Yeah. It's a poorly conceived study without a well though out hypothesis, a clear control and has suspect methodology, and uses emotive language in the introduction, discussion and conclusions that are completely inappropriate for a scientific study.
It turns out that the coauthor is an associate editor in the 'peer-reviewed journal that it's published in. That author is a professor of rhetoric and linguistics.
Most of the papers in this 'peer-reviewed' journal are written by the editorial staff. The editorial staff mostly don't have a background in what the journal proports to be focused on.
I couldn't find the journal on journal ranking lists at all. I'm usually able to find very bad journals on these lists, but this one looks absent altogether. It's like this isn't a peer-reviewed journal at all.
why have others like in Spain and Germany early on found similar evidence... watched your ted talk btw very interesting
why are some of these images with forms with 90 degree angles...as a microscopist for over 40 years I have never seen this naturally not even in salt crystals...etc.
I do not have those links that was 2 or more years ago...I have now started saving and downloading information as it appears over the last 4 years information is getting moved around or deleted.
some of the big questions that have yet to be addressed.
1. where is the original; foundational paper out of china which I read when it came out clearly stating out of 190 patients in Wuhan who had respiratory issues which btw is not uncommon in such a polluted city, only one sample was taken from one patient, 38 nucleotides that were not identifiable were found and put into a gene computer...several days later several in silico models were produced but no culture grown sample in vitro or In vivo were created... why?
2. isolation and purification have been an ongoing issue that has not been discussed from both sides in the same room, why?
3. the worldometer which just gathered data from gov globally showed that the mortality globally was less than 1% this even with a lot of those numbers incorrectly attributed to covid ... which under the original definition for a pandemic you need 3% to 7% mortality, now the definition does not have mortality as a condition... so pink eye could be declared a pandemic for example...
there are many more question we have, but it seems that we can't or wont get both sides in the same room to see what's going on...
regarding this paper it's not perfect, neither was the one Nature released in less than 24 hours, starting the pandemic, peer reviewed supposedly under 24 hours, which that in itself is as red flag, and now that paper has been retracted for countless errors, but a little too late...
BOTTOM LINE... we all need to sit down and talk about ALL of the data...both sides... until that happens we will ALL just go round and round arriving to no clear answers...
what I can say from the images I saw, some of those structures are very unusual, if it is a contaminated vials as some have said, well what contaminated it and why do they appear in other studies and images I have seen over the last 3 years... but then again I was not in the lab in front of the microscope to see it myself.
final question. why would all of these doctors. scientist, researchers, etc go down the path to destroy their careers to just lie, or spread bad information...
what do they gain in the short and long run... and if they are controlled opposition as some say, why that then...
Most of this falls outside my area of expertise, and I don’t have well-thought-out answers that I am confident about. I read a lot of research literature, and while most studies aren’t very well designed or conducted, occasionally, I come across very good ones. This study seemed worse than most, and the journal looks suspect. I assign a higher false positive rate to this kind of article. That is all I was really commenting on.
There is a lot in your response, and I would have to spend a large amount of time getting up to speed. I’m a busy guy, and I generally find this not to be time well spent.
Instead, I find it useful to focus on a single claim that we disagree on. Then we can state our confidence in the claim and discuss the kinds of evidence we would expect to see if the claim were true, and the kinds of evidence we would expect to see if the claim were false. I value good faith, honest communication, and being persuadable by evidence.
What do you think?
Is there a specific claim you would like to investigate together?
I found and read the paper. Plenty of red flags, and the journal that its published in looks suspect also.
Oh, yeah?
Yeah. It's a poorly conceived study without a well though out hypothesis, a clear control and has suspect methodology, and uses emotive language in the introduction, discussion and conclusions that are completely inappropriate for a scientific study.
It turns out that the coauthor is an associate editor in the 'peer-reviewed journal that it's published in. That author is a professor of rhetoric and linguistics.
Most of the papers in this 'peer-reviewed' journal are written by the editorial staff. The editorial staff mostly don't have a background in what the journal proports to be focused on.
I couldn't find the journal on journal ranking lists at all. I'm usually able to find very bad journals on these lists, but this one looks absent altogether. It's like this isn't a peer-reviewed journal at all.
So yes, plenty of red flags.
why have others like in Spain and Germany early on found similar evidence... watched your ted talk btw very interesting
why are some of these images with forms with 90 degree angles...as a microscopist for over 40 years I have never seen this naturally not even in salt crystals...etc.
Good questions, and thanks for checking out my talk.
Have you got links to the similar lines of evidence?
I'll be more than happy to take a look at them.
Cheers.
Just look at the mountain of evidence on this substack.Search under nanotechnology
Looking for and sifting through evidence is very time consuming and I have many projects on the go.
Perhaps you can provide a link to a study or line of evidence that you found compelling.
I do not have those links that was 2 or more years ago...I have now started saving and downloading information as it appears over the last 4 years information is getting moved around or deleted.
some of the big questions that have yet to be addressed.
1. where is the original; foundational paper out of china which I read when it came out clearly stating out of 190 patients in Wuhan who had respiratory issues which btw is not uncommon in such a polluted city, only one sample was taken from one patient, 38 nucleotides that were not identifiable were found and put into a gene computer...several days later several in silico models were produced but no culture grown sample in vitro or In vivo were created... why?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_SARS-CoV2_been_isolated_purified_and_demonstrated_to_be_the_cause_of_COVID19
2. isolation and purification have been an ongoing issue that has not been discussed from both sides in the same room, why?
3. the worldometer which just gathered data from gov globally showed that the mortality globally was less than 1% this even with a lot of those numbers incorrectly attributed to covid ... which under the original definition for a pandemic you need 3% to 7% mortality, now the definition does not have mortality as a condition... so pink eye could be declared a pandemic for example...
https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/the-definition-of-pandemic-has-been-altered/
there are many more question we have, but it seems that we can't or wont get both sides in the same room to see what's going on...
regarding this paper it's not perfect, neither was the one Nature released in less than 24 hours, starting the pandemic, peer reviewed supposedly under 24 hours, which that in itself is as red flag, and now that paper has been retracted for countless errors, but a little too late...
BOTTOM LINE... we all need to sit down and talk about ALL of the data...both sides... until that happens we will ALL just go round and round arriving to no clear answers...
what I can say from the images I saw, some of those structures are very unusual, if it is a contaminated vials as some have said, well what contaminated it and why do they appear in other studies and images I have seen over the last 3 years... but then again I was not in the lab in front of the microscope to see it myself.
final question. why would all of these doctors. scientist, researchers, etc go down the path to destroy their careers to just lie, or spread bad information...
what do they gain in the short and long run... and if they are controlled opposition as some say, why that then...
Thank you for your detailed response
Most of this falls outside my area of expertise, and I don’t have well-thought-out answers that I am confident about. I read a lot of research literature, and while most studies aren’t very well designed or conducted, occasionally, I come across very good ones. This study seemed worse than most, and the journal looks suspect. I assign a higher false positive rate to this kind of article. That is all I was really commenting on.
There is a lot in your response, and I would have to spend a large amount of time getting up to speed. I’m a busy guy, and I generally find this not to be time well spent.
Instead, I find it useful to focus on a single claim that we disagree on. Then we can state our confidence in the claim and discuss the kinds of evidence we would expect to see if the claim were true, and the kinds of evidence we would expect to see if the claim were false. I value good faith, honest communication, and being persuadable by evidence.
What do you think?
Is there a specific claim you would like to investigate together?