In 2018 I first questioned nukes. As a 60 year old physicist I never questioned them. After a few months of internet research I’ve convinced myself that they are fake. It was fun research, and opened my eyes to the sheer magnitude of official lies.
There’s some evidence that the bombing of Japan was strategic carpet bombing. They wanted the war to end and the bomb wasn’t ready, so they made it look the way it should and said it was nuclear to scare and intimidate the world. And to claim the production of the first atomic bomb.
Interesting idea and seems to be true. Growing up I could never understand how nuclear weapons could be so dangerous if Japan came back so fast. The land should be radioactive for generations. Why isn’t it?
It's a possibility. Lots of "official stories" don't add up when examined closely. It would help explain all the apparent jockeying toward nuclear war.
I'm not taking sides on this one just yet. It helps to be old and not expecting to live forever. Not here, anyway.
It's making the rounds. An interesting idea, but not something I'm putting time into. I suspect that a good many of the notions "going around" are intentional, time-eating diversions. This one is at least a "don't worry" as opposed to a "be very worried".
If the remaining Air Force base north of here is hit with a nuke, the topic might increase in importance, north winds being so common here.
I know why you refuse to prove they’re real. Because you can’t. Take a close look at a high res image of bikini atoll atomic blast. Bomb size of a VW bug in fifty feet of water. Clean vertical column of smoke, steam, and mushrooms a half mile wide rising up thousands of feet like the jet coming out of a fire hose. The artists had very limited experience with explosions but most viewer do too.
Huh, nukes are fake, then how do you explain the footage of nuke test? That was quite a while before they had the special effects to fake a hydrogen bomb going off.
Excellent rundown of just a few of the major problems that plague biological sciences and have made most work completely unreproducible. I can easily add a few here based just on the fact that most published data is generated by grad students and post-docs:
- Grad students lack experience and frequently mistake artifacts and coincidences as real phenomena. Good mentors should recognize when this has occurred, but all too often PIs are happy to jump on an exciting piece of data, especially if it fits the narrative of ongoing work in the lab
- P-hacking and related statistical errors: frequently, when a grad student or postdoc does an experiment and it fails to “work” (ie, show a difference between control and experimental conditions) a PI will look at the data generated and notice that even if the intended dependent variable did not change in the expected way, there is another variable that did. The PI will then have their mentee repeat the experiment over and over until some measurement methodology finally confers statistical significance to the effect. These students then grow up to train their students to do the exact same thing. I have seen ivy-league trained scientists do this over and over again
- The highly competitive environment of academia creates pressure on more junior scientists like grad students and post docs to generate sensational data in order to succeed. Many junior scientists commit outright fraud, but it is much more common for them to manipulate data in ways that are easier to rationalize: “representative images”, trying different statistical tests until significance is reached, removing “outliers”, varying exposure time and cropping on Western blots, cherry-picking imaging fields for quantitative studies (related to, but different from representative images because the images may never be shown, just used for measurement), “optimizing experimental conditions” (aka, using different buffers, antibodies, equipment, etc until the desired outcome is achieved)
In addition to the issues with training and academic pressures on junior scientists, I can also attest to some specific issues in cell biology that make studies difficult to replicate:
- By far the largest issue is variability in basic culture methods and reagents. Between labs, different cell culture media, serum, transfection reagents, freezing reagents and methodologies, passing reagents and methodologies, cell culture plates, and protocols vary widely
- Cells differ from passage to passage. Often, letting cells get too confluent can cause them to differentiate. Inexperienced scientists frequently fail to recognize when this happens
Nearly three decades of education and experience as a scientist have taught me not to ever “trust the science”. That’s not to say that there aren’t good/reproducible studies and experiments conducted in academia. However, during the pandemic I learned quickly that most of my colleagues DO in fact trust the science wholeheartedly. They don’t even recognize the errors outlined in Joomi’s article or my comment are being committed. Or, those that do acknowledge the errors simply think they are not widespread or enough of a problem to really make a difference
Great summary. I would add to your insightful highlighting of different approaches to culture based testing that culture based testing itself is a simulated context (vs an in vivo context with the full conditions of actual living organisms and the full complement of their environmental influences, and as per your comments, includes all manner of confounding materials inherently. Another frame on that is there is deeply rooted reductionism in culture based testing and relying on these ubiquitous simulations to derive reductionist datasets,and re extrapolate them back to living systems is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
Thank you! Totally agree, and to some degree the caveat you outline is given lip service in academia, but it doesn’t stop the NIH from allocating billions of dollars to irreproducible cell-based studies.
