Rodney Porter and Gerald Edelman share the credit for “discovering” the chemical structure of the unseen and entirely theoretical antibodies said to provide some form of immunity from infectious disease. They were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1972 for their “discoveries.” The researchers both used techniques to break down immunoglobulins into smaller fragments by means of chemical and enzymatic treatments. They then claimed to analyze the physiochemical and biological characteristics of these fragments and proceeded to create hypotheses on how the fragments formed together. Keep in mind, neither researcher purified nor isolated any antibodies and they were still unable to see these entities. In fact, no one had ever seen an antibody as they were simply hypothetical molecules dreamt up in the late 1800’s to explain chemical reactions created in the lab. Many theories were proposed over the decades attempting to explain how these invisible “protectors” looked, formed, and functioned but no one had ever laid eyes on them nor had any direct evidence that an antibody existed as believed. Yet somehow, through the magic of chemistry experimentation, Porter and Edelman were said to be able to chemically define the structure of these imperceptible molecules.
A brief historical background of their work:
“The 1972 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded jointly to Gerald M Edelman and Rodney R Porter “for their discoveries concerning the chemical structure of antibodies” [1,2]. Porter’s work used the protein-splitting enzyme papain to identify three fragments, two smaller very similar ones, both with capacity of combining with the antigen, and one larger piece lacking this capacity. Edelman’s contribution was the demonstration that immunoglobulin molecules, like most biologically active proteins, were composed of chain structures that were held together by sulfur bonds and could be separated. None of the resultant fragments retained the specific reactivity of the intact immunoglobulin molecule. Since then, progress has been made in understanding the finer characteristics of the various domains of the individual chains of the immunoglobulin molecule.
Rodney Porter 1959
According to the above source, Rodney Porter was able to use papain, a protein-splitting enzyme, to break down the antibody into its three distinct fragments. However, was this truly the case? Below are highlights from Rodney Porter’s contribution to this antibody puzzle.
The Hydrolysis of Rabbit y-Globulin and Antibodies
with Crystalline Papain
“The molecular size of rabbit y-globulin is such that any direct attempt to relate structure to biological activity is not feasible at present. An alternative approach is to degrade antibody molecules in such a way that activity will persist in smaller fragments and so to reduce the structural problems involved.
In an earlier investigation of this type (Porter, 1950b) it was found that, if rabbit y-globulin containing antiovalbumin was digested with crude papain, a fragment with a molecular weight of about 40,000 could be produced which retained the ability to combine specifically with ovalbumin though it would no longer form a precipitate. It seemed probable that this fragment contained an antibody-combining site.
In that work, the amounts of crude enzyme used relative to y-globulin were large, making subsequent investigation of the products of digestion rather difficult. As crystalline papain can now be prepared easily (Kimmel & Smith, 1954) and fractionation techniques have improved, these earlier experiments have been repeated. It has been found that y-globulin is split by papain into three large pieces with very little release of amino acids or small peptides. If the y-globulin contains antibody against any of the several antigens investigated, then two of these pieces retain combining though not precipitating power. The third piece, which may be readily crystallized, has no antibody activity but it has most of the antigenic sites of the original molecule. The isolation and properties of these three fractions will be described.
A preliminary account of this work has been given (Porter, 1958a).
Antisera. Rabbit antiovalbulmin, antibovine serum albumin and antihuman serum albumin were prepared by intravenous injection of the alum-precipitated protein (Porter, 1955).
Rabbit antipneumococci polysaccharide type 3 was prepared by injection of a suspension of the formalin-killed bacteria in 0-9 % NaCl solution.
Goat antirabbit y-globulin was prepared by intravenous injection of alum precipitate and subcutaneous injection of y-globulin with adjuvant (Freund & McDermott, 1942).
Rat antiserum was prepared according to the following schedule. The rats were given two intramuscular injections of protein and adjuvant into different thighs, with 1 week’s interval between injection. Five weeks later they were given three injections, with 3-day intervals between injections, of alum-precipitated protein into the tail vein. They were bled by heart puncture 6 days after the last injection.
Rabbit y-globulin. This was prepared either by chromatography, with diethylaminoethylcellulose (Sober, Gutter, Wyckoff & Peterson, 1956), or by Na2SO4 precipitation according to the method of Kekwick (1940).
Crystalline papain. This was prepared from crude enzyme powder purchased from Hopkin and Williams Ltd., London. The enzyme was crystallized once as the free enzyme and twice as the inactive Hg dimer (Kimmel & Smith, 1954). It was freeze-dried and stored as the dimer.
Quantitative estimation of precipitating antibody. This was carried out according to Kabat & Mayer (1948).
Estimations of inhibitory power. These were made by quantitative antibody assay in the presence of the inhibitor or by measure of the delay in precipitation caused by the inhibitor with the antibody and antigen mixed in optimum proportions.
Chromatography. Diethylaminoethylcellulose and carboxymethylcellulose were prepared according to Peterson & Sober (1956). Column size was 2-4 cm. (diam.) by 30-35 cm. (ht.); volume of mixing chamber was 1200 ml. Buffers used on carboxymethylcellulose columns were O OlM-sodium acetate, pH 5 5, with gradient to 0.9M-sodium acetate, pH 5.5. In the refractionation of fraction I on diethylaminoethylcellulose, the following system was used: 001m-sodium phosphate, pH 64, with gradient to 0 2 M-sodium phosphate, pH 6-2. All buffers were saturated with toluene. The pH was measured with an EIL Direct Reading pH meter (Electronic Instruments Ltd.).
Enzyme digestion. y-Globulin (150 mg.) and Hg papain (1.5 mg.) were dissolved in 10 ml. of buffer (0 1M-sodium phosphate, pH 7 0, 0*01 m-cysteine, 2 mM-ethylenediamine-
tetra-acetate). This solution was incubated at 370 for 16 hr. in the presence of toluene. It was then dialysed against water with vigorous stirring and several changes of the outer liquid over 48 hr. This procedure, which removed the cysteine and ethylenediaminetetra-acetate, and facilitated oxidation, inactivated the enzyme. N-Ethyl maleimide was also used to inactivate the enzyme but as there appeared to be no advantage this was not continued. The non-diffusible digestion products were either freeze-dried or fractionated directly by chromatography after dialysis against acetate buffer, pH 5-5.
Protein determinations. Protein concentrations were determined by reading the absorption at 280 and 260 mu in a 1 cm. cell in a Unicam SP. 500 spectrophotometer.
Radioactivity measurements. Injection of hydrolysed algal [14C]protein and counting of the y-globulin fraction were carried out as described previously (Askonas, Humphrey & Porter, 1956).
Analytical methods. Amino acid analysis was by the method of Moore & Stein (1951) as modified by McDermott & Pace (1957).
N-Terminal amino acids were estimated by the fluoro-dinitrobenzene technique (Porter, 1957a). Hexose as ‘glucose’ was estimated by the anthrone method of Mokrasch (1954). Hexosamine as ‘glucosamine’ was
estimated, after separation from amino acids on a cation-exchange resin (Boas, 1953), by a modification of the method of Elson & Morgan (1933).
