Replies (101)

Jake Woodhouse's avatar
Jake Woodhouse jakewoodhouse@primal.net 2 months ago
This resonates a lot Sadly it’s true Which is very hard As many questions have answer you don’t want to hear So being open minded is one of the hardest things
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
Everyone should "question", but the way to both ask and answer those questions is the scientific method, along with peer-reviewed sharing of published results. The foundations of modern science are 100+ years of publication and evidence, built progressively over the decades by workers across the world who have no common financial incentives. If your "questioning" leads to the conclusion "it's all wrong and this podcast guy is right," I would "question" whether you're being sold a bag of goods.
1 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
That's not to say that science is always "right". In the wake of something new (like COVID), new scientific evidence is going to come piecemeal and incomplete. And I do believe that there are long-held dogmas that CAN be overcome. But the chances become less and less of this the more a field is studied. It's like an open-source SW project that gets better and better over time... You've got to be REAL good to find the flaws in the system.
1 replies ↓
Christopher Tamez's avatar
Christopher Tamez 2 months ago
Thank you for the episode
Jake Woodhouse's avatar Jake Woodhouse
Do you feel comfortable questioning medecine? npub1gc64tw6tp7q06ymkltnz374l4al9uvwdyaqasz4y6gjujf4u9plqz2uyek
View quoted note →
Default avatar
ENSA defasada 2 months ago
Vídeozinho.
Jake Woodhouse's avatar Jake Woodhouse
Do you feel comfortable questioning medecine? npub1gc64tw6tp7q06ymkltnz374l4al9uvwdyaqasz4y6gjujf4u9plqz2uyek
View quoted note →
Default avatar
ENSA arcaica 2 months ago
Compartindo.
Jake Woodhouse's avatar Jake Woodhouse
Do you feel comfortable questioning medecine? npub1gc64tw6tp7q06ymkltnz374l4al9uvwdyaqasz4y6gjujf4u9plqz2uyek
View quoted note →
Jake Woodhouse's avatar
Jake Woodhouse jakewoodhouse@primal.net 2 months ago
Have a listen to the episode and see what you think I’d be interested in your opinion My feeling is that a lot of “peer review” is actually totally biased, and in this case proof is arising that virology itself is built on a lie, which is a huge deal The guest is a emergency room Dr with many years of experience studying peer reviewed literature
2 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
No, not going to listen to an hour long podcast. If there's an argument it should be succinctly explained in a paragraph at the most. This is called the "abstract" of a scientific paper. It explains the basic argument and the support for it... and if you want to be taken seriously with something as sweeping as "virology is a lie," there should be a good reason for it. Like, what does that even mean? That DNA is a lie? That viral RNA can't be injected into cells which in turn will replicate copies of the virus? It's all just crystals and Spirit Woo all the way down?
1 replies ↓
Default avatar
npub10l9c...hkxf 2 months ago
💉💉Wise words👀
Jake Woodhouse's avatar Jake Woodhouse
Do you feel comfortable questioning medecine? npub1gc64tw6tp7q06ymkltnz374l4al9uvwdyaqasz4y6gjujf4u9plqz2uyek
View quoted note →
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
Dan Ostermayer ostermayer@primal.net 2 months ago
here is a summary: we identify successful viral cultures when we take a sample from an sick person and put it in a dish of cells and see those cells burst. the cells that are originally "virus" free were grown in a nutrient rich medium. at the point of inoculation we don't just do one thing (infect the cells) we do one other thing, we reduce the concentration of the nutrients to starvation levels. We essentially have two variables, the nutrient concentration that cells need to survive and the liquid from the sick individual. The viral control study protocol is just asking the simple question, what happens if we do a valid experiment with just one variable, "the nutritional concentration". and what they found was cell death that looks just like "viral" particles. This result invalidates the multi variable control that virology is built upon. proper studies have one variable that is being tested and do so with a mirror experiment without that variable. then when we get a result we can hypothesize that one variable is producing the different results
2 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
"and what they found was cell death that looks just like "viral" particles." So what exactly is the counter-claim here? Viruses aren't real? They don't reproduce? We have both direct structural evidence from TEM / X-ray diffraction, etc, and DNA evidence to contradict that.