On top of that, one other thing I forgot to mention was culture contamination. It’s well documented that certain cell lines (primarily HeLa cells) have a habit finding their way into other cultures and taking over. In addition, most labs add antibiotics to their culture media and a lot of people think that the antibiotics can either directly affect the outcome of experiments, or indirectly by permitting an environment of low level bacterial contamination.
At a more fundamental level though, your criticism of the reductionism in biology has led me to rethink if we can even call most of what’s done in biomedical research “science”. If you have to create such contrived conditions in order to isolate variables that you experiment doesn’t reflect anything that happens in the real world, then are you really even testing the hypothesis you think you’re testing? I would argue that the answer is mostly “no” because I’ve found that most scientists have a poor grasp of the philosophy of science. I’ve seen too many PhDs speak in terms of “proving” a hypothesis, or failing to understand the concept of formulating hypotheses as null and analyzing the results of their experiments in that context. Moreover, if your experiments aren’t testing your hypothesis, is your hypothesis even testable? Again, I would argue that often it’s not a testable hypothesis because we don’t have the technology to isolate variables without changing the conditions to such a degree that your system is no longer the one posed by the model your hypothesis is predicated on. And if your hypothesis isn’t testable, then it’s NOT SCIENCE.
The Reproduceability Crisis has not abated, and may have accelerated...because giving the funder of the research what he wants pays better than the alternative....
I listened to your conversation with Bret Weinstein with interest for reasons that will become apparent if you read this response.
In 2008, I investigated allegations against UC Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg who was accused of committing genocide in South Africa when, in 2000, he convinced then-president Thabo Mbeki to NOT give toxic HIV meds to his people. Despite withering attacks (the lawfare against me continues to this day), I established that no genocide had occurred. That case lead me to this basic 5W question - WHEN, WHERE, WHY, WHAT and WHO P R O V E D that HIV 1) attacks human cells and 2) causes AIDS?
The NIH and CDC refused to answer. Instead, they referred me to several "social marketing" (propaganda) contractors (Edelman & Danya) that have no obligation to present credible information. The NIH/CDC websites still post disclaimers about the third party websites they refer difficult inquiries to.
Back then, Big Pharma lobbied laws that were passed to criminalize HIV as a felony of which some people continue to serve life prison sentences. I put together a legal defense team of doctors, scientists, and lawyers to compel gov’t witnesses - "infectious disease experts" (Fauci’s clerics) to testify about the things that the CDC and NIH refused to discuss.
Our first case involved an active duty USMC service member who, after a night of heavy drinking, was raped while unconscious. Three days later, THE RAPIST discovered through social media that the RAPE VICTIM was HIV+. The RAPIST notified the authorities and the Marine Corps ARRESTED THE RAPE VICTIM FOR EXPOSING HIS ATTACKER TO HIV(!).
After being notified of the case, I met with the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps and, after explaining the facts of the case - the problems with testing (you identified some) and that military lawyers could not effectively defend their client, my team was brought in pro hac to handle the technical aspects for the defense. Our team included an attorney with years of post-doc scientific training, an MD with years of practice and post-doc research of the immune system, and the patent holder of the HIV PCR test.
The stakes were high because, if convicted, the Marine faced 32 years at USDB Fort Leavenworth and, if he survived prison and years of forced HIV drugs, he faced deportation as a Mexican national.
Prosecutors called their expert, a decorated Balboa Naval Hospital Navy Commander who, at the time, managed all infectious disease cases for the Navy and Marine Corps. He testified that numerous HIV Western Blot and PCR tests and confirmatory tests proved that our client was HIV+.
