The alleged contagion, the antibody and PCR tests – it was all just a trap. Sasha Latypova, Dr. Mike Yeadon and Prof. Denis Rancourt.
But what does Barbara have to do with it?
NOTE :
Please note that sometimes refuting an officially accepted representation of conventional medicine can be more successful if it is done on the same basis. The official definitions can also be used for this purpose. I know this is a bit confusing, but sometimes there is no better way.
Foreword :
Sasha Latypova, February 1, 2024 :
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do
The answer set should also include - how do we prevent so much lying in science and media?
Since this avian flu fraud billions of dollars have been spent on the propaganda of biodefense and mythology of “pandemic preparedness”. There are few people in the world that are aware that this is based on sci-fi and falsified research. Reality, after all is not what is, it’s what you believe. The majority of people seem to be unable to forming unique, independent thoughts and get through their lives by repeating the words they hear from others. This includes large swaths of those who are nominally considered intelligent, but are simply good at repeating the smart-sounding words, kiss up to their superiors and get diplomas. The sad reality is that repetition of nonsense, myths, sci-fi and outright lies - if done in sufficient daily volume - is all that’s needed to form the “reality” in the heads of the masses, no matter how absurd. The past 4 years are a testament to this.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dr. Mike Yeadon, June 7, 2024.
A post in 2 parts
Source / Part 1 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/1427 :
Obviously, I now understand the methodology.
There’s absolutely nothing to fear except fear itself. Familiar ring, eh?
Do remember, a century of published clinical experimentation has failed to demonstrate that transmission. In other words, whatever the causes of acute respiratory illnesses, they are NOT CONTAGIOUS.
In no case, when a healthy person (“recipient”) was asked to remain in close proximity for hours to a person unwell with such an objectively determined illness (“donor”), like we used to use to decide if someone is unwell, did the recipient healthy person go on to develop the same symptoms.
Just to be clear, we mean here “the recipient people didn’t develop similar symptoms to those of the donor people at a frequency greater than when two healthy people shared the same space for the same period of time”.
They sought evidence of transmission, aka contagion, and failed to find it, study after study, from 1918 to the present day.
Some investigators very recently made the same kind of attempt to see if healthy recipients would “catch covid19”, whatever it was that had caused the donors here to be unwell. In that study, too, the healthy recipients did not become unwell.
I recognize that many people will reject this evidence. They’ll cast around for reasons why the conclusions must be invalid. They do that because many people are “sure” that they’ve definitely “caught” colds or the flu from sick people or that they’ve “infected” others in the same manner.
I confess I struggled with this at first, dismissing what I was being told out of hand. I did so because i, too, “knew” that in the past, I’d “caught” colds from others.
The evidence shows that this doesn’t happen.
That then simply invites us to find other explanations for our strong sense that contagion in relation to acute respiratory illnesses does happen.
Do note I’m not commenting on contagion generally. Right now, I suggest we focus only on the type of illness being used to crush our freedoms and medical autonomy. Diversionary discussions aren’t helpful.
As a scientist, I’ve explained before that one is in no way obligated to provide a new hypothesis while invalidating a current one, now shown to be in discord with a mass of empirical evidence.
However, it might be helpful in making a mental transition to be aware of some possible alternative explanations.
1. Acute respiratory illnesses are really quite common. I experience a couple of colds annually. Flu, rarely, only 3 times in my life. Being commonplace, consider how likely it is that you might develop a cold over the next couple of weeks. It’s not that low a probability. If you do, you’ll cast your mind back. If you recall a person with similar symptoms, you may well conclude you caught it from them. How many occasions did you have such encounters, yet not go on to develop a cold? It would be fair to ask that question. I think we rarely notice when we don’t “catch a cold”. Here, the explanation proposed is coincidence of two, not uncommon things.
2. People do become unwell with acute respiratory symptoms. There’s no argument against that, only it’s cause. Whatever the cause is, imagine there’s an environmental or other shared component (like diet, or even genetics). You develop a cold and someone you live with or work with shortly afterwards also goes down with a cold. While it’s entirely understandable that you both conclude it was passed between you, here I’m proposing that you both developed the same kind of illness because of shared environmental factors.
3. We’ve this mental model of causation of acute respiratory illnesses. We’re told they’re due to submicroscopic, infectious particles called “viruses”. But if they’re not the cause, what might be?
I confess I do not know. However, I laid out a decent length hypothesis a while ago on this channel. Essentially, a derangement of regulation of airway surface liquid and associated mucus and the mucocilary escalator mechanism which, among others, keeps your airways in good order.
Source / Part 2 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/1428 :
Changes in temperature, humidity, various solutes and salts, are hypothesised to trigger an inflammatory response & it’s this that we notice as “a cold”. In this hypothetical model, if you’re run down, stressed and don’t have time to attend to your bodily clues and cues, you’re more likely to develop all sorts of syndromes.
Anyway, bottom line is, you’re being lied to about chicken influenza. Ditto cow flu. Just laugh at them and point out to others, this sounds the same sort of lying & catastrophising that we heard in early 2020.
It was mad and illogical for the events that followed to have happened. None of it happened by luck. There was an agenda to amplify whatever it was for malign motives.
The same thing appears to be happening again. Oddly enough, it’s precisely the same cast of characters as last time.
Please don’t give in to fear.
Best wishes
Mike
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dr. Mike Yeadon, February 2, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
I also have not delved into the serology, the purported detection of circulating antibodies. However, unlike PCR-based methods, which didn’t exist when I was doing my PhD, I did develop & use enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISAs). The basic principle is to use the fact that antibodies can be used as components or tools in detection methods for almost anything.
I have to be exquisitely clear that I’m referring to deliberately generated antibodies as tools at this point. I am not talking about the antibodies that you & I might have made in response to some foreign substance, living or dead, that has been somehow introduced into our bodies.
As a second concept, claimed infections by the alleged virus could be supported by either of two methods.
1. Detection in blood of the virus or a viral protein such as spike.
2. Detection in blood of circulating antibodies to spike.
Completely different concepts.
To do 1, using ELISAs or a fundamentally similar approach to detect something, first you need the something that you wish to develop a method to detect.
That’s very important. You cannot create a tool to detect something without a sample of the thing to be detected.
So when we’re told, “We have detected viral infection because we’ve measured spike protein in blood samples”, ask where they got the original spike from in order to develop the test method. Obviously, they never have had it. However, they could make part of it, using the genetic sequence. But if the origins of that genetic sequence are shrouded, everything that follows from it is likewise mysterious. To measure spike in a sample, you need deliberately created antibodies to spike, which you can accomplish by injecting, say, a donkey, with your polypeptide which it is claimed is part of authentic spike. A couple of weeks later, you draw blood from the donkey and create serum by allowing it to clot & drawing up the clear serum, which contains any antibodies. Now you stick the antibodies to a plate, add a biological sample such as plasma from a human, and if there’s spike in it, that spike sticks to the donkey anti-spike antibody on the plate. You can detect that spike by using a second anti-spike antibody, classically from a different species, such as a sheep (that had also been injected with spike & serum collected). That second antibody would have had a colour-creating enzyme chemically bound to it, so that when you add your colourless starting material, colour develops in your plate only if your second antibody finds the spike bound to the first antibody, the latter itself previously stuck to the plate. So that’s one way to develop a test for eg spike protein. Do note though that we’ve only got liars word for it that what they inoculated the donkey with really was a piece of spike, itself synthesised using the dubious genetic sequence. I’ve no way to know what it is that they’re really detecting in this test. In order to qualify the test, it’s necessary to show what it doesn’t respond to & this “cross reactivity testing” has to be very thorough. If it’s not done well enough, the test will be positive, but it might be because something other than spike, circulating in your blood, stuck to the original donkey antibody. You can I think see how complicated this all is and how readily it could be deliberately subverted. Does anybody think it would NOT have been subverted in order to yield the kinds of results the perpetrators wanted to see?Note that commercial reagents could then be sold to hundreds of labs around the world. Scientists using it who are not involved in the fraud use it at face value to knock out thousands of scientific papers. The thicket of lies accumulates rapidly.
The second use is to develop methods purporting to detect antibodies to the virus, in this case viral spike protein.
Again, when we’re told “We have detected (naturally created, in your body) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein”, a very good question is “How did you develop a test for antibodies which you say are directed to this viral protein?”
