Nostr Web Client

good summary!

The sequencing (that he also talks about and wants to habe funded) of random cells from random people to look for tiny pieces of DNA that could come from the vaccines sounds like a waste of resources without chance of success. Most cells have not come into contact with the vaccine. Many S-protein producing cells should have be killed by the immune system while they produced it. If he find an affected cell it must contain a characteristic piece of DNA that could not have been there naturally.

His answer to the publication question was weird. He easily could publish his vaccine vial sequencing results. He might have got the question wrong but that still leaves the question. Why did he not try to publish?

Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

> The sequencing [...] sounds like a waste of resources without chance of success.

Not a biologist myself but his worst fear is cancer so I don't see the chance of success too bad here. If you sequence cancer cells of vaccinated people who developed cancer after the Pfizer vaccine, his hypothesis could indeed be proven depending on the sequence found in cancer cells. He sequenced the contamination. Any non-trivially small chunk found in a cancer where by the nature of a cancer it would get reproduced would be an obvious proof of his hypothesis.

He gave two weird answers.

One was about publication: Yes, scientific papers tend to not publish non-results but that is also known to be a problem and therefore good scientific investigations get pre-registered and documented publicly anyway. Where did he share the nitty gritty of his findings?

The other weird answer was about the cost of proving his hypothesis where he said that testing any future booster vials would cost $60 what was completely not the question. He should have answered with the cost to sequence complete genomes of cancer tissue for many patients.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hoshi 2y ago

True. Sequencing tumors would make sense.