This is SO valuable and SO appreciated. Please consider offering a ko-fi or other one-time donation option? I think it will add up, possibly to more than you'd get otherwise. $60 is literally 10% of my SS monthly income! And though tithing is time-honored (but may in fact, be a time-tested scam!) sometimes it's simply not possible.
Steve Kirsch is a waste of time. His write up of Jamie's work is so obviously flawed, it's hard to imagine that it's anything other than intentional misdirection...assuming that many will read his post and believe it to be accurate at face value.
It’s quite curious. He has statistically shown in many ways and dimensions the harms and ineffectiveness of the vax. How many proofs does one need? So perhaps he is becoming a pro virus shit stirrer in an attempt to remain relevant and “provide value” for his subscribers. It’s unfortunate since all he needs to do is to declare agnosticism as regards virus existence and I doubt he would get much pushback with such an attitude of humility.
The “debate” with Dr Kaufman was painful to witness and a tribute to Kaufman’s good nature and patience.
Steve doesn't debate or interview. He interrupts. His "debate" style is exactly like his "interview" style...Wreck It Ralph. It's like watching a toddler on the verge of a tantrum with a microphone.
Those were exactly my thoughts watching the train wreck with Dr Kaufman. Having never seen or listened to Kirsch before (studiously avoiding him in fact), I could not believe anyone could take him seriously.
Unfortunately, him & his "buddy" Bobby Baloney have been at the forefront of the so-called "health freedom" movement for over 3 years, see link below,. Although you don't need to watch 3 hrs, just the 1st 4 mins. when they discuss the reasons for been unmasked.......Note, that they don't mention that masks (even within the paradigms of germ hypothesis) can't do what they were supposed to do.
I’m sorry but I can’t watch it 🤢 Bobby Baloney is good though 😂 Thanks for that. I’ll use it if you don’t mind. Clowns, the lot of them. It’s like the world has split into those with a remnant of intelligence and honour and the rest are just a puddle of mud.
People like Kirsch are heavily invested in the pandemic agenda, which is why they focus on the vaccines. If they acknowledge there was no virus in the first place, the whole edifice on which they’ve built their ‘fame’ comes crashing down and they are nobodies once again. (I also suspect he’s invested in genomics, which is why he bangs on about it all the time 😉)
Great introduction to the ‘isolation’ process Mike. I quoted it on my Instagram post today, as so many people still don’t know what the viroLIEgists mean when they claim a ‘virus’ has been isolated. (I love how this study is getting so many people’s knickers in a knot 🎯)
I sent this to virus devotee Daily Beagle (more as a taunt than any other reason). He left the following dreg-scraping response:
-‐--------
Whilst I applaud your efforts to present evidence of your claim, and encourage you with evidenced research, I notice some glaring flaws with the research methodology and detailing therein.
1) You claim the cell has not been inoculated with any virus or viral matter, but haven’t detailed what steps you’ve undertaken, if any, to prevent cross-contamination (E.G. airborne materials).
2) You stated you gave the weakest antibiotics, “Pen/Strep”. It is well known that penicillin is these days de facto useless given many types of bacteria now exhibit antibiotic resistance. If I was viewing this cynically, I would suggest this was an attempt to allow bacteria to proliferate in order to destroy the cells. You did not explain why you did not use so-called “harsher” antibiotics. Or why you didn’t have a comparison to harsher antibiotics.
3) You state that:
“independent accredited Contract Research Organization (CRO)” and “The CRO positively identified "Sars Cov2", "HIV" and "Measles"“, but fail to present evidence of any CRO (I.E. their accreditations), or any of their claims (I.E. their official response, research). In-fact, you later assert that “we positively identified "Measles" in our culture” - which implies the CRO is yourself, which means it isn’t independent!
4) “By cross referencing of size, shape and inclusions with the CDC version of Measles (refer to Figure 8) we positively identified "Measles" in our culture”
This isn’t how Measles identification is done. A lot of cellular materials will look similar. If one does visual examination, the lowest threshold is the use of staining.
Typically one does genetic sequencing of the materials in order to identify explicit species (E.G. Measles), and the lowest threshold for that would be a PCR, and the highest threshold would be something were you attempt to profile all genetic materials in your sample and retroactively match.
4) You did not state what peer review process, if any, you had undertaken. Peer review does not necessarily mean submission to a journal, but finding competent field experts who take differing views to yourself to offer criticisms of the methodology.