When a digestion mixture, prepared as described above, was dialysed against water at 2° a precipitate formed which appeared to be crystalline. If, however, the dialysis was against 0 04N-acetic acid there was no precipitation and the recovery of the non-diffusible digestion products could be estimated either by measuring the absorption at 280 mp or by freeze-drying and weighing the dry powder. This has been done in a number of experiments, and by either method the recovery of y-globulin protein taken has fallen in the range 85-95 %. In view of the probable handling losses in dialysis and freeze-drying, it is considered that the higher figure is the most accurate. When such a digest was examined in the ultracentrifuge in 0O1M-phosphate, pH 6.7, some crystals again formed on dialysis but the supernatant showed only one peak (S20., 3.5). As y-globulin has S20,w 6-5, it was clear that the protein had been split into large fragments of similar size with very little production of diffusible peptides. Attempts to fractionate this mixture by zone electrophoresis were not successful, but resolution could be achieved by chromatography on carboxymethyl-cellulose. Acetate buffer, pH 5 5, was chosen because under these conditions most of the
carboxyl groups of the ion-exchanger are dissociated; if the digest was brought nearer to neutrality crystals formed, indicating a low solubility of at least one component. To help to keep all the material in solution chromatography was carried out at room temperature (20-23o). With a
gradient of increasing salt concentration at this pH, three components could be resolved which have been named fractions I, II and III in order of elution from the column (Fig. 1).
If the gradient on the column was reduced, fractions II and III were more spread and III ‘tailed’ badly, but there was no suggestion of any further resolution. Fraction I appeared very close to the solvent front and this was re-run on a diethylaminoethylcellulose column at pH 6-4. No fractionation was obtained but again with a slow
gradient there was considerable tailing. By these limited criteria the three fractions appeared to be single components and to be the only significant products of the digestion of y-globulin by papain.
Results with shorter times of hydrolysis under the same conditions suggest that the splitting is complete in very much less than 16 hr., the period which has always been used. It follows that these three fractions are exceptionally resistant to further digestion by papain.
Yields of the three fractions were measured by summing the absorption at 280 mp in each peak. The ratios of yield varied somewhat from experiment to experiment but averaged (I: II: III) 1: 0-8: 0-9, and total recovery from the column was 85-90%. When re-run, fractions I and III were recovered in about 95 % yield and fraction II in about 85% yield. The absorptions of peaks I, II and III at 280 m, at a concentration of 1 mg./ml. in water or 0-02N-acetic acid were 1-4, 1-4 and 1-0 respectively. If the relative yields are corrected for the lower recovery of fraction II, and the lower specific absorption at 280 m,p of fraction III, then the corrected relative yields (I:II:III) are 1:0-9:1-25 by wt. In some experiments the fractions were concentrated by pressure-dialysis in the cold against water or 0-02N-acetic acid; in-soluble material was discarded and the solution freeze-dried and weighed. The yields of I and III were similar to those above but II was somewhat lower. Considerable error can occur because of denaturation in dilute solution, and variable losses on chromatography, but it is considered that the average yields calculated from chromatography approximate to the yields of the fractions produced in the digestion.
Fraction III is readily identifiable as the material with a low solubility near neutrality. It may be crystallized and recrystallized by dialysing a solution in 0-02N-acetic acid against sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6-0-7-0, at 20. The crystals are diamond-shaped plates, often of considerable size but thin and easily broken (Fig. 2).
Molecular weights. The three fractions were studied in the ultracentrifuge (see Addendum) and the results for normal y-globulin are simmarized in Table 1. The sum of the molecular weights of the three fragments is very close to the molecular weight of the original y-globulin. This is in agreement with the high recovery of non-diffusible digestion products. The relative sizes of the three fragments were (I:II:III) 1:1-05:1-6, which is in
approximate though not exact agreement with the calculated relative yields of the fragments.”
“These results have been recalculated in terms of amino acid residues per mol. of fraction and per mol. of y-globulin. It has been assumed that the ash-free, moisture-free fractions have the same nitrogen content of 16 % as found for y-globulin by Smith, McFadden, Stockell & Buettner-Janesch (1955). In view of the difference in basic amino acid content the figure may be rather high for fractions I and II and low for fraction III. The results of this calculation are given in Table 3. The amino acid residues accounted for by the three fractions range from 83 to 116% of the figures for whole y-globulin. These discrepancies are probably explicable by errors in the different estimations, the assumption of 16 % of nitrogen in each fraction and by the peptide material lost in the dialysis. The overall recovery of amino acid residues in this calculation is 94 %.
“Carbohydrate estimations were made by Dr H. R. Perkins of this Institute, and the results with whole y-globulin and the fractions are given in Table 4. About two-thirds of the carbohydrate of the original molecule is found with fraction III, one third with fraction I and a small amount, which may not be significant, is with fraction II. It seems likely therefore that the carbohydrate moiety of y-globulin is in the two pieces, the larger with that part of the molecule which corresponds to fraction III and the smaller with the part corresponding to fraction I. If the total recovery of carbohydrate in the three fractions is compared with that present in the original, the yields are approximately 110 and 120 % for hexose and hexosamine respectively.
N-Terminal assay has been carried out on fractions I and II, and in both alanine was found to be the main terminal amino acid (about 0-9 mol./50 000), together with smaller amounts of aspartic acid (0.2 mol./50 000) and trace amounts of serine and threonine (together about 0- 1 mol./50 000).This is a very similar result to that obtained for whole rabbit y-globulin (Porter, 1950a; McFadden & Smith, 1955), except that the N-terminal amino acid content is more than three times as great as in the whole globulin. It is also in approximate agreement with the results of the digestion of rabbit antiovalbumin with papain powder, when an immunologically active fraction containing one N-terminal alanine per 40 000 was reported (Porter, 1950a). The significance of finding N-terminal alanine in both I and II is not certain, as there are about 110 alanine residues per molecule of y-globulin. An attempt to determine the N-terminal sequence was unsatisfactory owing to shortage of material, but it appeared that the sequence of I was alanylaspartyl and of II alanyl-leucyl. If this is correct, it suggests that II may derive from the N-terminal part of the molecule, as the sequence there is alanyl-leucylvalylaspartylglutamyl (Porter, 1950a; McFadden & Smith, 1955).
Immunological properties. The three fractions were prepared from digests of y-globulin which had been obtained from rabbit antisera against ovalbumin, bovine serum albumin, human serum albumin and antipneumococci polysaccharide type 3. None would precipitate with the corresponding antigen but fractions I and II prepared from y-globulin containing antiprotein antibodies inhibited the precipitation of the antigen by the homologous antiserum. This effect is specific; for example, I and II from antihuman serum albumin y-globulin had no effect when added to bovine serum albumin and its antiserum; fraction III, on the contrary, had no effect whatever its source or whatever the test system. Testing fraction III is difficult owing to its low solubility near neutrality, where antibody-antigen precipitation is carried out, but it is soluble to about 0 3 mg./ml. at 37* at pH 7-2 and it could be shown that it had less than one-thirtieth of the activity of the corresponding fractions I and II.
Quantitative estimates of the inhibitory power of I and II are shown in Fig. 3. In order to assess this on a molar basis it has been assumed that the fractions would have the same proportions of active molecules as the proportion of antibody in the y-globulin taken, and the weight of each fraction has been corrected accordingly when plotting the graph.”
“Antigenic activity. The power of the fractions to precipitate with goat antirabbit y-globulin serum was now tested and I and II showed neither precipitation nor inhibitory activity. Fraction III precipitated 70% of the antibody precipitated by y-globulin.