The medical records established that the asymptomatic Marine had tested positive years earlier during a pre-deployment screening and that the doctor who ordered the test did not understand the results of the test. "Doctor A" then referred the case to "specialist" "Doctor B", who also reported no evidence of an infection. Both doctors A & B assumed that the other had diagnosed the Marine AND assumed that the PCR test could accurately detect a disease. After his non-diagnosis, the Marine was then prescribed the highly addictive psychotropic drug Atripla, ostensibly as a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of HIV. Like ALL HIV "treatments", Atripla contains toxins that eventually destroy liver and kidney function. If taken long enough, all HIV drugs compromise the immune system and lead to an ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS).
During our cross examination of the Navy's top infectious disease expert, It took roughly 30 minutes before the prosecution's expert medical witness admitted that he knew virtually nothing about the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV or AIDS. We then called the patent holder of the PCR test who testified that the PCR test THAT HE INVENTED does not and can not accurately detect HIV (or any other disease).
After 200+ days in custody, our client was released and transferred to another duty station, where he reenlisted and eventually promoted. He later thanked me for saving his life and military career.
In 2013, our defense team began to use the services at the electron microscope (EM) lab at U Mass Worcester to see if HIV could be seen in blood samples. To test our suspicions, we drew 20ml blood from HIV+ patients and sent 10ml to Quest, LabCorp, and Walter Reed for testing. All reported "millions of HIV particles" per ML. We then sent the other 10ml (from the same draws) for electron microscopy, spun it, and REPEATEDLY FOUND N O T H I N G - proving in numerous state and federal courts that the tests are, at best, a pseudoscientific fraud against, at the very least, US taxpayers.
Another problem (there are many) is that all testing labs are licensed by CLIA and CLEP, which is also owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers of their fake tests.
Despite high HIV "viral load" counts, we found N O T H I N G with EM.
When Walter Reed Army Hospital (which partners with Big Pharma) claimed that HIV cannot be seen in human blood, I drew 20ml from my arm and spiked it with cultured HIV that I acquired from the NIH. We easily spotted and photographed the 80nm particles. According to the head of the EM lab, he'd photographed HIV hundreds of times since the 1980s, but this was the FIRST TIME HE ACTUALLY OBSERVED HIV IN HUMAN BLOOD.
The clerics at Walter Reed responded by accusing me of unlawfully using EM for "diagnostic purposes". I countered that licensed private investigators are permitted to use any optical device to determine, 1) whether nano-sized evidence (including retroviruses) are present and 2) whether an alleged bug actually causes an alleged disease (pathogenicity).
With that, Walter Reed issued an affidavit claiming (falsely) that I was using a non-accredited lab to "diagnose" our criminal defendants. The USAF prosecutor suggested that U Mass could lose their annual $150M in grant funding (i.e., bribes) if they continued to assist us. With that, USAF prosecutors successfully threatened and silenced our untenured EM expert, which ended all of our efforts to use EM to confirm accurate test results. Witness tampering (18 U.S. Code §1512) is a felony UNLESS committed by the US Government. We won that case and others, but the Deep State's Healthcare Industrial Complex doesn't prosecute their agents and co-conspirators.
My experiences with HIV and Covid testing lead me to believe that most biological tests are designed to convince reasonably healthy asymptomatic people that they will die without costly, toxic, and unnecessary medical interventions that will eventually kill them; and that, when they die, the CDC uses their preventable iatrogenic deaths to justify additional funding to protect us from what appears to be no more than a harmless laboratory artifact that does not exist naturally in human blood or tissues.
Like the HIV PCR "test", the Covid tests don’t detect a virus or reliable “markers”, and it’s easy to spot these facts by examining the package insert of each test. Get past the pseudoscientific gibberish and go straight to the LIMITATIONS. Anyone can read them - but you must read them carefully and apply intuition and common sense.
As a result of the USMC case, we successfully defended DOZENS of criminal HIV cases across the US that included the landmark case US v. Gutierrez (2015) that effectively ended most criminal HIV prosecutions across the US.
I remember seeing a similar type of study about the 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine DNA analog commonly used in lots of studies actually triggers DNA excise mechanisms and might implicate the many "thousands of studies" mentioned by the authors
'Nucleotide excision repair removes thymidine analog 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine from the mammalian genome'
So if the human genome project is a result of eugenics then we know wat is going wrong and that if this the future of science we going backwards to future…
Interesting. I wonder how many people have been convicted on the back of a roadside drug test using a lateral flow assay built with dodgy Ab's? Does any independent body check the performance of LFAs used by law enforcement?