The lowest threshold would be to present it to a virologist to see what their views are, and see if you can address any of the criticisms. A better threshold would be a mixture of specialities.
5) If this is a genuine attempt to convince, you will need more than a handful of slides showing dead cells to overturn decades of research. For example, I would argue your detail regarding steps are severely lacking. For example:
6) You claim “We also used the most robust cell lines (HEK293T)” but did not specify why “HEK293T” specifically was robust. You also did not specify which other cell lines you looked at, and why you rejected them.
7) You don’t detail procedures involving the culturing of cells. How do you store the cells? How did you verify the cells were already free of viral contaminants? How do you introduce the antibiotics to the cells? Can the antibiotics potentially contain viral contaminants, how did you verify they were clear? How did you sterilise the operating environment (E.G. air, tools)? When examining the culture how did you ensure to prevent cross-contamination/exposure?
I would strongly suggest you detail your procedure step-by-step, and attempt to find as many flaws as possible in said procedure, and if necessary, bring someone from the “other side” onboard to air their own criticisms.
If you asked me to believe based on these experiments, in my professional opinion, I’d say all you have there is a bunch of dead cells and not much else. A lot of points are severely lacking.
*edit I have just seen you are passing a comment across.. well this is for him lol
You have kind of worked yourself up into a fury with these points based on a lot of assumptions. But I will address them.
1. The methodology will be released when the experiment is finished, these are preliminary findings. We prevent contamination with a rigorous approach conducting everything under flow hood and documenting chain of custody at ALL steps in transit.
2. You note some have resistance to Pen.. but don't mention Strep 😂😂. We followed protocol with this so if the protocol is encouraging bacterial contamination, then the methodology is falsified job done. We also cross refenced with amphotericin, you will see in one slide.
3.nope never stated the CRO positively identified the particles.. they positively identified the EVS, which was their brief.
4. The point of a control experiment to invalidate EM has seemingly COMPLETELY evaded you 😂😂. By showing there are identical LOOKING particles we have forced (intellectually honest) virologists to admit they cannot use EM as proof of existence. Get it?
4(again). Suggesting we should publish a paper when an experiment is not done is absurd.
5. Isn't a point. ALL filler , no killer 😂
6. I did state why they were robust, I said "because they are harder to breakdown" that maybe a slightly circular reason, but one cited by virologists and used against themselves.
7. Is a repeat of 1. We will release the FULL methodology when we have finished the project. It is rigorous in preventing "CoNTaMiNaTiON"
I think this is an important point, is that most of this "citique" and the "critique" of establishment type is purely down to floored LOGIC. I would encourage EVERYONE to point out and dismantle floored LOGIC when seen. This project is completely Open Sourced and is made to combat the authoritive way science is conducted with the power of Crowd Sourcing... call it Science 2.0...
Exactly, and most of the critiques are logical fallacies from the get go. (I donated some money the other day btw. I’ve always loved science, and even better, properly conducted science that’s not driven by an agenda and profit. That, sadly, seems to be a thing of the past. Well, until now 😊)
It's unfortunate - in my opinion - that this information was in the hands of Mr. Zeck, who I had not heard of before. Mr. Zeck is a little too fond of his own voice and a measure of this is that it is a full hour into the interview before he gets to ask Jamie Andrews to speak. When we have ground-breaking information to divulge, we should do our best to put it in the hands of expert communicators who can stay out of the way, keep their opinions to themselves and get specialists to explain things clearly so informed laymen can understand.
In respect of Steve Kirsch's 'analysis' of this information, it's clear to me that Kirsch sees everything through the virus lens, and takes it as a given that viruses exist, from which it follows that 'vaccines' are good, if only they could be made safe. Though I believe him to be profoundly wrong in this, I have to say Kirsch is a smart fellow and makes his case with clarity. Rather than just dismissing him as 'controlled opposition' I think his comments provide excellent opportunities for reasoned rebuttals: and at least we know what the virus cult is saying to anyone who will listen.
The image you claim to be of an extracellular vesicle is not of an extracellular vesicle. EVs are spherical and measure between 30-150 nm in size—not 2000 nm. Instead, it resembles a vacuole surrounded by smaller vacuoles, all of which appear empty, likely due to starvation conditions. Why are you and Jamie falsely claiming this is a vesicle when it appears nothing like one?