Rat antiserum was prepared against rabbit y-globulin and fractions I, II and III. Groups of three rats were used for each antigen and, after the
immunization course described above, the serum of each group was pooled, and gave antibody contents of 4-2, 7-8, 8-1 and 4-0 mg. of antibody/ml. for y-globulin, I, II and III respectively. All the fractions were at least as effective antigens as the original molecule, and I and II were the most effective, but as only three animals were used per group the difference may not be significant. When rat anti-y-globulin was tested with the fractions, rather different results from those with goat antiserum were obtained. Fraction III precipitated 50% of the antibody, and I and II 15% each. The antigenic specificities of the fractions were compared by measuring the precipitates formed by 1, II and III with rat anti-II serum. The precipitation curves are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the curves for I and II are almost identical, but III gives almost no precipitate. This again emphasizes the great similarity of I and II and their sharp distinction from III.
Synthesis of the fraction in vivo. In view of the distinctive characters of the three fractions the possibility was considered that they might be synthesized separately and joined into the whole molecule in a separate step. If this were to happen the fractions would probably not all be synthesized from the same pool of amino acids at the same time, and hence if radioactive amino acids were injected into a rabbit the incorporation of radioactivity after a short time interval would vary from fraction to fraction. Hydrolysed algal [14C]protein was used as the source of labelled amino acids; 240uc was injected intravenously, and the rabbit
was bled after 1 and 4 hr. The plasma y-globuilin is not labelled until 30 min. after injection (Askonas et al. 1956). The y-globulin was prepared and hydrolysed with papain, and the fractions were isolated, precipitated with trichloroacetic acid, and counted, at infinite thickness on a 1 cm.2 disk. The specific activities are given in Table 5 and it can be seen that there is no significant difference between the different fractions. There is therefore no evidence to suggest that these fractions or any large parts of them are synthesized independently.
The results show that papain-digestion of rabbit y-globulin causes limited and highly selective splitting to give three large fragments and very few small peptides. As papain shows rather a wide specificity in the digestion of the B chain of insulin (Sanger, Thompson & Kitai, 1955), it is apparent that the structure of the native molecule must be such that many potentially hydrolysable bonds are protected by steric and other factors. Ultracentrifuge studies of the splitting of y-globuilins from different species, by a variety of enzymes (Petermann & Pappenheimer, 1941; Petermann, 1942, 1946), have all shown that a small number of fragments are the main products in each case. It is possible that in y-globulins only small parts of the peptide chain are accessible to proteolytic enzymes, so that even though different enzymes break different bonds in these vulnerable sections the principal large digestion products are similar.
Our results with the papain-digestion of rabbit y-globulin suggest that the single polypeptide chain (Porter, 1950a; McFadden & Smith, 1955) have been split into three distinct sections, which together comprise some 90% of the original molecule. However, fractions I and II are so similar that the question arises whether they could be derived very largely from the same section of the chain. They are almost indistinguishable in N-terminal amino acid, amino acid analysis, molecular weight, antigenic specificity and, if derived from antibody, in their antigen-binding capacity. They differ in chromatographic behaviour and carbohydrate and cystine content.
There are at least three possible ways of splitting a single chain to give results such as this, and they are illustrated in Fig. 6: A shows the obvious split into three distinct sections, B the production of two fractions from the same section of chain and C the result if y-globuilin consists of two types of molecule, such as euglobulin and pseudoglobulin, one of which gives rise to I + III and the other to II+ III. If either B or C were correct then the yield of III should exceed the sum of the yield of I and II. In fact the yield of each of the three fractions is very similar, as would be expected in A. In B and C the overall recovery, in view of the molecular weights found, would be 130,000/188,000, i.e. 70 %, considerably lower than the experimental figure of about 90%, which again is that which would be expected if A were correct. Similarly, with the individual amino acid residues, the recoveries would be only 70%, with the possibility of big variations in individual cases as much more material would be lost. In fact the recovery of residues is 90-95%, and the variation 83-120% in
the recoveries of individual amino acids is close to the range expected from the errors in the different measurements and the assumptions made in the calculation.
Further, in B it would be expected that if I and II were digested further by papain, either interconversion would occur or both would be reduced to a slightly smaller common product. In fact both appear to be stable to a further 16 hr. digestion with papain at 370, being unchanged in chromatographic behaviour and other properties. The simplest explanation of our results therefore seems to be that y-globulin has been split into three distinct fractions, as shown in A. It is probable that the inhibitor described in the earlier work (Porter, 1950b) was a mixture of fractions I and II, and that fraction III was prevented from crystallizing by the impurities introduced with the crude enzyme preparation.
It follows that two large sections of y-globulin (each about 30 % of the whole) are extremely similar in chemical, physical and biological properties. The finding of such close agreement between the amino acid analysis of these two fragments and also an almost identical antigenic specificity suggests that there may be almost a repeat of the amino acid sequence and configuration. This is in contrast with the properties of fraction III, which differs in every respect, so that there appears to be a large repeating unit (I or II) joined to a larger section (III) of entirely different character. This unusual make-up of the y-globulin molecule is presumably related to its antibody activity. The similarity of the pieces with mol.wt., 50 000, where the antibody-combining sites may be very much smaller (Kabat, 1956), raises the question whether large sections are required to maintain the structural integrity of a small combining site or whether antibody-combiing sites may occur anywhere in these pieces.
The big quantitative difference between the inhibitory power of fractions I and II, when derived from antiprotein or antipolysaceharide antibodies, may reflect important differences between the two types of combining site, but perhaps more probably arises from differences in the speed and mechanism of precipitation between the two systems.
The significance of the part of the y-globulin molecule represented by fraction III in antibody-antigen reactions is not known. The ease of crystallization could be taken as evidence of greater identity of structure among individual molecules in ImI than in the whole molecule, which appears to be complex by all available physical and biological data (see Porter, 1958b). Preliminary electrophoretic examination, however, suggests that it is as complex as the original molecule by this criterion. Most of the antigenic sites of y-globulin appear to be on m, but as these sites can only be defined in relation to a given antiserum (Porter, 1957b), variable results might be expected, and there is in fact a difference in this respect between the goat and rat anti-y-globulin serum. Fraction III is remarkably stable. After precipitation by 5% trichloroacetic acid at room temperature, washing with ethanol and ether and drying for 1 hr. at 1100, it will redissolve in 0-05N-acetic acid and it retains its power specifically to precipitate goat antirabbit y-globulin.
The finding that y-globulin appears to be built of three sections, one of exceptional stability and the other two containing the antibody-combining
sites, is reminiscent of Pauling’s (1940) theory of antibody formation, in which it is suggested that antibody molecules consist of a rigid centrepiece and two flexible ends capable of taking up configurations complementary to the antigen and hence forming antibody-combining sites on these flexible parts. Pauling further suggested that the flexibility might be due to a high content of proline residues. There is no evidence on the relative positions of fractions I, II and III in the whole molecule, except that II may be from the N-terminal end. Nor is there any evidence on the essential feature of Pauling’s theory, that the amino acid sequence of all antibodies is identical and that the different antibody-combining sites are formed only by refolding of the same polypeptide chain. The proline content of I and II is less than that of III, whereas the cystine content, often an important feature in determining the stability of a protein molecule, is lower in III than in I and II.