Just as with detecting spike protein itself, you need authentic spike or a part of it in order to detect circulating antibodies to spike. The purported spike this time is first stuck to the plate. Then the serum sample from a human you think might have been “infected by the virus” is added. If there are anti-spike antibodies in the sample, they’ll adhere to the spike you stuck to the plate. You then wash the plate and detect human antibodies by using a second reagent, something like enzyme labelled sheep anti-human serum (generated by inoculating sheep with any human antibody, bleeding the sheep, then labelling their antibodies).
But the claim that you’ve detected circulating antibodies in human blood samples turns exquisitely on how well you set up the method & generated the tools you’ve used. If the so-called partial viral spike protein actually contains domains to something that humans routinely encounter and might raise antibodies to, well, your “test for antibodies to spike protein” is completely subverted. Again, I ask the rhetorical question about whether there’s any chance that the liars working for the perpetrators did what they claimed is worth asking.
Personally, I do not trust the claimed methods for detecting ANY of the purported viral proteins OR claimed methods for detecting antibodies to the purported virus or viral proteins in human samples.
I think it’s naive in the extreme to read any of those papers, thinking they are measuring what is claimed to be being measured.
Now, I might have wrongly & harshly misjudged the scientists who honestly & diligently worked very carefully to develop the methods to detect various alleged viral proteins and antibodies to same.
I hope they’ll contact me, hotly to explain how there’s no doubt whatsoever that what’s being detected using those commercial kits is anything but what they say, and here are the dozens of control experiments, making that unequivocally clear, at which point I’ll prostrate myself in a grovelling apology.
Or, tumbleweed. You decide.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A comment by Steve Carr 07.06.2024 :
Source : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat/69404
Influenza is an abridged form of the original 'Influenza Solaris', which translates to influence of the sun. It was noticed, quite obviously, that the timing and severity of this class of illnesses coincided with the intensity of solar activity, through the observation of solar flares. These solar flares are a visual indication of electromagnetic phenomena which profoundly affect the earth, and therefore us.
Influenza-like illnesses are simply the body's attempt to rebalance with changes in the electromagnetic field. Temperature, weather, air pressure and humidity are closely linked to the electromagnetic environment, hence the observable connection. The body's solute and salt composition also affect the internal electrical response, hence the correlation.
Worth noting: the 'covid outbreak' coincided perfectly with the activation of the 5G networks, [functionally identical to the HAARP antenna array and research project] which radically altered the electromagnetic environment. It was an easily predictable outcome.
………………..
Steve Carr's information sparked lively interest in the chat. However, further information is lacking. Does anyone know anything more about it? Dr. Yeadon wrote to Steve Carr on June 6, 2024 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat/69422
Really interesting information, thank you.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sasha Latypova, February 3, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
yes, all antibody tests are unvalidated, unapproved EUA. They never disclose what primers they use for what specific antibody. Everything is "commercial secret". They test for "assumed" "modeled" "predicted" parts of antibodies, and only those they have IP on and only those primers that can be commercially produced. And even then there is no validation that what is put in a test is that exact secret primer. Most of the time they test for commonly occurring antibodies. Which are common to almost all illnesses, and injuries, not just flu.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A comment by Solo, February 3, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
Look up Steven Pelech KINEXUS laboratory, antibody test a very intricate test. “ Most of the tests for natural immunity look for the N protein ( nucleocapsid) as a marker for natural immunity. Half the people we test who had covid don’t make antibodies to the N protein, they make antibodies to other proteins. So you can double the CDC’s numbers they have for natural immunity. This kind of immunity lasts for years but because of Immune Memory it can persist for decades” He tested some of his people after two years then three years.
https://www.kinexus.ca/
Sasha Latypova, February 3, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
Nucleocapsid is common to all coronaviruses! They are not testing for covid, they are testing if you had common cold before.
Tom Tunes, February 3, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
Are you saying the lateral flow tests are testing for nucleocapsid? Or that the PCR tests are testing for nucleocapsid? And how do you know?
Sasha Latypova, February 3, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
I am answering the comment above: "Most of the tests for natural immunity look for the N protein"
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Prof. Denis Ranourt, February 14, 2022 :
Source : https://x.com/denisrancourt/status/1493218555982135296
Truckers have performed a conclusive scientific experiment: >2 weeks of mass hugs, handshakes, close proximity, from all over Canada = zero infections, zero hospital cases, zero Truckers in Ottawa ICUs. Conclusion: The gov has been lying big time.
Prof. Denis Ranourt, June 2, 2024 :
Source : https://substack.com/profile/118089907-denis-rancourt/note/c-58387812
They are rolling out another PCR pandemic
The new virus will be found to spread globally by testing sewage, milk, farm animals...
The PCR test will be said to detect a specific molecular sequence, without ever demonstrating specificity or calibration using a pure standard sample of the computer-inferred molecular fragment
... not to mention demonstrating that the said molecular fragment is uniquely associated with a new pathogen
All development will be performed for profit, without any cumbersome independent validation, since professional independence was abolished decades ago
The cure will be patented mRNA vaccines, which will not need to be safe or effective, because pandemic
Thus, health and the food supply will be protected
(some sarcasm)
Here you can see the timely brief information/notes from Prof. Rancourt, which prove the medical fraud and at the same time give food for thought :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A comment from Bill Rice, Jr., February 1, 2024 :
Source : https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comments
The CDC also controlled the PCR test protocols. This agency controlled WHO got a PCR test (and who didn't). They also controlled WHEN these tests became widely administered (which was AFTER the lockdowns).
If my memory is correct, only a couple hundred American citizens had received PCR tests by, say, mid Februaryy 2020. The CDC was only testing people who had recently returned from China. If you remember, the first "confirmed" cases in America were Americans who had just come back from Wuhan. Well, if you only test people who have just returned from Wuhan, the only "positives" your test is going to find is ... people who just returned from Wuhan.
We don't know what those tests would have "found" if everyone with ILI symptoms was getting one. I can make a guess though.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The mRNA toxin was tested on you and your family
Source : https://www.obama.org/stories/democracy-challenges-2022/
April 21, 2022.
How would the people “vaccinated” and those injured by this pseudo-“vaccination” like the following statement from Barack Obama ? :
“We’ve now essentially, clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide”
President Obama delivered a keynote address at Stanford University on April 21, 2022 about disinformation and challenges to democracy in the digital realm. The event was co-hosted by the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and the Obama Foundation.
Transcript :
And we’re seeing the results. Take Covid. The fact that scientists developed safe, effective vaccines in record time is an unbelievable achievement. And yet despite the fact that we’ve now, essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide, around 1 in 5 Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk rather than get vaccinated. People are dying because of misinformation.
The full context of this statement :
https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-barack-obama-speech-on-technology-and-democracy/
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
VACCINATION A GIGANTIC CRIME (1896)
History reapeating itself !
Jun 07, 2024
Source : https://zignack.substack.com/p/vaccination-a-gigantic-crime-1896
NOTE :
I suspect that these links below are more useful than the ones in the article :
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92063989/1896-09-26/ed-1/seq-3/
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92063989/1896-10-03/ed-1/seq-6/
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NOTE :
The statements by Dr. Mike Yeadon, which you will find below, were previously published in the following article :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-2
In order to present the topic as completely as possible, I have repeated these statements here.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dr. Mike Yeadon, February 4, 2024 :
Source : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/588?single
I’m posting this again, emphasising that this time, I’m attacking the underpinnings of the claimed serological analyses that some use to “prove” that there must have been a spreading pandemic virus.
A high proportion of comments relate to PCR tests. Of course, since they are also mentioned in your article, there is a trigger to revisit PCR. That wasn’t my intention, though.
One thing that repeatedly comes up is this: “If acute respiratory illnesses are not caused by respiratory viruses and aren’t contagious, how do you explain the actual illnesses that people definitely experience from time to time?
Below I share my current thinking, though I do not believe I’m under an obligation to supply an alternative explanation. All I’m doing is invalidating the fraudulent claims.
Best wishes
Mike
[ Linked by Dr. Yeadon : ]
[ Below this article is the comment, which you can also see below ] :
Dr. Mike Yeadon, February 4, 2024 :
Source :
https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/dr-yeadon-explains-for-first-time/comments
IOJ, Sasha and anyone else who wishes to quote me, please do. I grant everyone to use, in full or excepted, anything I write or say, providing your intentions are to attempt to wake people up!