Additionally, the images claimed to depict SARS-CoV-2 particles do not resemble coronavirus particles. The inclusions are different, including the halo and supposed spikes, which differ entirely from those seen in the SARS-CoV-2 micrograph by the CDC. Furthermore, you and Jamie have chosen to use one of the lowest resolution images of SARS-CoV-2 available for comparison, despite the availability of images that provide clearer details of the virus.
Moreover, the purported image of SARS-CoV-2 stands alone and lacks surrounding particles of similar shape and size, unlike the CDC reference image. This too indicates you are both heavily misrepresenting the micrographs. The other particles you claim to be viruses can also be refuted.
Edit: Clarification—A size of 2000 nm is too large for any *typically common EV*. Upon further review, even though some specialized EVs can exceed this size, my overall statements are still accurate. Larger EVs differ significantly in morphology and characteristics than typical EVs.
Jamie's image does not resemble any known EV, regardless of size variations. As demonstrated, it is identical to a vacuole. Jamie's insistence on labeling others 'liars' instead of addressing legitimate questions suggests a priority on 'winning' at all costs, regardless of truth or accuracy of the overall matter at hand.
There is no evidence any virus exists, other than in silico. In other words any claimed 'virus' exists only in computer simulations. Any claims that the CDC possesses images of the Covid virus is to give credibility to their claims that pictures of things are the actual things, instead of being pictures of things that are claimed to be things. Pointing at something and giving it a name is not the same as unambiguously isolating it and identifying it. Remember: over 220 FOI requests to health and research organizations across the world for any paper, written by anyone, at any time that proves the existence of a self-replicating isolated entity capable of infecting healthy cells and causing them to be damaged or die through natural channels produced precisely zero results. Because no such entity exists.
The CRO positively identified this as an Extra Cellular Vesicle. That is what their brief was to find. You obviously know more than a professional microscopy lab 😂
You have been asserting this information to everyone, but if the CRO has indeed made such a claim, they are mistaken to a point of negligence. You have not publicly released any evidence to substantiate this claim, nor can we assess the supposed claims made by the CRO.
Are you not acquainted with the size and morphology of extracellular vesicles? If you were, you would recognize that the image in question does not represent an EV in any way, shape, or form, particularly given that 2000 nm is far too large for any known EV.
You cannot defend your claim in the face of legitimate questions. While you can claim all day that I am merely expressing my opinion, the scientific literature supports my statements and indicates that you are entirely incorrect in your claims. You are either misrepresenting the results out of ignorance or doing so intentionally.
Many others will ask the same questions. This is not my opinion. You would be the first to identify an EV that is 2000 nm in size, defying all known characteristics of EVs. To even claim such absurdity would mean relying on the word of a completely negligent CRO (if they claim this), whilst disregarding all existing scientific literature on the subject in the process.
Thanks for that John I was doing some revision regarding exosomes et al last night, but couldn't find anything concrete, with which to refute the EV EVangelist.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.
I'm not the one referencing images from the CDC—Jamie et al. are. There are numerous images of viruses beyond those provided by the CDC, all showing the same distinct characteristics.
I agree that criticism, when constructive and apparently based on contrary data, should be addressed head-on. It’s quite possible both sets of data are correct and it comes down to definitions as to which you follow. You can understand why your contrary conclusions are disruptive to a team which seems to have bent over backwards to be honest, and I’m looking forward to a considered rebuttal from them. In the meantime, bear in mind we who refute the virus model as pseudoscientific are opposed by Big Pharma and its followers, with billions of dollars at stake for them. All we have at stake is our health. It’s no surprise we can show some emotion when our evidence is dismissed as crackpot by the pharmaceutical industry.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.
Not only is The Virus Emperor now clearly seen to be without clothes but even more embarrassing - he is clearly a scientific eunuch.
Lol.
This is SO valuable and SO appreciated. Please consider offering a ko-fi or other one-time donation option? I think it will add up, possibly to more than you'd get otherwise. $60 is literally 10% of my SS monthly income! And though tithing is time-honored (but may in fact, be a time-tested scam!) sometimes it's simply not possible.
Fair enough. Steve Kirsch has issued one of his wagers on this topic. Fill your boots! Goalposts may move though!
Steve Kirsch is a waste of time. His write up of Jamie's work is so obviously flawed, it's hard to imagine that it's anything other than intentional misdirection...assuming that many will read his post and believe it to be accurate at face value.
