If this was contagious prions wouldn't the embalmers not all be wearing diapers and being spoof fed jello now? The ones I speak with seem just fine. Excellent in fact.
It's already been proven this is A-typical and not normal.
I brought up the 1000-1 difference long ago. nm VS um on the so called fibrin/ fibrinogen.
Typical fibrinogen is not visible at 500x under a microscope. Recall I uploaded plenty of public domain images for others to study and use here on SS.
Why is it Gregs team found Tin in his samples and KMc team doesn't? I gather Greg's labs ran it 3xs to make sure it was correct. Even Health Ranger found Tin in his samples. 2 contra 1. Team KMc is flawed or the other ones are full of crap. Who to believe in this world of BS now. I clean my BS filter often and a very sceptical MF. Trust issues after the past 5 years might have brought this on
Show me an actual prions amyloid protein analysis and let's all compare them to a embalmers clot structure side by side.
Science talks bull shit walks!
Someone with a PhD claims it's prion based and the sky is falling. Your all going to lose your fkn minds. Give me break. Fear and drama sells. Don't fall for this.
I know lots of very stupid people with a PhD title in front of their name.
My family doctors are really stupid as they pushed this experimental mRNA injections on my family and me. Let's say they didn't fare well in the last debate we had
My best friend that holds a PhD in chemical engineering. He actually failed the IQ test and took 3 mRNA injections. I said Broh you didn't question what was in it? You should have!
As for identifying amyloid and micro clots with ThT or Congo Red is not an acceptable in my self educated opinion
Recall this dumb logger (as I refer to myself trying to be humble) figured out that turmeric root extract or curcumin actually makes these structures, your hands, countertop all light up under any UV light spectrum.
Try it all of you reading this.
So show me some hard evidence.
Kevin's debut well the Brit bar fighting type is the end and the start.
Sounded like a good old 77th brigade keyboard warrior. Just my personal observation. I have dealt with the limey 77th over the years
Honestly Kevin's behavior was unprofessional and poor conduct in his comments.
I personally have lost all respect for this individual.
I also don't personally see any weight in his study. You PhD types better wake the FK up. You're all looking kind of stupid. Your reputation rides on theoutcome of this.
Oh dear, oh dear, where to start with this pile of ill informed crap. There are innumerable studies demonstrating amyloidogenic MICROCLOTTING in SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was identified as early as 2020.
Due to the breadth of your obvious lack of understanding around the subject matter, I would suggest putting the following link into your browser, I'm sure a monkey as thick as you can manage that part, then comes the hard part, actual reading.
Now comes the part where you'll obviously fail, flail and kvetch like a little bitch as I explain to you all PRION's are amyloids but not all amyloids are the PRION PrP scrapie form. They do, however, have the common disease causing mechanism of oligomerization of misfolded amyloidogenic conformation on to native species of peptide in question. How infectious that is and how dangerous is work in progress, but if you had paid attention to the substack you would see that the amyloidogenic fibrin from the clots had a positive reaction in the RT-QuIC protocol, the gold standard test for detecting infective amyloids/prions
And LMFAO at your microscopy fail when talking about being able to not see Fibrin at 500x, where to begin with your face plant onto the curb here. If the amyloidogenic cascade within the blood is forming insoluble, coherent clot structures that come in at 10's of centimeters and 10's of grams, when extracted from cadavers, of course you can look at it at any resolution you want, from the macro to the nano-scale, as I have done. You just need the equipment to do it.
And in the image where you are talking about the visibility of fibrin, although trying to make an assumption about anything regarding your post other than it's shit, I will presume you are talking about the SEM imaging where we can see the emergent biophysical properties of the amyloidogenic form at the fibrillar level. That image is taken at 5000x where it is quite possible to see the nano-structure of peptide aggregation, and it's quite possible to compare it to healthy fibrin at that scale. I think you just can't read, and you think 5.00K X on the scale bar of the image means 500, it doesn't you tit! 5.00K would refer to it as being taken at 5000x, what a way to show how out of your depth you are.
For your edification I have taken the raw 5000x image and placed normal and spike exposed fibrin taken from a published work.
You can see the same nodules identified and structural similarities in the nature paper when their fibrin is exposed to spike protein.
Greg Harrisson is unable to show proof of the raw data files for his analysis, and as such the data should be considered void until such time as he can do so. So the tin measurement is irrelevant, in fact you'll hear him say it so as well in his recent appearances on line. I am confident in my data using a slightly different mass-spec methodology. There is no magic happening here, or nanobots, or graphene oxide, there is just the well described process of prionergic/amyloidogenic interactions.
As I've already scientifically chined you so hard you'll need tube feeding for a month, I'll stop there and get back to my beer, of which, I nary spilled a drop, while dropping you like the sack of shit you are.
1. Why have you opened with statements about "contagious prions"?
2. Re size vs "fibrin/fibrinogen". What is the clear issue you are raising? Be clear about scale, object, noun, if that's the issue.