Exactly! I find that kind of thing incredibly frustrating. When I point out that there have been many clinical experiments, attempting to demonstrate contagion of acute respiratory illnesses, and all have failed, it is demanded of me that I provide alternative explanations for contagion within, for example, a family. Actually, I have no such responsibility! Pointing out that we’ve been deliberately misled for a very long time is sufficient in my to prompt anyone & everyone to think about the implications & what that means for understanding our own health. Without prejudice, below I chose to offer alternative explanations.
If we believe certain things, we’re apt to interpret events as if those things are true. So if one person in a household, workplace or social group “comes down with a cold” and then, if another person in that group also falls ill shortly afterwards, this is taken as PROOF of contagion.
It’s not, of course, proof of any such thing, it’s merely “consistent with contagion”. Given contagion doesn’t happen, alternative explanations apply. I suggest shared / common environmental triggers for illness, such as changing temperature / humidity or pollutants such as gases, dusts, stressors etc. Also, how often do we notice the obverse, that one member of a group falls acutely unwell with a respiratory malady, and nobody else “catches” it?
Personally, I think these acute respiratory illnesses are the result of disordered equilibrium, probably in airway surface liquid volume, ionic (dissolved salts) and proteinaceous composition, including its volume, mucocilliary escalator function, secretion of surfactant etc etc.
Consider how unwell certain people with cystic fibrosis can be. CF results from mutations in the gene encoding the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) protein product. CFTR controls the concentration of certain ions, such as chloride Cl- ions, in the layer of fluid that sits atop the air-facing airway lining cells, collectively called the respiratory epithelium. Mutations can occur anywhere in the gene & there is remarkable diversity in the specific mutations that a child with CF has. Some mutations result in severe disease, affecting not only the airways, but also the gastrointestinal tract. Other mutations produce much more subtle changes to phenotype.
What this establishes, to my mind anyway, is that quite modest changes in the dynamic equilibrium of airway surface liquid and protecting the airway from malfunction, are plausibly capable of yielding symptoms of the illnesses we call colds and “flu”. Such changes might plausibly occur in many but by no means all people in response to event’s & environments which we routinely encounter.
As seasons & weather oscillate between high and low atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, dusts, pollen, pollution with such as nitrogen oxides at sea level, a person who is unable to briskly alter their composition of airway surface liquid might plausibly develop rapid-onset symptoms of respiratory disorder.
Depending upon where in the airway “tree” the acute failure of homeostasis occurs, so a person might display mostly upper airway symptoms which we call a cold. In other anatomical locations, such failures of homeopathy in central or lower airways could result in symptoms which are far more severe & we call that “flu”.
In this model of “endogenous” illness, timeline to recovery could vary tremendously from an all but overnight event to something that persists for weeks, leaving person somewhat breathless, even at rest. In the case of a hypothetical episode of flu, the functions of your epithelial cells could become further deranged and cause quite worrisome symptoms. These cells are very large in number (note it’s said that the surface area of your gas-exchanging lungs are large enough to more or less cover a tennis court. It doesn’t take much by way of cytokine / chemokine / inflammatory mediators response of those epithelial cells in order to produce systemic symptoms, such as muscle & joint pain, tremendous fatigue, reduced efficiency gas-exchange etc. on top of this, your healthy epithelial cells normally secrete anti-microbial compounds such as trefoil peptides, which make it difficult for microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi to infect you. When damaged, however, I think it very likely that overgrowth of usually benign bacterial infections could occur and be the aetiological explanation for pneumonias, requiring antibiotics to prevent a spiralling down to death, especially in elderly, already chronically unwell individuals. Even without invoking bacterial infection, the release from airway epithelium of pro-inflammatory chemicals will result in recruitment to the lungs & into the luminal compartment of the lungs of very large numbers of several kinds of inflammatory cells, such as neutrophils, eosinophils and macrophages (the latter themselves are normally found as the dominant surveillance cell type in airway washings, obtained using an unpleasant technique called endoscopic pulmonary lavage). These cells, in large enough numbers, are the cause of production of purulent secretions, coughed up as phlegm.