It’s quite curious. He has statistically shown in many ways and dimensions the harms and ineffectiveness of the vax. How many proofs does one need? So perhaps he is becoming a pro virus shit stirrer in an attempt to remain relevant and “provide value” for his subscribers. It’s unfortunate since all he needs to do is to declare agnosticism as regards virus existence and I doubt he would get much pushback with such an attitude of humility.
The “debate” with Dr Kaufman was painful to witness and a tribute to Kaufman’s good nature and patience.
Steve doesn't debate or interview. He interrupts. His "debate" style is exactly like his "interview" style...Wreck It Ralph. It's like watching a toddler on the verge of a tantrum with a microphone.
Those were exactly my thoughts watching the train wreck with Dr Kaufman. Having never seen or listened to Kirsch before (studiously avoiding him in fact), I could not believe anyone could take him seriously.
Unfortunately, him & his "buddy" Bobby Baloney have been at the forefront of the so-called "health freedom" movement for over 3 years, see link below,. Although you don't need to watch 3 hrs, just the 1st 4 mins. when they discuss the reasons for been unmasked.......Note, that they don't mention that masks (even within the paradigms of germ hypothesis) can't do what they were supposed to do.
https://rumble.com/vijpp5-how-to-save-the-world-in-3-easy-steps...covid-19-perspectives-from-an-exper.htmlrtunately
I’m sorry but I can’t watch it 🤢 Bobby Baloney is good though 😂 Thanks for that. I’ll use it if you don’t mind. Clowns, the lot of them. It’s like the world has split into those with a remnant of intelligence and honour and the rest are just a puddle of mud.
People like Kirsch are heavily invested in the pandemic agenda, which is why they focus on the vaccines. If they acknowledge there was no virus in the first place, the whole edifice on which they’ve built their ‘fame’ comes crashing down and they are nobodies once again. (I also suspect he’s invested in genomics, which is why he bangs on about it all the time 😉)
Did you catch Steve Kirch’s origin story over at Sage Hana? Eye-opening
Great introduction to the ‘isolation’ process Mike. I quoted it on my Instagram post today, as so many people still don’t know what the viroLIEgists mean when they claim a ‘virus’ has been isolated. (I love how this study is getting so many people’s knickers in a knot 🎯)
A fine summary of REAL science! Yahoo!
VIRO-LIE-LOGY is a handmaiden to BigPharma and should be under control
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Pandemic-Antidote-Medical-Tyranny/dp/0473701995
I sent this to virus devotee Daily Beagle (more as a taunt than any other reason). He left the following dreg-scraping response:
-‐--------
Whilst I applaud your efforts to present evidence of your claim, and encourage you with evidenced research, I notice some glaring flaws with the research methodology and detailing therein.
1) You claim the cell has not been inoculated with any virus or viral matter, but haven’t detailed what steps you’ve undertaken, if any, to prevent cross-contamination (E.G. airborne materials).
2) You stated you gave the weakest antibiotics, “Pen/Strep”. It is well known that penicillin is these days de facto useless given many types of bacteria now exhibit antibiotic resistance. If I was viewing this cynically, I would suggest this was an attempt to allow bacteria to proliferate in order to destroy the cells. You did not explain why you did not use so-called “harsher” antibiotics. Or why you didn’t have a comparison to harsher antibiotics.
3) You state that:
“independent accredited Contract Research Organization (CRO)” and “The CRO positively identified "Sars Cov2", "HIV" and "Measles"“, but fail to present evidence of any CRO (I.E. their accreditations), or any of their claims (I.E. their official response, research). In-fact, you later assert that “we positively identified "Measles" in our culture” - which implies the CRO is yourself, which means it isn’t independent!
4) “By cross referencing of size, shape and inclusions with the CDC version of Measles (refer to Figure 8) we positively identified "Measles" in our culture”
This isn’t how Measles identification is done. A lot of cellular materials will look similar. If one does visual examination, the lowest threshold is the use of staining.
Typically one does genetic sequencing of the materials in order to identify explicit species (E.G. Measles), and the lowest threshold for that would be a PCR, and the highest threshold would be something were you attempt to profile all genetic materials in your sample and retroactively match.
4) You did not state what peer review process, if any, you had undertaken. Peer review does not necessarily mean submission to a journal, but finding competent field experts who take differing views to yourself to offer criticisms of the methodology.
The lowest threshold would be to present it to a virologist to see what their views are, and see if you can address any of the criticisms. A better threshold would be a mixture of specialities.