The equal rate of incorporation of radioactive amino acids into the different fractions is in agreement with the view that the whole molecule is synthesized simultaneously from the same pool of amino acids.
- Rabbit y-globulin, when digested by crystalline papain, gives three fragments which together form 90% or more of the original molecule.
- If the y-globulin contains antibodies, two fragments (I and II), of molecular weight 50,000-55,000, retain the power to combine with the antigen. The third fragment (III), molecular weight about 80,000, crystallizes easily and has much of the antigenic specificity of the original molecule.
- I and II are extremely similar in chemical and biological properties, and III differs very widely in all respects. This has led to the suggestion that rabbit y-globulin is formed of two pieces with very similar structure joined to a third piece of quite different character.
Rodney Porter is given credit for helping to determine the chemical structure and the Y-shape of the unseen antibodies. He did so by what appears to be reverse engineering the antibodies by way of breaking the protein substances down into the smallest pieces possible, analyzing them chemically, and then creating a theoretical framework and model for how they supposedly joined together. At no point were the assumed antibodies seen as a whole unit before being digested by papain. Unless you can convince yourself the Superman-like diamond trap image in the study is an antibody fragment, there were no credible images of any of the three fragments matching what an antibody is said to look like, fragmented or whole.
Even if there were accompanying images, it is apparent from his own conclusions that Rodney Porter, after supposedly breaking down the y-globulin into the three fragments, was uncertain if they were antibodies at all as he was apparently not convinced yet if the y-globulin contained antibodies. However, that did not stop Porter from creating a hypothesis based on the results from the chemical reactions of his experiments. He then applied his hypothesis to previously established antibody theories, such as that presented by Linus Paulimg with the Direct Template theory in 1940, which itself was eventually rejected by most immunologists in favor of Frank MacFarlane Burnett’s Clonal Selection Theory in 1957.
It is interesting to note that within the paper, the purification of the antibody fragments is never stated, even though different methods, such as ultracentrifugation and chromotograohy, were listed as having been used. Perhaps this is due to the fact that to achieve the most efficient purification levels required today, it is considered vital to have knowledge of the structure of the antibody first:
“Rodney Porter and Gerald M Edelman first elucidated the characteristic Y-shaped structure of antibodies. In 1972, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology for their findings. These Y-shaped molecules were eventually identified as immunoglobulin G (IgG), the structure of which is composed of four polypeptide chains – two heavy (50 kDa) and two light chains (25 kDa) – linked by noncovalent bonds and disulfide bridges (Figure 1).”
“However, to perform the most efficient purification possible it is vital to have good knowledge of the structure of the antibody (or antibody derived structures) and its cognate antigen and ideally the affinity of their interaction.”
This appears to leave us with a chicken and the egg scenario. How would Rodney Porter have achieved the required purification needed in order to elucidate the chemical structure and the Y-shaped composition of an antibody if he lacked the vital knowledge of the structure of an antibody to begin with? Logic would dictate that he would not be able to do so. Also, Porter was working with what would be considered polyclonal antibodies as monoclonal antibodies were not created until the 1970’s. Polyclonal antibodies are said to be a complex mixture of antibodies contained within the serum of the host whereas monoclonal antibodies are supposedly a specific antibody cloned and cultured in the lab. Antigen-specific affinity purification is said to be required for polyclonal antibodies to prevent the inclusion of non-specific antibodies as more than one type is thought to be within the sample. This procedure was not utilized by Porter. In fact, depending on the chromatography equipment he would have utilized, these methods are said to be unable to purify antibodies from other proteins and macromolecules:
“By contrast, for polyclonal antibodies (serum samples), antigen-specific affinity purification is required to prevent co-purification of nonspecific immunoglobulins. For example, generally only 2–5% of total IgG in mouse serum is specific for the antigen used to immunize the animal.”
“Dialysis, desalting, and diafiltration can be used to exchange antibodies into particular buffers and remove undesired low-molecular weight (MW) components. Dialysis membranes, size-exclusion resins, and diafiltration devices that feature high molecular weight cut-offs (MWCO) can be used to separate immunoglobulins (>140 kDa) from small proteins and peptides. However, except with specialized columns and equipment, these techniques alone cannot purify antibodies from other proteins and macromolecules that are present in typical antibody samples. More commonly, gel filtration and dialysis are used following other purification steps, such as ammonium sulfate precipitation .”
Thus, Porter appears to be left with a pretty important knowledge and equipment gap that is required in order to properly purify antibodies away from other antibodies, proteins, and macromolecules that would also be contained within the sample. It is important to ask how would he have known that the fractions he was working with were even from an antibody at all if they were unable to be properly purified and isolated away from other components/impurities. It seems as long as one takes whatever results are achieved through experimentation and then fits them into a hypothetical model for what these invisible particles could possibly look like, a Nobel Prize awaits.
GERALD EDELMAN 1961
Gerald Edelman is the other half of the dynamic duo awarded for figuring out the chemical composition and structure of an antibody. It was said that he succeeded in splitting the IgG sulphide bonds, thus showing how these unseen fragments were supposedly held together. As was the case with Porter, Edelman tried to reverse engineer the theoretical molecules no one had ever seen before and fit his results into a model:
“Dr. Edelman spent the next several years working backward to recreate a model of the principal antibody molecule, which he achieved in 1969. During that time, he also hypothesized — and was later proven correct — that the vast diversification exhibited by antibodies is an example of the body turning a developmental flaw into an advantage. When cells divide, miniscule errors in transcription often occur, leading to the development of proteins with differences that in the immune system amount to a system of “strength through diversity.”
If it wasn’t clear that both researchers had no idea what an antibody looked like as they were conducting their experiments, it is stated in an article in Immunology Letters that after his experiments, Edelman proposed the Y-shape of an antibody which was subsequently “confirmed” by electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction:
“In the same year, Edelman showed that reduction of the disulfide bonds of antibodies in the presence of denaturizing agents led to dissociation of the molecule into smaller pieces, now known to be the light (L) and heavy (H) chains . Because the molecular weight of the original IgG molecule is 150 kDa, he concluded that the IgG molecule consisted of two heavy and two light chains linked by disulfide bonds and noncovalentinteractions. A Y-shaped configuration was proposed and then confirmed through electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction study. Thereafter, two antigenic types of light chains, denominated and chains were described (Fig. 6).”
Interestingly, no source was cited for this “confirmation” nor were any real images of an antibody supplied as evidence. Instead, we get a drawing and a photo of Edelman next to his model at the Rockefeller University:
Many of the methods Edelman utilized in his paper were similar to Porter. As the paper is 24 pages long, I am presenting just a few highlights from the beginning and the ending to give an overview of his work. You will see that Edelman tentatively (subject to further confirmation; not definitely) concluded that the fragments were held by disulfide bonds and he then created a hypothesis to explain his findings. As with Porter’s work, no images of purified and isolated antibodies nor antibody fragments are presented in the paper. Feel free to read the rest of Edelman’s work with the provided link if you desire the full breakdown of his chemistry experiments:
Studies on Structural Units of the Y-globulins
“In studying the molecular structure of the y-globulins, one is confronted at the outset with the problem of whether these proteins consist of one or of several polypeptide chains. The solution of this problem has significance in determining the chemical basis of antibody specificity, and in formulating a detailed theory of antibody production. In addition, it bears upon the relation between normal y-globulins and those of disease.