Try finding the complete list of substances that are cross-reactive with the most popular LFAs on the market used to convict people.
I watched a Netflix series last night set in Lombardi, a thirteen-year-old girl was murdered, and a local father was arrested and received life in prison based on DNA. It was a very complicated case; he continues to deny it and really, he seems innocent. An English scientist said the mitochondrial DNA was not a match, which means it had to be someone else. The court ruled not to retest the DNA. This is a case for the innocence project. He was convicted based on faulty science.
It's only going to get worse. Corporate EULAs are helping themselves to your biometric data when their AI scrapes your computer, coupled with the databases of your DNA 'owned' by ancestry, 23&me as well as the state.
People have remained complacent for far too long on the essential psychological need for privacy. Not only do we have a right to it, but we need it for survival.
OMG, in a hundred years from now, they will look back at this generation the way we look back at the docs who pushed bloodletting.
The whole genetic sequencing industry is fake as the moon landing and the atomic bomb. It’s a total scam.
How is the atomic bomb fake? I never heard that before.
In 2018 I first questioned nukes. As a 60 year old physicist I never questioned them. After a few months of internet research I’ve convinced myself that they are fake. It was fun research, and opened my eyes to the sheer magnitude of official lies.
"Internet research" as a 60 year old physicist you should know better.
There’s some evidence that the bombing of Japan was strategic carpet bombing. They wanted the war to end and the bomb wasn’t ready, so they made it look the way it should and said it was nuclear to scare and intimidate the world. And to claim the production of the first atomic bomb.
Interesting idea and seems to be true. Growing up I could never understand how nuclear weapons could be so dangerous if Japan came back so fast. The land should be radioactive for generations. Why isn’t it?
It's a possibility. Lots of "official stories" don't add up when examined closely. It would help explain all the apparent jockeying toward nuclear war.
I'm not taking sides on this one just yet. It helps to be old and not expecting to live forever. Not here, anyway.
Carpet bombing and napalming gave them the photos they needed. Lack of radiation allowed people to live there immediately after.
It's making the rounds. An interesting idea, but not something I'm putting time into. I suspect that a good many of the notions "going around" are intentional, time-eating diversions. This one is at least a "don't worry" as opposed to a "be very worried".
If the remaining Air Force base north of here is hit with a nuke, the topic might increase in importance, north winds being so common here.
If they will terrorize us with fake nukes they will terrorize us with a fake pandemic. The pattern is evil.
If you're on the Internet long enough everything is fake, virus, nukes, history, religion, and twinkies.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Where’s your evidence, my boasting friend.
That's called a joke, hence the twinkie at the end.
Why don't you prove that nukes are fake?
I know why you refuse to prove they’re real. Because you can’t. Take a close look at a high res image of bikini atoll atomic blast. Bomb size of a VW bug in fifty feet of water. Clean vertical column of smoke, steam, and mushrooms a half mile wide rising up thousands of feet like the jet coming out of a fire hose. The artists had very limited experience with explosions but most viewer do too.
You guys are nutty.
stick around long enough love and you'll be nutty too
Do I get a certificate?
Huh, nukes are fake, then how do you explain the footage of nuke test? That was quite a while before they had the special effects to fake a hydrogen bomb going off.
You prove to me your evidence is real. I’m waiting.
You are the physicist, should be easy for you to prove they are not.
Pretty good "special effects" for the 50's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLw4b9bOZuw
Your childlike faith in physicists is naive. Are you vaccinated?