5) If this is a genuine attempt to convince, you will need more than a handful of slides showing dead cells to overturn decades of research. For example, I would argue your detail regarding steps are severely lacking. For example:
6) You claim “We also used the most robust cell lines (HEK293T)” but did not specify why “HEK293T” specifically was robust. You also did not specify which other cell lines you looked at, and why you rejected them.
7) You don’t detail procedures involving the culturing of cells. How do you store the cells? How did you verify the cells were already free of viral contaminants? How do you introduce the antibiotics to the cells? Can the antibiotics potentially contain viral contaminants, how did you verify they were clear? How did you sterilise the operating environment (E.G. air, tools)? When examining the culture how did you ensure to prevent cross-contamination/exposure?
I would strongly suggest you detail your procedure step-by-step, and attempt to find as many flaws as possible in said procedure, and if necessary, bring someone from the “other side” onboard to air their own criticisms.
If you asked me to believe based on these experiments, in my professional opinion, I’d say all you have there is a bunch of dead cells and not much else. A lot of points are severely lacking.
-‐--------
Still no cure for stupid. Sigh.
Hi,
*edit I have just seen you are passing a comment across.. well this is for him lol
You have kind of worked yourself up into a fury with these points based on a lot of assumptions. But I will address them.
1. The methodology will be released when the experiment is finished, these are preliminary findings. We prevent contamination with a rigorous approach conducting everything under flow hood and documenting chain of custody at ALL steps in transit.
2. You note some have resistance to Pen.. but don't mention Strep 😂😂. We followed protocol with this so if the protocol is encouraging bacterial contamination, then the methodology is falsified job done. We also cross refenced with amphotericin, you will see in one slide.
3.nope never stated the CRO positively identified the particles.. they positively identified the EVS, which was their brief.
4. The point of a control experiment to invalidate EM has seemingly COMPLETELY evaded you 😂😂. By showing there are identical LOOKING particles we have forced (intellectually honest) virologists to admit they cannot use EM as proof of existence. Get it?
4(again). Suggesting we should publish a paper when an experiment is not done is absurd.
5. Isn't a point. ALL filler , no killer 😂
6. I did state why they were robust, I said "because they are harder to breakdown" that maybe a slightly circular reason, but one cited by virologists and used against themselves.
7. Is a repeat of 1. We will release the FULL methodology when we have finished the project. It is rigorous in preventing "CoNTaMiNaTiON"
😂😂😂 I’m not even a scientist and I picked up on most of your points.
I think this is an important point, is that most of this "citique" and the "critique" of establishment type is purely down to floored LOGIC. I would encourage EVERYONE to point out and dismantle floored LOGIC when seen. This project is completely Open Sourced and is made to combat the authoritive way science is conducted with the power of Crowd Sourcing... call it Science 2.0...
Exactly, and most of the critiques are logical fallacies from the get go. (I donated some money the other day btw. I’ve always loved science, and even better, properly conducted science that’s not driven by an agenda and profit. That, sadly, seems to be a thing of the past. Well, until now 😊)
Thank you for your kind donation, it is very much appreciated.
It's unfortunate - in my opinion - that this information was in the hands of Mr. Zeck, who I had not heard of before. Mr. Zeck is a little too fond of his own voice and a measure of this is that it is a full hour into the interview before he gets to ask Jamie Andrews to speak. When we have ground-breaking information to divulge, we should do our best to put it in the hands of expert communicators who can stay out of the way, keep their opinions to themselves and get specialists to explain things clearly so informed laymen can understand.
In respect of Steve Kirsch's 'analysis' of this information, it's clear to me that Kirsch sees everything through the virus lens, and takes it as a given that viruses exist, from which it follows that 'vaccines' are good, if only they could be made safe. Though I believe him to be profoundly wrong in this, I have to say Kirsch is a smart fellow and makes his case with clarity. Rather than just dismissing him as 'controlled opposition' I think his comments provide excellent opportunities for reasoned rebuttals: and at least we know what the virus cult is saying to anyone who will listen.
" Mr. Zeck, who I had not heard of before"
"I have to say Kirsch is a smart fellow and makes his case with clarity."
I mean ... No more questions...
You think? Or maybe not in this case.
Yay!
Are you lot the Popular Peoples Front of ViroLIEgy? ;)
NO! He's over there...."actually ISOLATED!"