3. Why do you raise "Greg, Health Ranger (Mike Adams)" re the content of this McCairn et al work?
4. "Show me actual prions amyloid protein analysis". Well, this is preliminary results of some analysis techniques in these fields. Their report is extremely clear about what is shown, the limits and scope. Why then do you take express effort to state what is largely moot i.e. These people are in the process of working through a bunch of techniques that will include multiple views on amyloid and prions. This report is a glimpse of that ongoing work and doesn't claim you be conclusive or indicative with certainty. They say "suggests more work on X y z with a b c." Sounds like you're not interested in the actual content of this work because this is not reflected in your comment.
5. Everything after 4 is 90% (un/dis) associative interference and asserted opinion that agglommerate into a conscious, large ad hominem. Within that, you raise ThT & Congo red as being indicative but not certainly conclusive and/or 100% specific. That's already known across the field and no such claim is made by McCairn et al in their substack.
6. You vociferously express personalised opinion ad hominem (half your comment is this) against McCairn, even though there are 4 authors.
7. Do you believe that your comment here comes across as "professional"?
8. From a professional perspective, your comment's only professional science aspects related to McCairn et al were:
A) infectious prions? If so, then why aren't morticians going down with prion infections? (McCairn et all don't conclude or state at all that it is infectious prions in this substack).
B) scale, unit, noun
C) conclusivity of ThT & Congo Red? (McCairn et al don't claim conductivity of either technique and do not draw definitive conclusions at all based on any of the techniques and results in this substack. Quite the opposite in some senses.)
Thus 90%+ of your comments are nothing to do with the science in McCairn et al. You have consciously, deliberately conflated a lot of stuff that's nothing to do with the direct content of McCairn et al substack, stitched in a tiny amount of "science", only two of the three things are re the substack, and you've also misrepresented those three science points as they feature (or don't) in McCairn et al substack.
Comments have been moderated here on the following lines:
User Neo is a flat out clown kook, which is evident from their own ubstack that they attempted to self promote in these comments, and also in their autistic child responses to my replies. This has zero value beyond verifying their kook status. All these exchanges have been removed.
My two additional posts calling out user Gas Axe (who is connected to Neo) are just personal indulgence. McCairn has directly responded on substantive scientific matters to Gas Axe's utterly inept, inane low IQ garbage and Gas Axe has not responded. I leave that exchange up as a matter of record, with my own primary challenges for reference.
There are a lot of things that need dekookifying.
I have been keeping my trap shut for awhile now.
If this was contagious prions wouldn't the embalmers not all be wearing diapers and being spoof fed jello now? The ones I speak with seem just fine. Excellent in fact.
It's already been proven this is A-typical and not normal.
I brought up the 1000-1 difference long ago. nm VS um on the so called fibrin/ fibrinogen.
Typical fibrinogen is not visible at 500x under a microscope. Recall I uploaded plenty of public domain images for others to study and use here on SS.
Why is it Gregs team found Tin in his samples and KMc team doesn't? I gather Greg's labs ran it 3xs to make sure it was correct. Even Health Ranger found Tin in his samples. 2 contra 1. Team KMc is flawed or the other ones are full of crap. Who to believe in this world of BS now. I clean my BS filter often and a very sceptical MF. Trust issues after the past 5 years might have brought this on
Show me an actual prions amyloid protein analysis and let's all compare them to a embalmers clot structure side by side.
Science talks bull shit walks!
Someone with a PhD claims it's prion based and the sky is falling. Your all going to lose your fkn minds. Give me break. Fear and drama sells. Don't fall for this.
I know lots of very stupid people with a PhD title in front of their name.
My family doctors are really stupid as they pushed this experimental mRNA injections on my family and me. Let's say they didn't fare well in the last debate we had
My best friend that holds a PhD in chemical engineering. He actually failed the IQ test and took 3 mRNA injections. I said Broh you didn't question what was in it? You should have!
As for identifying amyloid and micro clots with ThT or Congo Red is not an acceptable in my self educated opinion
Recall this dumb logger (as I refer to myself trying to be humble) figured out that turmeric root extract or curcumin actually makes these structures, your hands, countertop all light up under any UV light spectrum.
Try it all of you reading this.
So show me some hard evidence.
Kevin's debut well the Brit bar fighting type is the end and the start.
Sounded like a good old 77th brigade keyboard warrior. Just my personal observation. I have dealt with the limey 77th over the years
Honestly Kevin's behavior was unprofessional and poor conduct in his comments.
I personally have lost all respect for this individual.
I also don't personally see any weight in his study. You PhD types better wake the FK up. You're all looking kind of stupid. Your reputation rides on theoutcome of this.
Oh dear, oh dear, where to start with this pile of ill informed crap. There are innumerable studies demonstrating amyloidogenic MICROCLOTTING in SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was identified as early as 2020.