I’m not pretending that this is all correct & explains every facet of the acute respiratory illnesses called colds and influenza, but it’s a better model than the contagious respiratory virus narrative.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dr. Mike Yeadon, February 4, 2024 :
Source :
https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/dr-yeadon-explains-for-first-time/comments
Just a quick comment. Many people are referring to PCR-based clinical diagnostics. These have been thoroughly discussed and concluded to have always been completely unsuitable (which is why they were deployed like they were).
But the entire reason for this Substack article - thanks to IoJ - was to focus bright lights upon the “serology” aspects, specifically the many, mostly unchallenged, papers and discussion which centres on claims to have detected & quantified the antibody responses to the purported virus.
In what is merely an initial “sighter” comment, outlining what’s needed even to set up the detection and measuring systems required to do this, I show that it’s as easy to subvert these tests, if one wanted to do that, as it has been for PCR. It’s not to do with PCR!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A statement from Dr. Yeadon regarding his comment published below ( a kind of foreword ) :
Source : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/572 , February 2, 2024.
Another fine piece from Sasha Latypova :
May I direct your attention to the comments?
There’s a very long comment from one gentleman about the PCR tests.
I’ve taken the liberty for the first time of writing a long comment myself on a topic I’ve never seen discussed: the methods used to claim to detect viral proteins and antibodies to said viral proteins in samples from humans.
I outline how such methods could be developed. Its been a considerable period since I last did work like this, but unlike PCR, which didn’t exist, at least as a routine analytical approach for PhD students when I was doing my own PhD research, I did develop & use immunoassays to measure things including circulating antibodies to things, so I know how easily they can be subverted ( usually by accident of course ! ).
I believe that these test methods could easily have been subverted. My assumption is that they have been, just as the PCR based tests were. Why would they not be?
So a claim that “there must have been a spreading virus because viral proteins were detected at such and such a date & location” or “there must have been a contagious new virus because antibodies to parts of the virus have been extremely widely reported” are both nonsense until the methods used to detect the things claimed have been pored over and shown unequivocally to be correctly set up & beyond reproach.
Anyone believe that latter scenario is likely? Or might we again detect the hidden hand of deception?
Best wishes
Mike
[ Here is the comment mentioned above ] :
Dr. Mike Yeadon, February 2, 2024 :
Source :
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do/comment/48606835
A comment to article :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/579
I also have not delved into the serology, the purported detection of circulating antibodies. However, unlike PCR-based methods, which didn’t exist when I was doing my PhD, I did develop & use enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISAs). The basic principle is to use the fact that antibodies can be used as components or tools in detection methods for almost anything.
I have to be exquisitely clear that I’m referring to deliberately generated antibodies as tools at this point. I am not talking about the antibodies that you & I might have made in response to some foreign substance, living or dead, that has been somehow introduced into our bodies.
As a second concept, claimed infections by the alleged virus could be supported by either of two methods.
1. Detection in blood of the virus or a viral protein such as spike.
2. Detection in blood of circulating antibodies to spike.
Completely different concepts.
To do 1, using ELISAs or a fundamentally similar approach to detect something, first you need the something that you wish to develop a method to detect.
That’s very important. You cannot create a tool to detect something without a sample of the thing to be detected.
So when we’re told, “We have detected viral infection because we’ve measured spike protein in blood samples”, ask where they got the original spike from in order to develop the test method. Obviously, they never have had it. However, they could make part of it, using the genetic sequence. But if the origins of that genetic sequence are shrouded, everything that follows from it is likewise mysterious. To measure spike in a sample, you need deliberately created antibodies to spike, which you can accomplish by injecting, say, a donkey, with your polypeptide which it is claimed is part of authentic spike. A couple of weeks later, you draw blood from the donkey and create serum by allowing it to clot & drawing up the clear serum, which contains any antibodies. Now you stick the antibodies to a plate, add a biological sample such as plasma from a human, and if there’s spike in it, that spike sticks to the donkey anti-spike antibody on the plate. You can detect that spike by using a second anti-spike antibody, classically from a different species, such as a sheep (that had also been injected with spike & serum collected). That second antibody would have had a colour-creating enzyme chemically bound to it, so that when you add your colourless starting material, colour develops in your plate only if your second antibody finds the spike bound to the first antibody, the latter itself previously stuck to the plate. So that’s one way to develop a test for eg spike protein. Do note though that we’ve only got liars word for it that what they inoculated the donkey with really was a piece of spike, itself synthesised using the dubious genetic sequence. I’ve no way to know what it is that they’re really detecting in this test. In order to qualify the test, it’s necessary to show what it doesn’t respond to & this “cross reactivity testing” has to be very thorough. If it’s not done well enough, the test will be positive, but it might be because something other than spike, circulating in your blood, stuck to the original donkey antibody. You can I think see how complicated this all is and how readily it could be deliberately subverted. Does anybody think it would NOT have been subverted in order to yield the kinds of results the perpetrators wanted to see?Note that commercial reagents could then be sold to hundreds of labs around the world. Scientists using it who are not involved in the fraud use it at face value to knock out thousands of scientific papers. The thicket of lies accumulates rapidly.
The second use is to develop methods purporting to detect antibodies to the virus, in this case viral spike protein.
Again, when we’re told “We have detected (naturally created, in your body) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein”, a very good question is “How did you develop a test for antibodies which you say are directed to this viral protein?”
Just as with detecting spike protein itself, you need authentic spike or a part of it in order to detect circulating antibodies to spike. The purported spike this time is first stuck to the plate. Then the serum sample from a human you think might have been “infected by the virus” is added. If there are anti-spike antibodies in the sample, they’ll adhere to the spike you stuck to the plate. You then wash the plate and detect human antibodies by using a second reagent, something like enzyme labelled sheep anti-human serum (generated by inoculating sheep with any human antibody, bleeding the sheep, then labelling their antibodies).
But the claim that you’ve detected circulating antibodies in human blood samples turns exquisitely on how well you set up the method & generated the tools you’ve used. If the so-called partial viral spike protein actually contains domains to something that humans routinely encounter and might raise antibodies to, well, your “test for antibodies to spike protein” is completely subverted. Again, I ask the rhetorical question about whether there’s any chance that the liars working for the perpetrators did what they claimed is worth asking.
Personally, I do not trust the claimed methods for detecting ANY of the purported viral proteins OR claimed methods for detecting antibodies to the purported virus or viral proteins in human samples.
I think it’s naive in the extreme to read any of those papers, thinking they are measuring what is claimed to be being measured.
Now, I might have wrongly & harshly misjudged the scientists who honestly & diligently worked very carefully to develop the methods to detect various alleged viral proteins and antibodies to same.
I hope they’ll contact me, hotly to explain how there’s no doubt whatsoever that what’s being detected using those commercial kits is anything but what they say, and here are the dozens of control experiments, making that unequivocally clear, at which point I’ll prostrate myself in a grovelling apology.
Or, tumbleweed. You decide.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Here you can find Dr. Mike Yeadon and his statements :
Substack by Dr. Mike Yeadon : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
There is also a chat channel connected to the channel linked above, which is managed by his friends : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat
When searching for Dr.Yeadon's videos only two browsers are recommended :
Yandex :
and Mojeek :
Censorship is omnipresent on Google or Safari.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Afterword
by Suavek
This is how everyday life meets science.
The subtitle of the article is : "But what does Barbara have to do with it?"
Barbara is a nice woman over 60 that I know. After her second "vaccination" she obviously had problems with her immune system. Instead of telling her the truth, the doctors diagnosed her with "long Covid". That's only half the tragedy. During the antibody test, she was certified that she had too few antibodies against "Covid" and that she should therefore definitely get another booster. Of course, I warned her. Unfortunately, to no avail. I knew about the problem with the antibody tests from one of Dr Mike Yeadon's earliest videos. It is possible that she was suffering from inconspicuous microthrombosis in the brain at the time of the antibody test, because she did not react to my warning. She simply remained silent and strangely passive during the phone call. She remained friendly, but I noticed that she did not care what I said to her. Two people in her family have already died within a few months of the "Covid pseudo-vaccination" (one from turbo cancer and one from heart failure). The family is sure that these were coincidences. I don't call Barbara anymore because I'm afraid of hearing the next bad news. At some point, this kind of news can be too much...
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://www.rxlist.com/quack/definition.htm
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
No comments:
Post a Comment