Excellent rundown of just a few of the major problems that plague biological sciences and have made most work completely unreproducible. I can easily add a few here based just on the fact that most published data is generated by grad students and post-docs:
- Grad students lack experience and frequently mistake artifacts and coincidences as real phenomena. Good mentors should recognize when this has occurred, but all too often PIs are happy to jump on an exciting piece of data, especially if it fits the narrative of ongoing work in the lab
- P-hacking and related statistical errors: frequently, when a grad student or postdoc does an experiment and it fails to “work” (ie, show a difference between control and experimental conditions) a PI will look at the data generated and notice that even if the intended dependent variable did not change in the expected way, there is another variable that did. The PI will then have their mentee repeat the experiment over and over until some measurement methodology finally confers statistical significance to the effect. These students then grow up to train their students to do the exact same thing. I have seen ivy-league trained scientists do this over and over again
- The highly competitive environment of academia creates pressure on more junior scientists like grad students and post docs to generate sensational data in order to succeed. Many junior scientists commit outright fraud, but it is much more common for them to manipulate data in ways that are easier to rationalize: “representative images”, trying different statistical tests until significance is reached, removing “outliers”, varying exposure time and cropping on Western blots, cherry-picking imaging fields for quantitative studies (related to, but different from representative images because the images may never be shown, just used for measurement), “optimizing experimental conditions” (aka, using different buffers, antibodies, equipment, etc until the desired outcome is achieved)
In addition to the issues with training and academic pressures on junior scientists, I can also attest to some specific issues in cell biology that make studies difficult to replicate:
- By far the largest issue is variability in basic culture methods and reagents. Between labs, different cell culture media, serum, transfection reagents, freezing reagents and methodologies, passing reagents and methodologies, cell culture plates, and protocols vary widely
- Cells differ from passage to passage. Often, letting cells get too confluent can cause them to differentiate. Inexperienced scientists frequently fail to recognize when this happens
Nearly three decades of education and experience as a scientist have taught me not to ever “trust the science”. That’s not to say that there aren’t good/reproducible studies and experiments conducted in academia. However, during the pandemic I learned quickly that most of my colleagues DO in fact trust the science wholeheartedly. They don’t even recognize the errors outlined in Joomi’s article or my comment are being committed. Or, those that do acknowledge the errors simply think they are not widespread or enough of a problem to really make a difference
Great summary. I would add to your insightful highlighting of different approaches to culture based testing that culture based testing itself is a simulated context (vs an in vivo context with the full conditions of actual living organisms and the full complement of their environmental influences, and as per your comments, includes all manner of confounding materials inherently. Another frame on that is there is deeply rooted reductionism in culture based testing and relying on these ubiquitous simulations to derive reductionist datasets,and re extrapolate them back to living systems is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
Thank you! Totally agree, and to some degree the caveat you outline is given lip service in academia, but it doesn’t stop the NIH from allocating billions of dollars to irreproducible cell-based studies.
On top of that, one other thing I forgot to mention was culture contamination. It’s well documented that certain cell lines (primarily HeLa cells) have a habit finding their way into other cultures and taking over. In addition, most labs add antibiotics to their culture media and a lot of people think that the antibiotics can either directly affect the outcome of experiments, or indirectly by permitting an environment of low level bacterial contamination.
At a more fundamental level though, your criticism of the reductionism in biology has led me to rethink if we can even call most of what’s done in biomedical research “science”. If you have to create such contrived conditions in order to isolate variables that you experiment doesn’t reflect anything that happens in the real world, then are you really even testing the hypothesis you think you’re testing? I would argue that the answer is mostly “no” because I’ve found that most scientists have a poor grasp of the philosophy of science. I’ve seen too many PhDs speak in terms of “proving” a hypothesis, or failing to understand the concept of formulating hypotheses as null and analyzing the results of their experiments in that context. Moreover, if your experiments aren’t testing your hypothesis, is your hypothesis even testable? Again, I would argue that often it’s not a testable hypothesis because we don’t have the technology to isolate variables without changing the conditions to such a degree that your system is no longer the one posed by the model your hypothesis is predicated on. And if your hypothesis isn’t testable, then it’s NOT SCIENCE.
The Reproduceability Crisis has not abated, and may have accelerated...because giving the funder of the research what he wants pays better than the alternative....
Results go to the highest bidder.
I listened to your conversation with Bret Weinstein with interest for reasons that will become apparent if you read this response.
In 2008, I investigated allegations against UC Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg who was accused of committing genocide in South Africa when, in 2000, he convinced then-president Thabo Mbeki to NOT give toxic HIV meds to his people. Despite withering attacks (the lawfare against me continues to this day), I established that no genocide had occurred. That case lead me to this basic 5W question - WHEN, WHERE, WHY, WHAT and WHO P R O V E D that HIV 1) attacks human cells and 2) causes AIDS?
