— SteemCN

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160575/

This study was titled not for the faint hearted, because?

A. It demonstrates that making predictions based on antibody and antigen interactions is extremely hard to impossible to do.
B. Because the study focuses on the industrial integrity of antibody and antigen industry, and the standards and calibrations which are compromised by poor quality, the paper put it PBS, as it outlines study after study exemplifying the fail of commercial standard.
C.or blatantly states "To date, it is extremely rare for patterns of immuno-EM studies to be reported, but independent searches in the literature can be very useful to identify studies in which the same antibodies have already been used. Worryingly, it is also extremely unusual for companies to report results of peptide inhibition studies and sadly even rarer for them to report KD/KO data."
D. While the long road between antigen and antibody is a rocky one, more judicious use of specificity controls by commercial companies would be highly desirable for improving the reliability and usefulness of these powerful tools for cell biology and related disciplines. At least for EM some effective methods are now available for establishing quantitative estimates of labeling distributions, and for determining more accurately how much of the labeling is due to the interactions of the antibody with the intended target. Given the commercial importance of the market and the extent to which researchers are dependent on their products, it is now high time for the companies to put more effort in trying to ensure that more of the estimated 350,000 antibodies on the market do what they are claimed to do.

(ding ding ding, it's d all of the above, with the banger being that all those pictures of viruses isolated and presented as viruses don't exist, as just now we can establish some standards over how a piece of gold would look if attached to this peptide, or to this antigen, which is basically in it's infancy, yet we've been told their safe based on theory that hardly had evidence to back it up and mountains of evidence of it's "pitfalls")

http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

Actually terrain theory denies germ theory, pretty much why you cannot claim that "this is the hiv" virus is because these implications over here

http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pp101basics.htm

I don't take such maters on faith, I don't blindly fall for the appeal to authority of CDC and question everything.

Do you not understand what I said?

@i-repost What @baah wnats to convey is that it's not the question of belief but it's a matter of facts & evidences.

No, he denies the viruses being observed under electron microscopy, and that is evident by the limitations of electron microscopy and the time when viruses were claimed isolated, with polio being isolated in the early 1900, so no, he doesn't deny the existence of most viruses, he is saying those pictures people present as viruses aren't viruses, and we have no pictures of these viruses, and http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pp101basics.htm that link explains why this is. If you look int you you will be hard pressed to disagree with his conclusion, since there is no evidence of such isolation and in turn observation by electron microscopy.

So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses -- as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at all.

Naturally if you were to look into something and find lies, and deceit and manufactured crap, you would deny the existence of those fabrications, would you not?

RE: How the Measles Vaccination Program has Destroyed Herd Immunity

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: