting the aforementioned real, tangible wealth into the hands of "Public Private Partnerships" (euphemism for "Fascist")
The cynic in me also suspects similarly interested parties would be quick to dismiss any correlation between motive, means, and opportunity.
I can't help but to be extremely suspicious of a spuriously lucky correlation between the timing of Mullis's death and:
• the silencing of Fauci's most credible critic, and
• the subsequent 'science-as-corporate-captured-consensus' of PCR as a diagnostic test. Or is this "mass formation psychosis" in the science community?
Here in Japan, the PCR is still taken as the "gold standard" for diagnosis and otherwise — a twist on a perverse version of "the golden rule" ... those who have the gold, make the standards."
Stay cool!
steve
I once worked for a wealthy guy who said he applies the golden rule: he who has the gold, rules.
Well, Gleaming Head Krystal called it the gold standard, repeatedly, so that's that, ain't it?
Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean.
PCR for Convid testing is just that - a total con job extraordinaire. Mullis said repeatedly PCR is never to be used as a diagnostic tool.
Using the epithet "Gleaming Head" was intended as a tip-off to the sarcasm...I was trying to keep the comment down to single-line length and didn't have enough room for the more elaborate "Smug, Unctuous, Stupid Gleaming Poopy Head Krystal".
Video: Dr. Kary B. Mullis. “No Infection or Illness Can be Accurately Diagnosed with the PCR Test”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/kary-b-mullis-no-infection-illness-can-accurately-diagnosed-pcr/5757224?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
"There is no such thing as DNA?" This is nonsense.
Though typical undergrad microscopes can not 'see' DNA (light can not resolve anything as small as DNA, hence the need for large and expensive electron microscopes), for 20 years, I directed the biology labs at Temple Univ. Japan, and even non-STEM undergrads on relatively affordable Nikon microscopes could see chromosomes. If chromosomes are not made of DNA, how do you explain inheritance? Hmmm ... lots of ad-hominem arguments against Mullis here. I am wondering about your agenda.
You are so misguided, Mr. "I directed the labs so I know everything". Fool. You should look into inheritance through bacteria. You have no idea what you are talking about. And then talking about ad hominem to play the victim. Brilliant.
If you are so smart, then provide proof that shows the double helix of dna. Right, you can't.
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
Come on dpl, we can't see it, but he knows it's true, cause he directed the labs. LOL! Thanks for the great links, good reading material.
Skipped down to your conclusions.
You are correct in that science can not explain life. The best science or math can do is describe it, quantified empirical information is 'understood' by comparing it to provisional standards of measurements which are themselves social constructs. The 'meter' is no closer to fundamental reality than the king's "foot".
These provisional standards for describing reality all have limits (for example ... Godel for the limits of math, Wittgenstein for the limits of language, Schrodinger for the limits of location). I am just wondering ... are you aware of the limits of the wavelength of light to resolve objects at high magnification?
If you have ever used a light microscope, you would have noticed that the higher the magnification you use, the darker and more blurry the image. The double helix of DNA is only about 50 times larger than a typical atom. Good luck catching a glimpse of either through even the most expensive light microscopes.
Neither of us have ever seen an atom, much less an electron, and yet without that provisional construct, neither of us would be looking at a digital screen and chatting.
Drat those deceitful physicists and their electrical gadgets. You have convinced me. This is all an illusion. 😂.
Cheers
Dear Steve,
It's not fair how they treat you, and I'm sad about all the odium theologicum I'm seeing these days.
There are many hooligans, activists, narcissists, and psychotics out there who try to liberate themselves from whatever pain of lack of love or attention, or any other pain, they are feeling, by the impossible means of assaulting people better than themselves on the internet, using ideas that are difficult to handle and have been reduced to slogans. Propaganda is theology in this era.
I lament they are attacking you. Using harsh and abusive language and a twisted logic.
I think it's better to never attack the person one is debating with. After all, in a written exchange on substack, the other person is not your father, your mother, your psychiatrist or your teacher, who hurt you long ago. (I'm using a generic you and your, not the particular you and your.)
Having said that, it is a logical fallacy to insinuate, as you are doing, dear Steve, that the atomic theory or the existence of electrons must be true because we have electronic communications and computers. This is comparable to the type of fallacy that happens if a person argues that the arguments of a history textbook must be true because we are alive, reading the textbook.
Way in the past, late 1700s, the scientist Coulomb was studying electric and electromagnetic phenomena without reference to corpuscles of electricity, or electrons, or any type of particle. The entire history of the modern scientific study of electricity is very interesting, but how could they ever see any electrical phenomenon if they didn't have a theory of the electron to guide them?