The NIH and CDC refused to answer. Instead, they referred me to several "social marketing" (propaganda) contractors (Edelman & Danya) that have no obligation to present credible information. The NIH/CDC websites still post disclaimers about the third party websites they refer difficult inquiries to.
Back then, Big Pharma lobbied laws that were passed to criminalize HIV as a felony of which some people continue to serve life prison sentences. I put together a legal defense team of doctors, scientists, and lawyers to compel gov’t witnesses - "infectious disease experts" (Fauci’s clerics) to testify about the things that the CDC and NIH refused to discuss.
Our first case involved an active duty USMC service member who, after a night of heavy drinking, was raped while unconscious. Three days later, THE RAPIST discovered through social media that the RAPE VICTIM was HIV+. The RAPIST notified the authorities and the Marine Corps ARRESTED THE RAPE VICTIM FOR EXPOSING HIS ATTACKER TO HIV(!).
After being notified of the case, I met with the Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps and, after explaining the facts of the case - the problems with testing (you identified some) and that military lawyers could not effectively defend their client, my team was brought in pro hac to handle the technical aspects for the defense. Our team included an attorney with years of post-doc scientific training, an MD with years of practice and post-doc research of the immune system, and the patent holder of the HIV PCR test.
The stakes were high because, if convicted, the Marine faced 32 years at USDB Fort Leavenworth and, if he survived prison and years of forced HIV drugs, he faced deportation as a Mexican national.
Prosecutors called their expert, a decorated Balboa Naval Hospital Navy Commander who, at the time, managed all infectious disease cases for the Navy and Marine Corps. He testified that numerous HIV Western Blot and PCR tests and confirmatory tests proved that our client was HIV+.
The medical records established that the asymptomatic Marine had tested positive years earlier during a pre-deployment screening and that the doctor who ordered the test did not understand the results of the test. "Doctor A" then referred the case to "specialist" "Doctor B", who also reported no evidence of an infection. Both doctors A & B assumed that the other had diagnosed the Marine AND assumed that the PCR test could accurately detect a disease. After his non-diagnosis, the Marine was then prescribed the highly addictive psychotropic drug Atripla, ostensibly as a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of HIV. Like ALL HIV "treatments", Atripla contains toxins that eventually destroy liver and kidney function. If taken long enough, all HIV drugs compromise the immune system and lead to an ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS).
During our cross examination of the Navy's top infectious disease expert, It took roughly 30 minutes before the prosecution's expert medical witness admitted that he knew virtually nothing about the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV or AIDS. We then called the patent holder of the PCR test who testified that the PCR test THAT HE INVENTED does not and can not accurately detect HIV (or any other disease).
After 200+ days in custody, our client was released and transferred to another duty station, where he reenlisted and eventually promoted. He later thanked me for saving his life and military career.
In 2013, our defense team began to use the services at the electron microscope (EM) lab at U Mass Worcester to see if HIV could be seen in blood samples. To test our suspicions, we drew 20ml blood from HIV+ patients and sent 10ml to Quest, LabCorp, and Walter Reed for testing. All reported "millions of HIV particles" per ML. We then sent the other 10ml (from the same draws) for electron microscopy, spun it, and REPEATEDLY FOUND N O T H I N G - proving in numerous state and federal courts that the tests are, at best, a pseudoscientific fraud against, at the very least, US taxpayers.
Another problem (there are many) is that all testing labs are licensed by CLIA and CLEP, which is also owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers of their fake tests.
Despite high HIV "viral load" counts, we found N O T H I N G with EM.
When Walter Reed Army Hospital (which partners with Big Pharma) claimed that HIV cannot be seen in human blood, I drew 20ml from my arm and spiked it with cultured HIV that I acquired from the NIH. We easily spotted and photographed the 80nm particles. According to the head of the EM lab, he'd photographed HIV hundreds of times since the 1980s, but this was the FIRST TIME HE ACTUALLY OBSERVED HIV IN HUMAN BLOOD.