A previous report (1) showed that normal human 7S y-globulin and a pathological macroglobulin dissociated to components of lower molecular weight when treated with reagents that cleave disulfide bonds. The present study is concerned with an extension of this approach to a variety of normal and abnormal y-globulins. Partial separation of the dissociation products of y-globulin has been achieved by means of column chromatography and starch gel electrophoresis. The results suggest that y-globulin molecules are composed of several discrete subunits or polypeptide chains linked by disulfide bonds.”
“Porter (45) has recently demonstrated that rabbit y-globulin is cleaved by papain treatment into three fragments which together form over 90 percent of the original molecule. These fragments have molecular weights ranging from 50,000 to 80,000. Similar fragments have been found for papain-treated human y-globulins (46). The fragments obtained by treatment with papain do not seem to be identifiable with the subunits described above. It is likely, however, that the products of papain treatment are composed of portions of these subunits. This interpretation is strengthened by the finding that the two active antibody fragments obtained by treatment with proteolytic enzymes are linked by a single disulfide bond (47).
A unifying hypothesis may be formulated for the structure of proteins in the y-globulin family based on the findings presented above as well as on findings of other investigators. 7S y-globulin molecules appear to consist of several polypeptide chains linked by disulfide bonds. Bivalent antibodies may contain two chains that are similar or identical in structure. The 19S y-globulins would be composed of 5 or 6 multichain units of the size of 7S y-globulin. A provisional explanation for the wide molecular weight range of antigenically related globulins from Bence-Jones proteins to macroglobulins is suggested by this model. Heterogeneity and differences in isoantigenicity (48, 49) may arise from various combinations of different chains as well as from differences in the sequence of amino acids within each type of chain.
The finding that y-globulin contains dissociable subunits has a possible bearing upon the pathogenesis of diseases of y-globulin production. A primary defect in macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma may be a failure of specificity and control in production and linkage of the various subunits to form larger molecules. Bence-Jones proteins may be polypepfide chains that have not been incorporated into the myeloma globulins because of a failure in the linkage process. Myeloma globulins may consist of combinations of subunits differing from those of the normal y-globulins, although both types of protein appear to contain subunits that are alike. This may explain in part the antigenic and chemical differences and similarities that have been found between the y-globulins of disease and normal y-globulin (36, 37). The hypothesis outlined above is capable of experimental test, since the products of various chemical treatments may now be separated and compared.
When human and rabbit 7S y-globulins were reduced in strong urea solutions by a number of procedures, their molecular weights fell to approximately of the original values. Partial separation of the reduction products was achieved using chromatography and starch gel electrophoresis in urea solutions. One of the components of reduced human 7S y-globulin was isolated by chromatography, identified by starch gel electrophoresis, and subjected to amino acid analyses. The amino acid composition of this component differed from that of the starting material and also from that of the remaining components.
A reduced pathological macroglobulin dissociated to components with an average molecular weight of 41,000. Several reduced human myeloma proteins, when subjected to starch gel electrophoresis, yielded individual patterns that nevertheless had features in common with those of reduced normal v-globulins. Reduction of normal and abnormal y-globulins was accompanied by the appearance of titratable sulfhydryl groups. Chemical treatments other than reduction were used to determine the type of bond holding the subunits together. It was tentatively concluded that they were linked by disulfide bonds. An hypothesis is presented to relate the structural features of the various y-globulins in terms of the multiplicity of polypeptide chains in these molecules.”
- Porter started off by admitting that the size of Rabbit y-globulin is such that any direct attempt to relate structure to biological activity was not feasible
- It seemed probable that rabbit y-globulin digested by crude papain contained fragments of antibody molecules
- Porter claimed that y-globulin split by papain formed three fractions
- His experiments were to see if y-globulin had antibody properties in two of the fractions and stated that there was none in the third fraction
- The amount of precipitating antibodies and the inhibiting power were estimated through various methods and calculations
- N-Terminal amino acids, glucose, and glucosamine content were also estimated
- As y-globulin has S20,w 6-5, Porter stated by this indirect measurement that it was clear that the protein had been split into large fragments of similar size with very little production of diffusible peptides
- Attempts to fractionate this mixture by zone electrophoresis were not successful
- Porter admitted that by his limited criteria, the 3 fractions seemed to be of a single molecule and were the only significant substances in the papain digestion
- Results with shorter times of hydrolysis under the same conditions suggested that the splitting is complete in very much less than 16 hr., the period which had always been used, and thus it was assumed that these three fractions were exceptionally resistant to further digestion by papain (i.e. he decided it was not necessary to attempt splitting the fragment for any longer than 16 hours as it could only be broken into three fragments and he assumed no further degradation would occur if a longer time was attempted)
- Porter admitted the yields are affected by considerable errors due to denaturation by dilute solution and variable losses on chromatography
- Fraction 3 formed crystals that were diamond-shaped plates, often of considerable size but thin and easily broken (that doesn’t sound like any image of an antibody fragment I’ve ever seen…🤔)
- The sizes of the 3 fractions were in approximate but not exact agreement with calculated yield
- It was assumed that the ash-free, moisture-free substance of y-globulin was the same 16% nitrogen concentration as found by previous researchers
- Porter admitted that there were discrepancies which were probably explicable errors in the different estimations, the assumption of 16% nitrogen in each fraction, and the peptide material lost in dialysis
- He believed it was likely that the carbohydrates were in fractions 1 and 2
- He admitted that the significance of finding the N-Terminal in fractions 1 and 2 was unknown
- Attempts to determine the N-Terminal sequence were unsatisfactory
- The three fractions were prepared from digests of y-globulin which had been obtained from:
- Rabbit antisera against ovalbumin (rabbit blood infused with chicken egg protein)
- Bovine serum albumin (cow blood)
- Human serum albumin (human blood)
- Antipneumococci polysaccharide type 3 (bacterial origin)
- There was no immunologic effect on fraction 3 no matter what source they used/tested
- It was assumed that the fractions would have the same proportion of active molecules as the proportion of antibody in the y-globulin taken
- The power of the fractions to precipitate with goat antirabbit y-globulin serum was tested and I and II showed neither precipitation nor inhibitory activity
- When rat anti-y-globulin was tested with the fractions, rather different results from those with goat antiserum were obtained as fraction III precipitated 50% of the antibody, and I and II 15% each
- As the precipitation curves for I and II were almost identical, but III gives almost no precipitate, this emphasized the great similarity of I and II and their sharp distinction from III
- Porter stated that in view of the distinctive characters of the three fractions the possibility was considered that they might be synthesized separately and joined into the whole molecule in a separate step
- He decided after injecting a rabbit, bleeding it, and then radioactively labelling the precipitates, that there was no evidence to suggest that these fractions or any large parts of them are synthesized independently
- Ultracentrifuge studies of the splitting of y-globuilins from different species, by a variety of enzymes, all showed that a small number of fragments are the main products in each case
- He claimed that it was possible that in y-globulins, only small parts of the peptide chain are accessible to proteolytic enzymes, so that even though different enzymes break different bonds in these vulnerable sections the principal large digestion products are similar
- Porter stated that his experiments suggested that the 3 fractions were from one molecule split into separate sections yet only made up 90%
- Fractions I and II were so similar that the question arose whether they could be derived very largely from the same section of the chain
- Porter stated that fractions I and II were almost indistinguishable in N-terminal amino acid, amino acid analysis, molecular weight, antigenic specificity and, if derived from antibody, in their antigen-binding capacity (thus, he was unsure if these fragments even belonged to an antibody)
- Porter stated that the range in recovery of residues and recovery of individual amino acids was close to the range of expected errors due to the different measurements and the assumptions made in the calculations
- He stated that the simplest explanation for his results was that y-globulin was split into 3 different fractions
- Porter stated that the discrepancies with his earlier work was probably due to impurities introduced in the crude enzyme preparation
- He also stated that the unusual make-up of the y-globulin is due to his presumption of it being an antibody
- The significance of the part of the molecule that fraction III represented (as they were trying to fit it into a predetermined model) was unknown
- Porter admitted that his findings of the 3 fractions of antibody molecule was similar to Pauling’s antibody formation theory in 1940
- However, he was not certain what position the 3 fractions were in the make-up of the molecule
- In the summary, Porter posed the question “If Y-globulin contains antibodies” thus showing the uncertainty in his own findings
- If they are antibodies, Porter surmised that the y-globulin is made of up two similar, nearly identical fractions and one very different one
- According to Edelman, in studying the molecular structure of the y-globulins, one is confronted at the outset with the problem of whether these proteins consist of one or of several polypeptide chains
- The solution of this problem has significance in determining the chemical basis of antibody specificity, and in formulating a detailed theory of antibody production
- The results suggested that y-globulin molecules are composed of several discrete subunits or polypeptide chains linked by disulfide bonds
- Edelman reiterated that Porter demonstrated that rabbit y-globulin is cleaved by
papain treatment into three fragments which together form over 90 percent of the original molecule (what happened to the remaining 10 percent?)
- Edelman stated that the fragments obtained by Porter were not the same as those which he discovered
- He did, however, make the interpretation that Porter’s fragments may be made up of the smaller subunits he himself obtained
- Edelman felt his interpretation was strengthened by the finding that the two active antibody fragments obtained by treatment with proteolytic enzymes were linked by a single disulfide bond
- Edelman believed that his findings along with those of other researchers could be combined into a unifying hypothesis
- He stated that antibodies may contain two chains that are similar or identical in structure
- His model suggested an explanation for the wide weight ranges between the various molecules
- The finding that y-globulin has dissociable subunits may have a bearing on pathogenesis of disease (and then again, it may not…🤷♂️)
- A primary defect in macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma may be due to a failure of specificity and control in the linkage of smaller units into larger ones
- Myeloma globulins may consist of a combination of subunits differing from normal y-globulin
- This may explain the antigenic and chemical differences and similarities between y-globulins of disease and normal y-globulin (in other words, he stated that antibodies are found in both diseased and healthy)
- Edelman claimed that his hypothesis was able to be tested experimentally (i.e. it was a guess that had not been proven scientifically)
- He admitted that only partial separation of the reduction processes was achieved
- Edelman tentatively concluded through his experiments that the subunits were linked by disulfide bonds
- He then created a hypothesis to relate the many structural features of the various y-globulins in terms of the multiplicity of the polypeptide chains in these molecules
In order to break down and identify the chemical structure of an antibody, logic would dictate that an antibody, like “viruses,” would need to be properly purified and isolated from everything else and shown to actually exist first. However, from 1890 when antibodies were initially dreamt up in the mind of Emil Von Behring on up to this point in 1961 when it was decided that these entities were chemically defined structurally by two different researchers, antibodies had never been seen. They were (and still are) nothing more than hypothetical constructs based off of the results from grotesque animal and chemistry experiments which are used to explain the theoretical concept of immunity. As antibodies had never been observed in nature nor in the fluids taken from a host, they have only ever existed as a concept rather than as a fully functioning particle. This is why decades of different researchers have come up with their own guesses as to how these entities looked, formed, and functioned. This is why both Porter and Edelman had to try and reverse engineer an antibody and then fit their results into a conceptual model. Antibodies have never been scientifically proven to exist. Thus, any claims that Porter and Edelman were able to deduce the chemical structure and form of particles never shown to exist which they themselves never witnessed is ludicrous. All these two researchers did was add their own paragraphs to the immunology chapter in the long-form fiction known as germ theory.
Thank you! ♥️
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome Adrian! 🙂
Consider writing a piece on cryo-electron microscopy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a great suggestion! Thanks! 🙂
Here’s an interesting paper on it. https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2022/04/00/ic5116/ic5116.pdf
Here’s a better paper on cryo em to build off of.
OY VEY! STOP CITING MULLIS! Mullis was NOT one of the “good guys” in our dear old, now-deceased “AIDS” dissident movement! Why on earth are you still invoking Mullis as though he was…???!!
I MET Mullis, and while one can argue I may not have really “KNOWN” him, I DO KNOW what he said and wrote on the issues back in the day. First, Mullis OFTEN contradicted himself, sometimes in the span of years, but sometimes within a span of a few SECONDS!
Despite whatever seemingly “radical” statements Mullis made from time to time (most likely to ingratiate himself to GULLIBLE dissidents), Mullis was FIRM BELIEVER in VERY orthodox concepts like virology, microbiology, biochemistry, etc.
PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO from the point I have bookmarked and continue watching TO THE END:
What Mullis DID professionally and what he WROTE and PUBLISHED were usually at odds with the seemingly “radical” things he SAID! Just look at ANY paper that Mullis published on “HIV”, and you’ll see that he FIRMLY believed it exists!
What Mullis said-particularly to gullible DISSIDENT audiences– was often a contradictory MESS in and of itself because, again, he ALWAYS believed in viruses!
It’s not just me anymore screaming about this UNJUSTIFIED canonization of Mullis!! FWIW, Dr. Cowan is saying it, too, now!
I am planning to write much more about the “Mullis MIRAGE” and many other topics on my own new substack which I am PLANNING to launch soon. I have many topics I feel need addressing because of what I perceive to be misunderstandings that many of the current crop of “top level” COVID dissidents are having. (The crap about Mullis will come LATER, FWIW)
1. The nature of the quote attributed to Mullis is that the more mainstream the source, the more striking it becomes, so your points only strengthen the case for including the quote.
2. If this site only quoted people who are completely “on our side,” 98% of the content would be gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those who may need some clarifying:
First of all, did you read MY bio?: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about
I have a very long history with the old “AIDS” dissident movement. I MET Mullis, I heard him speak live a few times, and I even got to hang out with him for an entire day because I helped to produce a seminar where he spoke… much to my ETERNAL SHAME!
What should be obvious is that if, as I contend, Mullis WAS mainstream, where is the proof that Mullis EVER believed that quote in the first place? Anyone who takes the time to research Mullis will see how resolutely UN-striking that quote is. There is a lot that would need to be “unpacked” about Mullis that may not be appropriate for this venue at this time. Again, unfortunately, as anyone can see who takes the time to actually VIEW the youtube video from 2010 that I took the time to link above ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPETGWDWhNE&t=3045s ), the problem is that Mullis speaks very definitively of the very entities which apparently, back in the 1990s he claimed were “hypothetical” in nature, according to the quote at the top of this page! As such, it’s doubtful that by 2010 Mullis still believed that quote, if he EVER actually DID believe it.
Also, to state another obvious point: Mullis was -and still IS- known as a “dissident” of sorts, despite the fact that, for the most part, Mullis LEFT the “AIDS” dissident movement by the end of the *1990s* soon after his BOOK was released! (See: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjomullis.htm ) So Mullis is ALREADY widely perceived to have been a “dissident”, i.e., he’s already perceived to have been on “OUR SIDE”. As such, any dissident who nowadays thinks it is prudent to cite an OLD Mullis “quote” which is “dissident” in nature like this one runs the risk of getting LUMPED with HIM.
Unfortunately, as I also already pointed out, the only major COVID dissident who seems to have somewhat of a grasp on many of these problems surrounding Kary Mullis such as Mullis’ numerous contradictions and flip-flopping on dissident vs. orthodox issues is Dr. Tom Cowan. For those who want to actually take the time to explore what Cowan has to say, here once again is the link to Cowan’s webinar:
Lastly, it is much more desirable to see what any scientist has WRITTEN on a subject, in order to reduce confusion and possible misinterpretation or misattribution about whatever comments the scientist may have spoken. ANYONE with an INTERNET connection can find Kary Mullis’ final published paper because of course it’s indexed on pubmed. It is a paper from 2015 that is LITERALLY ABOUT “Retargeting Pre-Existing Human Antibodies” which he and his co-authors claimed are “specific”! That’s how MAINSTREAM Mullis actually WAS! This is also Mullis’ LAST SCIENTIFIC (i.e., peer-reviewed) WRITTEN thoughts on the EXACT topic of this very article above on this page! If you actually CARE to look into this, here is the link to that study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469262/pdf/nihms687440.pdf
“What should be obvious is that if, as I contend, Mullis WAS mainstream, where is the proof that Mullis EVER believed that quote in the first place?”
I know we already covered this quote extensively on FB but I want to reiterate, it really does not matter whether Mullis believed in the quote or not. He said it which is all that matters. We have no proof that he ever retracted that statement nor that he did not believe in what he said. It is a powerful quote as Mullis worked within the system and called the entities he worked with hypothetical. He could believe that antibodies are hypothetical and still promote that these entities exist hypothetically. These researchers do it all the time claiming these entities exist through the use of indirect evidence. They never observe antibodies. They just guess that the invisible antibodies are the cause of the effect that they create. The hypothetical particles are the story sold for the lab-created effect observed.
Right before the quote you chose:
“A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works. Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one’- that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind….”
That’s exactly what Mullis himself was doing in the study I cited from 2015! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469262/pdf/nihms687440.pdf
Not only that, but literally around the SAME TIME he was LAMENTING in that 1994 Spin interview, Mullis was ALSO committing a similar type of sin that he lamented! Mullis was writing his one and ONLY paper he ever wrote on “AIDS” from an ostensibly “dissident” perspective at that same time in 1994. That paper was a 2 and 1/4 page FANTASY about a supposed “chain reaction” of a so-called “immune response” caused by purported “expression” of ALL species of “previously latent” retroviruses (which Mullis of course, believed in)! ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7744261/ ) WOW! Sooo “radical”! Sooo “dissident” of him! BTW: This was a paper which, if you can get the full text, contains absolutely NO references, as in ZERO! This was ironic given the fact that a huge part of Mullis’ dissident rants were comprised of him complaining about the fact that he couldn’t find any references that support the claim “that HIV causes AIDS”!
This was exactly indicative of the problems with Mullis in our “AIDS” dissident movement, from someone who was THERE at the time: repeated contradictions without much care being placed on accuracy. Mullis was a NOISEMAKER and a seeker of attention some of which he also managed to garner for the dissident movement. Then, Mullis LEFT and went M.I.A. from the “AIDS” dissident movement by the end of the 1990s shortly after his book was released….Mullis never made any public appearances or other contributions again for “AIDS” dissident causes in the 21st Century….
Yes I understand what you are saying regarding Mullis. He contradicted himself. Many of these “scientists” often do. I point this out regularly. However, that does not change the meaning nor the impact of his quote. It was a rare insight into the mind of someone who knew it was all fraudulent. Thus, using his quote is very powerful and made the point I was attempting to make with this article.
“If this site only quoted people who are completely “on our side,” 98% of the content would be gone.”
What’s the source for this quote by Mullis? Do you have a citation for it?
Celia Farber’s article:
SPIN July 1994 p. 64
“I am waiting to be convinced that we’re wrong,” Mullis continues. “I know it ain’t going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much – I will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works. Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induce this one’ – that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so.”
Rod Knoll, thank you for your support of the cause for all these years.
I think Kary Mullis has long been seen as a hero among those who see past “HIV/AIDS” and generally among virus skeptics, but since “covid” the game has been stepped up and there’s a sizeable hardcore group who now reject all of virology and are profoundly skeptical of all microbiology, thus Mullis is to them (us) only a point somewhere along the way between the mainstream and the truth, and not far along at that, as you well explained.
Mullis questioned some things but not nearly enough, as is becoming the common theme. Anyone who doesn’t yet realize that institutional science being correct/useful is the exception, not the rule, still has one foot in the modern dark age.
Thank you clarifire. In case it’s not obvious, what still causes considerable pain for me is the fact that some seem incapable of learning from our history that I and some others experienced in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. In my view, there is a profound risk that comes with invoking anyone from our old “AIDS” dissident movement, especially someone as prominent as Mullis was, since our dear old “AIDS” dissident movement– need I remind everyone– turned into a catastrophic FAILURE.
The sabotage brought about from within our “AIDS” dissident movement is NOT irrelevant to today’s issues that we now face with the different factions in the current COVID dissident movement. Mullis may seem to have been on the periphery and he was definitely out of our movement by the time the “civil war” broke out in our movement. However, when, as Dr. Tom Cowan has pointed out, “Duesberg derailed the (‘AIDS’) dissident movement”, Mullis certainly did NOT help, IMHO and FWIW. Mullis failed to do and say the right things when it mattered, since, unfortunately, when he WAS active in the “AIDS” dissident movement, Mullis was always FIRMLY aligned with the WRONG faction.
More recently, I’ve become interested in a deeper and necessarily critical analysis of Mullis’ prized invention, the PCR procedure itself, or “Pretty Cool Reaction” as I once heard him call it. Readers of this venue should be interested in this analysis, too, if they haven’t already seen it. This is a really RARE critical look at the inner workings of the PCR itself, and NOT just an analysis of results obtained from using PCR. I don’t think this article has been discussed on this site, but it’s the article that Dr. Cowan discussed at length in his video webinar on the PCR. The link to the article is here:
There’s always the conundrum of whether to err on the side of purity of understanding or of credibility. I will never choose credibility over understanding, because the truth only cuts like a knife through all the lies and confusion when it is the truth, when it isn’t watered down. Clarity is the only credibility that matters in the end. I believe there’s a contingent that has arrived at this orientation now, forged in the crucible of the “Covid-19” operation.
I think that article on PCR was mentioned in one or two comment sections on this site. It’d be great to dismantle the whole thing if it can be done.