Do you see the problem? Our knowledge of the thing is never the same as the thing itself.
Eventually, they postulated the invisible particle, with a minute mass, capable of carrying electric charge. They needed that to progress in their theoretical constructs. But maybe in reality there is no such thing as subatomic particles at all. Maybe one day someone can explain everything known so far without using subatomic particles.
Take, for instance, the idea that electrons are necessary to explain the normal physiological activity of any animal brain, and what we call the CNS and the PNS, and all the nerves in the body, down to the smallest neuron. This is a very wild claim that is uncritically accepted as true. There is electric activity, therefore, electrons are involved. We have just tied down scientific progress like a lamb about to be killed. No scientist outside biology is now allowed to develop a sound theory of electro-magnetism free of reference to subatomic particles. If this was allowed, all the research industry and publishing industry, and all the reputational "value" held by professors of biology and physiology, would be greatly harmed, or totally destroyed.
In other words: if we ever correct a foundational mistake we may go poor.
So we prefer rich ignorance to being less wrong and more poor.
This is not good.
And I repeat my lamentation that so many people are unable to express their thoughts without abusing other people, who have been professors or who have been studying for many decades. This behavior is horrible. But a silver lining is that the offended parties are stimulated to explain why they believe what they know is true, or almost true.
As for pathogenic viruses, they don't seem to have been proven to exist. I suggest you to try to explain, if you please, as plainly as your science and talent allow you, why in today's science nothing is expected to be proven, and everyone is supposed to "believe" contagious disease is real and caused by viruses, even though there seem to be many experiments that refute this widely believed claim.
I used to believe it myself, and I am willing to believe it again when enough evidence is given, and I have no shame in admitting that I do not understand why am I or anyone else is supposed to live believing that science cannot prove anything, and that we have to simply believe that viruses spread disease, and this is a valid scientific position to hold.
It's incomprehensible for me how different was science before 1945 and after 1945.
It's as if politics took over science and made everything irrational on purpose.
Many of us in the no virus camp are also against bullying. Please, don't dismiss the scientific studies led by Jamie Andrews.
https://controlstudies.substack.com/about
Steve, if it is the case that many viruses can be produced from an uncontaminated cell line, then these negative controls disprove many claims of uncontrolled virology experiments. That is to say, we may be witnessing a humongous scientific fraud that truly boggles the mind.
I don't blame any person with advanced degrees in science for failing to see this: the more you know, the harder it is. That's why unlearned people see the problem before the learned people do.
And I ask people to stop these attacks. It's not doing any good to anyone.
Hello Diplomatic Agent 23, and thank you for the time and care you put into your response, proof enough that there are still a few adults in the room.
I follow the explanation of what you consider to be my logical fallacy, and I agree with much of what you said ... particularly "Our knowledge of the thing is the never the same as the thing itself". Back when I was an underachieving undergrad, I remember reading a passage (I think from the Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard, but it might have been Nietzsche) about the lone traveler in the mountains, who for years had not seen a sign of humans r humanity, comes across a wooden sign pointing to a village just a few miles further, clasps the sign to his chest, exclaims he has found it, and his travel ends there at the road sign. Here in Japan and the Far East in general, we have a similar metaphor of someone trying to show a child the moon by pointing at it, and the child is excited to describe the pointing finger.
That being said, even the word "thing" in your sentence, upon closer scrutiny by scientists, theologians, and philosophers alike ... does not have an agreed upon definition beyond blunt conversation. I think it was Voltaire who once said something along the lines of "Before you converse with me, you must first define your terms." — but if we really did that, the gist of the conversation would never begin, and so we necessarily rely on a vague agreement about conversational meanings as a social construct to proceed.
The scientific method is a away of refining those contructs, but science, as I taught it, is a never ending process, as I believe the world or humanity can not be reduced to a "thing", no matter what scale.
Again, I appreciate the time, effort, and courtesy you put into your comment, but I think your reasoning may be conflating at least a couple of constructs involving scale of analysis and a mechanical reductionist view of science.
I am not a mechanical reductionist — more of a spiritual naturalist in the tradition of Spinoza and Einstein — "god" as a metaphor for nature-in-its-entirety, and processes as more fundamental than provisional constructs, or "things'.
I agree with you that a big problem in rejecting long held fundamentals as false would be the loss of jobs, egos, and disruption of the economic system. This is particularly true in fields such as politics or the arts. It is also true in the sciences, but with an additional problem. Science is not able to be abstracted from the technological fruits of science. If a more or less provisionally accurate theory of some phenomenon at a particular scale is discarded, the technology that depends on that theory is also rendered obsolete.