Due to the breadth of your obvious lack of understanding around the subject matter, I would suggest putting the following link into your browser, I'm sure a monkey as thick as you can manage that part, then comes the hard part, actual reading.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Pretorious+Kell+Sars-CoV-2+Clotting
Now comes the part where you'll obviously fail, flail and kvetch like a little bitch as I explain to you all PRION's are amyloids but not all amyloids are the PRION PrP scrapie form. They do, however, have the common disease causing mechanism of oligomerization of misfolded amyloidogenic conformation on to native species of peptide in question. How infectious that is and how dangerous is work in progress, but if you had paid attention to the substack you would see that the amyloidogenic fibrin from the clots had a positive reaction in the RT-QuIC protocol, the gold standard test for detecting infective amyloids/prions
And LMFAO at your microscopy fail when talking about being able to not see Fibrin at 500x, where to begin with your face plant onto the curb here. If the amyloidogenic cascade within the blood is forming insoluble, coherent clot structures that come in at 10's of centimeters and 10's of grams, when extracted from cadavers, of course you can look at it at any resolution you want, from the macro to the nano-scale, as I have done. You just need the equipment to do it.
And in the image where you are talking about the visibility of fibrin, although trying to make an assumption about anything regarding your post other than it's shit, I will presume you are talking about the SEM imaging where we can see the emergent biophysical properties of the amyloidogenic form at the fibrillar level. That image is taken at 5000x where it is quite possible to see the nano-structure of peptide aggregation, and it's quite possible to compare it to healthy fibrin at that scale. I think you just can't read, and you think 5.00K X on the scale bar of the image means 500, it doesn't you tit! 5.00K would refer to it as being taken at 5000x, what a way to show how out of your depth you are.
For your edification I have taken the raw 5000x image and placed normal and spike exposed fibrin taken from a published work.
https://www.mccairndojo.com/library/sha1-dd30bd36aa89d8ab0cd71a35c857f37f89f1948e/AmyloidFibrinvsControlvsSP.png
The healthy and spike exposed fibrin is taken from the following.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07873-4#Sec8
You can see the same nodules identified and structural similarities in the nature paper when their fibrin is exposed to spike protein.
Greg Harrisson is unable to show proof of the raw data files for his analysis, and as such the data should be considered void until such time as he can do so. So the tin measurement is irrelevant, in fact you'll hear him say it so as well in his recent appearances on line. I am confident in my data using a slightly different mass-spec methodology. There is no magic happening here, or nanobots, or graphene oxide, there is just the well described process of prionergic/amyloidogenic interactions.
As I've already scientifically chined you so hard you'll need tube feeding for a month, I'll stop there and get back to my beer, of which, I nary spilled a drop, while dropping you like the sack of shit you are.
1. Why have you opened with statements about "contagious prions"?
2. Re size vs "fibrin/fibrinogen". What is the clear issue you are raising? Be clear about scale, object, noun, if that's the issue.
3. Why do you raise "Greg, Health Ranger (Mike Adams)" re the content of this McCairn et al work?
4. "Show me actual prions amyloid protein analysis". Well, this is preliminary results of some analysis techniques in these fields. Their report is extremely clear about what is shown, the limits and scope. Why then do you take express effort to state what is largely moot i.e. These people are in the process of working through a bunch of techniques that will include multiple views on amyloid and prions. This report is a glimpse of that ongoing work and doesn't claim you be conclusive or indicative with certainty. They say "suggests more work on X y z with a b c." Sounds like you're not interested in the actual content of this work because this is not reflected in your comment.
5. Everything after 4 is 90% (un/dis) associative interference and asserted opinion that agglommerate into a conscious, large ad hominem. Within that, you raise ThT & Congo red as being indicative but not certainly conclusive and/or 100% specific. That's already known across the field and no such claim is made by McCairn et al in their substack.
6. You vociferously express personalised opinion ad hominem (half your comment is this) against McCairn, even though there are 4 authors.
7. Do you believe that your comment here comes across as "professional"?
8. From a professional perspective, your comment's only professional science aspects related to McCairn et al were:
A) infectious prions? If so, then why aren't morticians going down with prion infections? (McCairn et all don't conclude or state at all that it is infectious prions in this substack).
B) scale, unit, noun
C) conclusivity of ThT & Congo Red? (McCairn et al don't claim conductivity of either technique and do not draw definitive conclusions at all based on any of the techniques and results in this substack. Quite the opposite in some senses.)
Thus 90%+ of your comments are nothing to do with the science in McCairn et al. You have consciously, deliberately conflated a lot of stuff that's nothing to do with the direct content of McCairn et al substack, stitched in a tiny amount of "science", only two of the three things are re the substack, and you've also misrepresented those three science points as they feature (or don't) in McCairn et al substack.
Please clarify on all of the above.
Comments have been moderated here on the following lines:
User Neo is a flat out clown kook, which is evident from their own ubstack that they attempted to self promote in these comments, and also in their autistic child responses to my replies. This has zero value beyond verifying their kook status. All these exchanges have been removed.
My two additional posts calling out user Gas Axe (who is connected to Neo) are just personal indulgence. McCairn has directly responded on substantive scientific matters to Gas Axe's utterly inept, inane low IQ garbage and Gas Axe has not responded. I leave that exchange up as a matter of record, with my own primary challenges for reference.