https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-part-2-i-do
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
👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon
Here are screen grabs of the comment.
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon/2230
How to Fake Pandemics – Part 2. I Do Not Believe Science, and Neither Should You.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
👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon
Here are screen grabs of the comment.
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon/2230
Remember the good old 2011, when a “killer” engineered Avian Flu virus was made in a Dutch lab? That was a fake, too.