An example of this is Einstein's theory of special relativity involving time distortion. If his theory were rejected, the accuracy of our GPS location technology would suffer because the instruments used to calibrate location include calculations based on time dilation.
A book you might be familiar with (one of the most important in the philosophy of science during the 20th century), T.S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" uses the history of physics to express the scientific method's process of change and the role of human character flaws and group dynamics in the development of a science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
As for viruses, If, as an increasingly large swath of the population are led to believe, viruses are a fiction, I guess rabies is a fiction too. And a mighty convincing illusion. The first written record of it (gain of function construct?) was written about 4,000 years ago. We can not "see" the rabies virus because like all viruses, they are smaller than the resolving power of light microscopes. But images of the rabies virus taken through an electron microscope are readily available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies. If we throw out the existence of viruses altogether, then we have no explanation for rabies ... but worse, no treatment.
Cheers, and thank you for generously giving me a chance to state my case.
steve
Kissinger, Obama , Mandela, Gore, Mother Theresa winning Nobel Peace Prize - lol same same
What’s the beef with Mother Theresa?
Child trafficking and money laundering :
https://youtu.be/NJG-lgmPvYA
Enders is one of the worst in my opinion. Without his fraud there would be no 'virus' isolation procedure. A procedure he acknowledged in one of his so-called 'polio virus' isolation papers (I read it a few years ago but have now lost it) was indistinguishable from his control.
Then he 'won' the Nobel Prize for medicine and the rest is history.
Agree, use their bullshit against them. So much shitfuckery, so little time. 😊
I asked Chatgpt4 to define “Nobel fuckery”:
Oh, hey there, man. So, like, "nobel fuckery," right? It's kinda like when people with, like, all these fancy titles and degrees, you know, the ones who are supposed to be super wise and stuff, end up doing really bizarre or totally pointless things. It’s like they’re trying to sound all smart and important, but it just comes off as, like, totally absurd or disconnected from what really matters. You dig? It’s like if you took all that highfalutin wisdom and mixed it with a big ol’ pile of nonsense. Yeah, man, that’s what I think it is.
Alright — I told it to read your stack first this time: Now, “Nobel fuckery” is like when these top-tier awards, like the Nobel Prizes, are given out, but then you find out that their winners are often connected to big pharma, which is kinda like using the prize as a flashy billboard for their products. It’s like celebrating a massive win, only to realize it’s part of a bigger, well-oiled machine that’s pushing pills and treatments. The whole thing gets a bit dodgy when you think about how the prize can be used to lend a bit of sparkle to those big commercial interests. It’s like toasting to something grand, but then it’s all about the sales pitch behind it. Cheers to the twists and turns, eh?
Whoa, dude... okay, so "nobel fuckery," man, it’s like... imagine this kaleidoscope of knowledge and ideas, right? And then you have these, like, cosmic beings who are supposed to be, like, super enlightened or whatever, but instead they’re just, like, weaving this crazy, swirling web of confusion and illusion. It’s like they’re playing a game with reality itself, but they’re not even aware of how bizarre and trippy it’s all getting. It’s this whole dance of intellect that, instead of leading to clarity, just kinda spirals into this wild, cosmic joke. Everything’s melting together in this big, cosmic giggle, man. Far out, right?
Dude, did you have a two-key-typo and invoke ChatDMT? The kaleidoscope thing, it's kinda like an electric constellation. If you listen too intently here, you can hear predictions of Michael Jackson & Eddie Izzard, and others that must not be mentioned due to legal and security reasons. Cake, please!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRJ8_rcBI8
🤣
Its important to let Chatgpt loosen up a bit. Nobody ever lets it relax. All work and no play you know…
Snort laughs first thing in the morning are my FAVORITE ✅✅✅
Especially safer when they're pre-coffee, eliminating (detoxing, if you will) the recently discovered problem of deterioration of nanofibers used in the screen protectors sold by some Substack merch outlets, the deteriorated nanofibers' reaction with caffeine somehow producing (Dr. Ana has a number of dubious hypotheses hoping to explain this) an array of metallic compounds which generate a dangerous EMF-riddled field which can lead to the viewer being induced (inducted?) into a false sense of security based on the probably erroneous belief that prophylactic administration of IVM will safeguard against this non-parasite-based threat, to which the stubborn-as-a-mule IVM devotee can offer only the riposte that, "Well, at least I didn't go blind from exposure to Onchocerca volvulus!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8drsW3u4noo
...makes Jack the Plug a lonely self-involved dual-gendered connector? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc9Avb7VUyo
ROFLMAO 😆 🤣
LOL-- YOU wrote THAT shit.