1 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
Furthermore, Gemini contradicts your straw-man on "standard procedures": The statement claims that cells are reduced to "starvation levels" during inoculation. The Context: In cell culture, cells are typically grown in a "Growth Medium" rich in serum (often 10% Fetal Bovine Serum) to encourage rapid division. When introducing a virus, scientists switch to a "Maintenance Medium" with lower serum (often 1-2%). The Correction: This reduction is not starvation. If cells divide too rapidly, they overgrow the container and die of overcrowding before the virus can replicate. Maintenance medium provides sufficient glucose, salts, and amino acids for the cells to survive and metabolize for days or weeks without rapid division. Evidence: Cells kept in maintenance medium without any virus (the control group) remain healthy and attached to the dish for the duration of the experiment.
2 replies ↓
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
Dan Ostermayer ostermayer@primal.net 2 months ago
you are correct. the maintenance medium is what was used in the viral control study i am talking about . at 2% fetal bovine serum we see viral particles. so we have to ask what is happening that caused sterile cells at maintenance medium to produce electron microscope evidence of viral particles. is maintenance medium really pathogenic?
1 replies ↓
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
Dan Ostermayer ostermayer@primal.net 2 months ago
believe me, i am just as skeptical as you are but these results expose the fact that a two variable experiment is not as valid as a one variable experiment and suggest that the protocols that underpin virology are logically incorrect.
1 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
You seem to be saying that the fact that there are virus particles grown in a 2% medium contradicts the foundations of virology. That's not "sterile." They're adding virus to cells that have already been grown. There's no reason why viruses *shouldn't* or couldn't replicate under these conditions. And even if what you say is true, how does that undercut the foundations of Virology? What fundamental claims of the subject are incorrect as a result?
2 replies ↓
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
Dan Ostermayer ostermayer@primal.net 2 months ago
here is a viral experiment: take a sample from somebody who is unwell. grow vero cells at 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). ensure the cells are virus free because you got them from a certified supplier. reduce the FBS to 2% for maintenance. then inject the viral sample. Then wait and observe the cytopathic effects of cell death. then sample the dish to look for foreign genomic material that you call virus. 1. the cytopathic effects might be from the maintenance concentration 2. the cytopathic effects might be from the virus 3. of course you will find foreign dna because you introduced it to the medium. this is a modern viral experiment and it unfortunately can't show anything except that you can get foreign DNA from a sample that you introduced foreign dna into in the first place.
3 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
So you do a control with no virus, and the cells survive just fine under "maintenance" mode. Which (according to Gemini, and I have every reason to believe because these scientists aren't morons) is exactly what they do. This contradicts your claim.
1 replies ↓
Globe99's avatar
Globe99 globe99@nostrcheck.me 2 months ago
Yeah I guess the moon "might or might not" exist. Laughable indeed. We prove they exist by TEM and DNA evidence. Which doesn't require this study protocol that seems to be the lynchpin of your argument.
Default avatar
npub1vpcu...tkwd 2 months ago
Questioning the information we receive is a good habit
Jake Woodhouse's avatar Jake Woodhouse
Do you feel comfortable questioning medecine? npub1gc64tw6tp7q06ymkltnz374l4al9uvwdyaqasz4y6gjujf4u9plqz2uyek
View quoted note →
Default avatar
npub1futs...vwhk 2 months ago
I was blessed in my formative years with a family GP who was very critical of "medicine". This was the 1980's and he refused to prescribe antibiotics or administer vaccines on multiple occasions, because he recognized the incredible sophistication of the immune system.
1 replies ↓
Chalmers 's avatar
Chalmers 2 months ago
During Covid I questioned medicine every single day.
BushRat's avatar
BushRat BushRat@nostr.com 2 months ago
I trust medicine derived from plants. I'm sceptical about the rest of it. A lot of western medicine is only focused on treating symptoms (more profitable than cures or prevention) That's the main reason I don't trust any vaccine manufacturers to make something that's actually safe and effective, it goes against their business model. They want sick dependant people paying money for drugs to treat their chronic illnesses. I don't think the jab is some death sentence or anything, but probably increases your risk of developing something that lowers your quality of life instead.
1 replies ↓
whit's avatar
whit basicbee@nostr.com 1 month ago
South Carolina would like a word. Measles outbreak said what? It’s definitely political in the #USA & we have our issues but denial of science 🧬 is the very reason people don’t believe in #climate #change etc. #RIP #Rachel #Carson Where did all the butterflies 🦋 go? Too easy of an answer for most people. Earth is already dead 💀 Most just don’t care. Thanks Al Gore. Why? Cause 99% bleed for nefarious 1% greed. They keep us divided. #Thanks Looks around … image
↑