The image you claim to be of an extracellular vesicle is not of an extracellular vesicle. EVs are spherical and measure between 30-150 nm in size—not 2000 nm. Instead, it resembles a vacuole surrounded by smaller vacuoles, all of which appear empty, likely due to starvation conditions. Why are you and Jamie falsely claiming this is a vesicle when it appears nothing like one?
Additionally, the images claimed to depict SARS-CoV-2 particles do not resemble coronavirus particles. The inclusions are different, including the halo and supposed spikes, which differ entirely from those seen in the SARS-CoV-2 micrograph by the CDC. Furthermore, you and Jamie have chosen to use one of the lowest resolution images of SARS-CoV-2 available for comparison, despite the availability of images that provide clearer details of the virus.
Moreover, the purported image of SARS-CoV-2 stands alone and lacks surrounding particles of similar shape and size, unlike the CDC reference image. This too indicates you are both heavily misrepresenting the micrographs. The other particles you claim to be viruses can also be refuted.
Edit: Clarification—A size of 2000 nm is too large for any *typically common EV*. Upon further review, even though some specialized EVs can exceed this size, my overall statements are still accurate. Larger EVs differ significantly in morphology and characteristics than typical EVs.
Jamie's image does not resemble any known EV, regardless of size variations. As demonstrated, it is identical to a vacuole. Jamie's insistence on labeling others 'liars' instead of addressing legitimate questions suggests a priority on 'winning' at all costs, regardless of truth or accuracy of the overall matter at hand.
There is no evidence any virus exists, other than in silico. In other words any claimed 'virus' exists only in computer simulations. Any claims that the CDC possesses images of the Covid virus is to give credibility to their claims that pictures of things are the actual things, instead of being pictures of things that are claimed to be things. Pointing at something and giving it a name is not the same as unambiguously isolating it and identifying it. Remember: over 220 FOI requests to health and research organizations across the world for any paper, written by anyone, at any time that proves the existence of a self-replicating isolated entity capable of infecting healthy cells and causing them to be damaged or die through natural channels produced precisely zero results. Because no such entity exists.
The CRO positively identified this as an Extra Cellular Vesicle. That is what their brief was to find. You obviously know more than a professional microscopy lab 😂
You have been asserting this information to everyone, but if the CRO has indeed made such a claim, they are mistaken to a point of negligence. You have not publicly released any evidence to substantiate this claim, nor can we assess the supposed claims made by the CRO.
Are you not acquainted with the size and morphology of extracellular vesicles? If you were, you would recognize that the image in question does not represent an EV in any way, shape, or form, particularly given that 2000 nm is far too large for any known EV.
Highly opinionated, 0 substance. 0 science to back up your baseless opinions... chasing this over all platforms desperately. Yeah not interested.
You cannot defend your claim in the face of legitimate questions. While you can claim all day that I am merely expressing my opinion, the scientific literature supports my statements and indicates that you are entirely incorrect in your claims. You are either misrepresenting the results out of ignorance or doing so intentionally.
Yawn... the report from the CRO will be released with the results. I don't have to rebut your baseless opinions... cheers
Many others will ask the same questions. This is not my opinion. You would be the first to identify an EV that is 2000 nm in size, defying all known characteristics of EVs. To even claim such absurdity would mean relying on the word of a completely negligent CRO (if they claim this), whilst disregarding all existing scientific literature on the subject in the process.
"EVs are spherical and measure between 30-150 nm in size—not 2000 nm."
False, review this and look at Table 1 Types of EV and NVEP: https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(23)00005-3
Thanks for that John I was doing some revision regarding exosomes et al last night, but couldn't find anything concrete, with which to refute the EV EVangelist.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.
I'm not the one referencing images from the CDC—Jamie et al. are. There are numerous images of viruses beyond those provided by the CDC, all showing the same distinct characteristics.
I agree that criticism, when constructive and apparently based on contrary data, should be addressed head-on. It’s quite possible both sets of data are correct and it comes down to definitions as to which you follow. You can understand why your contrary conclusions are disruptive to a team which seems to have bent over backwards to be honest, and I’m looking forward to a considered rebuttal from them. In the meantime, bear in mind we who refute the virus model as pseudoscientific are opposed by Big Pharma and its followers, with billions of dollars at stake for them. All we have at stake is our health. It’s no surprise we can show some emotion when our evidence is dismissed as crackpot by the pharmaceutical industry.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.
Stop referencing the images the CDC has shown you. 😂😂😂 Don't most people know by now they're not being honest or showing us accurate information? I thought that was well established already.