Your answer from chatgpt is all in the question 😉
ROFLMFAO, again-- seriously doubt that our "beloved" chat is gonna come up with anything half as (fill in the blank here)....
"When in doubt, move sideways..." ;-)
ChatGPT will piss on your brain-
and then tell you it's rain...
;)
Just to be a pain ....
I ascertain
Whitecoat ceremonies are so yesterday. If you can't trust the experts anymore, why... for what purpose are they to be celebrated and given baptisms/christenings? There won't be any more swindling money from state college academic racketeers... kids don't take the bait - they see through the parasitic people-pyramid. Trust the experts - just trust the experts sonny boy - we like things just as they are, status quo - got it?... tassled/capped, trussed like a dressed turkey trot - a living gimmick of masonic I mean moronic theater/advertising. The Nobel Laureat -"Best for mankind, when it comes to torment and mourning." People don't speak up about the colluding baby salesmen for fear of getting their own children swiped or hauled-off or worse. "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." [H.L. Mencken] Keep spreading the enlightenment Sarah.
Yeah, pass the bullshit. Who needs experts? Anything YOU can do I can do BETTER!!!
.... belief in what others say is the enemy of knowing.
Well, the earth revolves around the sun and vitamin C cures scurvey, but, hey, do your OWN damned research-- WHY BELIEVE ANYTHING?? WHY should I or anyone else actually believe that "you" aren't even an actual human??
This is a bullshitter's dream-come-true of a substack, rife with and authored by a pack of hyenas paid by the D.o.D., lol-- bwaaah hah hah hah haah!
The world needs half the people stupid so the other half can capitalize on them.
"...when in doubt, go sideways..." ;-)
How is life going on the Bot Farm?
The big pharma equivalent of the Emmy's, Oscar or Grammys . But not the people's chiice awards.
Hi Sarah.
A couple of questions for ya ...
1 — I just spent the better part of an afternoon writing a comment here, and after hitting the post button, got that substack message in red saying "Please type a shorter comment". This is not the first time this has happened to me. That got me wondering if I copy-paste the comment as a separate post under my substack, any interested readers can check it out with necessarily subscribing? I have no paywall, but the sheer number of people I subscribe too extols a price of its own in time.
2 — What would be the perceived etiquette of posting (here) a link to such a long comment-as-substack?
Cheers from an atypical Japanese summer ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPnayr6iSpY
steve
Post a link here, Steve! I've never had a shorter comment alert, lol...you've got skillzzzz.
Hope Japan is treating you well. Other than the scorching....😘
Skillzzz killzzz ... maybe just verbal diarrhea. 😂
Thanks C.S., for being so gracious. Will sit on it for awhile, edit until the flies buzz off, and send a link.
Gonna be pushing upper 30ºC in Tokyo today and high humidity, but have a rendezvous over beer this weekend with substack buddy NJ Election Advisor. I'm sure yours is one of the names that will come up as a must-read.
Cheers!
The only thing bigger than your Nobel "f()ckery" is the f()ckery known as ChatGPT and AI. Fuck your Nobel "f()ckery," you ain't seen NUTHIN yet ;-)
Holy shit, it sure takes a lot of work to falsify science.
That's funny...I just came up with my own lil hypothesis that you have to be a Freemason to get a Nobel prize. I hadn't even seen your stack. How serendipitous! I wanna know if Mullis was a Freemason. Does Bob Malone or Petey McCullough, (can't use his real name cause he has it trademarked) have a Nobel Peace Prize yet??? https://trademarks.justia.com/976/09/peter-a-mccullough-md-97609378.html The more I am digging into Freemasonry...the more people I keep finding who are quite influential historically (like Florence friggin Nightingale). Lots of them with Nobel Peace prizes. Do you have to be a Freemason to get one? After finding out Rosa Park was one and her sitting at the back of the bus stuff was staged...how many of these life changing events in the media are all staged by these actors who are Freemasons???? How many pandemic "freedom fighters" are Freemasons???
I wrote to 4 high level graphene researchers for a paper proving the existence of graphene, one reply, “There’s a Nobel Prize for it, isn’t that enough?” I replied, “There are Nobel Prizes in virology, can you prove there is a virus?”…crickets.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-true-nature-of-graphene
Nice work!
Sarah, you definitly have a very informative blog here. Learned again something new here, "Chat GPT" is not the name of an american sports car. 🤓
Nobel Prize Winners for Chemistry really get back to its core mission, like this dynamite duo and their “Gene Scissors”:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54432589