The clerics at Walter Reed responded by accusing me of unlawfully using EM for "diagnostic purposes". I countered that licensed private investigators are permitted to use any optical device to determine, 1) whether nano-sized evidence (including retroviruses) are present and 2) whether an alleged bug actually causes an alleged disease (pathogenicity).
With that, Walter Reed issued an affidavit claiming (falsely) that I was using a non-accredited lab to "diagnose" our criminal defendants. The USAF prosecutor suggested that U Mass could lose their annual $150M in grant funding (i.e., bribes) if they continued to assist us. With that, USAF prosecutors successfully threatened and silenced our untenured EM expert, which ended all of our efforts to use EM to confirm accurate test results. Witness tampering (18 U.S. Code §1512) is a felony UNLESS committed by the US Government. We won that case and others, but the Deep State's Healthcare Industrial Complex doesn't prosecute their agents and co-conspirators.
My experiences with HIV and Covid testing lead me to believe that most biological tests are designed to convince reasonably healthy asymptomatic people that they will die without costly, toxic, and unnecessary medical interventions that will eventually kill them; and that, when they die, the CDC uses their preventable iatrogenic deaths to justify additional funding to protect us from what appears to be no more than a harmless laboratory artifact that does not exist naturally in human blood or tissues.
Like the HIV PCR "test", the Covid tests don’t detect a virus or reliable “markers”, and it’s easy to spot these facts by examining the package insert of each test. Get past the pseudoscientific gibberish and go straight to the LIMITATIONS. Anyone can read them - but you must read them carefully and apply intuition and common sense.
As a result of the USMC case, we successfully defended DOZENS of criminal HIV cases across the US that included the landmark case US v. Gutierrez (2015) that effectively ended most criminal HIV prosecutions across the US.
Have you ever read about the fraud of the Abderhalden Enzymes? My Recommendation read it you will be amazed.
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/06/20/%f0%9f%9a%a8-attention-on-eugenics-trial/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/06/12/genetics-of-susceptibility-to-tuberculosis-mengeles-experiments-in-auschwitz/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/gene-editing-and-the-new-eugenics/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/07/genetics-as-a-modernization-program-biological-research-at-the-kaiser-wilhelm-institutes-and-the-political-economy-of-the-nazi-state/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/07/27/eugenics-infertility-population-growth-crisis/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/02/epigenetics-the-science-of-change/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2023/11/11/all-for-the-money-all-for-the-show/
There seems to be quite a bit of bad research and errors in studies these days, which makes me wonder how good any meta study is.
I remember seeing a similar type of study about the 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine DNA analog commonly used in lots of studies actually triggers DNA excise mechanisms and might implicate the many "thousands of studies" mentioned by the authors
'Nucleotide excision repair removes thymidine analog 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine from the mammalian genome'
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2210176119
So if the human genome project is a result of eugenics then we know wat is going wrong and that if this the future of science we going backwards to future…
This is and was always pseudoscience
https://open.substack.com/pub/juli2a5i4/p/what-do-you-know-about-the-human?r=1pk0jl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
More curiosity I find into the research of the „anthrax“ toxin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_toxin
What you think about?
So the baseline isn’t a baseline, interesting 🧐
Interesting. I wonder how many people have been convicted on the back of a roadside drug test using a lateral flow assay built with dodgy Ab's? Does any independent body check the performance of LFAs used by law enforcement?
Try finding the complete list of substances that are cross-reactive with the most popular LFAs on the market used to convict people.
I watched a Netflix series last night set in Lombardi, a thirteen-year-old girl was murdered, and a local father was arrested and received life in prison based on DNA. It was a very complicated case; he continues to deny it and really, he seems innocent. An English scientist said the mitochondrial DNA was not a match, which means it had to be someone else. The court ruled not to retest the DNA. This is a case for the innocence project. He was convicted based on faulty science.
It's only going to get worse. Corporate EULAs are helping themselves to your biometric data when their AI scrapes your computer, coupled with the databases of your DNA 'owned' by ancestry, 23&me as well as the state.
People have remained complacent for far too long on the essential psychological need for privacy. Not only do we have a right to it, but we need it for survival.
Does that mean plasmidgate is real or fake. McKernan found something or didn’t?
Hiroshima Nagasaki was fake.