Obviously, attacking one’s hero may seem tantamount to heresy. However, this is about MISGUIDED hero worship and how that often compels otherwise bright individuals to make bad choices. I say so be it! Certainly QUESTION EVERYTHING, and let the chips fall where they may! I’ve already provided a link to the most technical, scientific dissection of the PCR that I believe has EVER been done ( https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/ ), and I’m glad that apparently some readers of this platform are already familiar with it. However, I think that, in addition to looking at the nitty-gritty of these issues, sometimes the best way to get “purity of understanding” is by taking the broadest, most MACROscopic view of these types of issues. It sounds like it should be counterintuitive, but it’s not.
It’s entirely possible that ALL of Kary Mullis’ dissident activities in our old “AIDS” dissident movement were the result of “an eternal grudge” that Mullis had from being disappointed by the lack of “rewards” he received in the aftermath of inventing the PCR. It’s also a FACT that Mullis’ colleagues in mainstream biotech, who he called “vultures” for wanting shared credit for PCR, WERE NECESSARY because Mullis proved to be incapable of carrying out the necessary experimental steps to prove PCR works! These notions DO fit with my own impressions of Mullis and his efforts that I observed him making in our old “AIDS” dissident movement. Mullis’ self-promotional forays into our dear old, now-deceased “AIDS” dissident movement sure felt to me like a mind F-word! But hey, what the heck do I know??!! I’ve only had 27 years experience as an “AIDS” dissident!
A certain level of nuance IS often required to deepen our understanding of issues like these. This is especially true in OUR movement which is filled with various factions who all have sometimes differing possible “motives”, not to mention ongoing attacks from the establishment, of course. Also, retaining an incestuous perspective on these issues by only looking at extremely “friendly” outlets like Spin Magazine may be appealing, but it CAN be truly enlightening to review -always with critical eyes, of course- more MAINSTREAM accounts. Otherwise, we always run the risk of being accused of “cherry-picking”. As I keep trying to emphasize, here, the damage done by COVID dissidents invoking Mullis may NOT always be obvious, especially since many of these criticisms of Mullis ARE freely available online!
IMHO, the ability to “read between the lines” is an ABSOLUTE necessity nowadays for ANYONE in ANY type of “dissident” movement. That’s why I’m grateful for the following articles. I KNOW how to “read between the lines”, of course, because I’ve been doing it for MANY YEARS myself! As such, I’m not thrown by the fact that, for example, some of the following articles contain orthodox nonsense about “AIDS” in their attempts to attack Mullis. And I don’t let that fact compel me to disregard any other information in such articles.
In addition, I would highly recommend checking out the book “Making PCR” by Paul Rabinow. Again, be sure to read between the lines of any orthodox nonsense about viruses or microbiology. I also suggest you do the same when reading the following articles:
PLEASE NOTE: In #1 above, it is obviously NOT true that South African President Thabo Mbeki was “under the spell of” Mullis! From all accounts I’ve heard from very reliable sources who actually KNOW the former South African President, Mbkei was ALWAYS aligned with the Perth Group. Mullis was invited to attend the Presidential AIDS Panel meetings in South Africa in the year 2000, but he DECLINED. By that time, Mullis’ book was released and he had gone AWOL from the “AIDS” dissident movement….
I found Mullis’s book a smorgasbord of thoughts and recollections.
Psychotropic drug experience is part of his times, and no doubt our own.
He had a character that fitted him to bring in perspectives from outside the box, but not to be conformed to its rules.
I don’t see what the deal is on focussing on persons.
He wasn’t averse to gaming the system.
And so was gamed by the system?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fail to see where Duesberg derailed the AIDS movement. Despite not being anti Germ theory i found his book far more useful than Cowan’s. Duesberg was certainly a target but any dissident was in those days. I don’t really have issue with Cowan, other than some skepticism for his resonance ideas, but Duesberg is a much better researcher and it shows.
“I fail to see where Duesberg derailed the AIDS movement.”
“Luke P”: Who are YOU, pray tell….??? This is NOT about COWAN, for Pete’s sake! Any HONEST “AIDS” dissident who was there at the time knows that Duesberg did INDEED DERAIL the “AIDS” **DISSIDENT** movement!! THAT”S what I wrote above…
I’m using my real name, here, my COMPLETE name! Did you take the time to read my bio… ( https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about ) ??? If you did, you should have seen this link at the bottom of my bio:
START with THAT LINK, and if, after you’ve read EVERYTHING at that link, you have any questions, feel free to ASK QUESTIONS before spouting your UN-informed opinions on a public platform!!
Rod, you are falling into another logical fallacy (appealing to authority) here by asking Luke P. who he is as if that matters to his having an opinion on this topic. I understand you have a viewpoint due to your time in the AIDS dissident movement. Your insight is valuable. However, that does not make the insight and opinions of others invalid.
From what I gather from Luke P.’s comment, he appreciated Duesberg’s research on the topic. While Peter was unfortunately not a “virus denier,” he was adamant that HIV was a harmless “retrovirus,” that “it” was not the cause of AIDS, and that other co-factors were to blame for what was being called AIDS. Awakening comes in stages and having a prominent retrovirologist point out the flaws in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis may be what some need to hear in order to begin to question the lies. It is our job to make sure that they continue down this path of critical thinking and logic so that they do not get pulled back into alternative theories tied to the pharmaceutical web of lies.
As for the site you provided regarding the RA history, unfortunately it is a mess with no real flow and many broken links. Sadly, it is also heavily biased and claims major problems when, in many cases, they seem to be misunderstandings and attempts at clarity. For instance, while you seem vehemently opposed to David Crowe, he was very much in alignment with the Perth Group but was unconvinced by the semen argument, as he stated in one of the letters presented:
“I should point out that I have for more than a decade been persuaded by the Perth Group’s non-existence of HIV arguments. Your Oxidative stress arguments are persuasive, although there are some problems in the context of HIV which I’ll describe below. But I’m not at all persuaded by your arguments about semen.”
What followed is a polite letter looking for clarity. It would help if, when making a case, to lay out the evidence in as straightforward and non-biased way as possible. Sadly, the site does no such thing and reads as one man’s personal opinion with very directed personal attacks, mostly against Crowe such as claiming he possessed “sickening unscrupulousness, egocentricity, and megalomania.” Even if true, the evidence does not read as such. It is best to let the reader form the opinion without the personal attacks.
Maybe a book with a clear and straightforward narrative or a carefully crafted and well-managed site may help? I know you are looking to shed light on RA history with your Substack which I look forward to reading. However, IMO, the evidence at the site linked is not that compelling as in many cases the links are broken, the ones that work do not paint the same picture as the commentary suggests, there are many statements made without any linked evidence, and the narrative flow of the site is haphazard and confusing.
Regardless, we should be open to everyone’s viewpoints and opinions, whether we believe that they are properly informed or not. Maybe you could ask Luke P. more about what informed his opinion rather than attack him for having one? If you have compelling evidence to Peter Duesberg destroying the AIDS dissident movement, I suggest writing out a summary and presenting that to him rather than resorting to replying with a logical fallacy and supplying a link to a mostly broken site.
(Edit: As many links are highlighted and contained within the written commentary, I did not realize that the tiny bullet-points were also links. Thus, when I said there were many paragraphs without evidence, I was unaware that the bullets themselves were the actual links. I am rereading these sections and will update if my opinion changes.)
Cowan is an intuitive, not a science researcher. Intuitive insight can be ‘templated’ into old wine bottle paradigms, and generally is, when seeking or serving ‘answers’ in the frame of predefined problems. But can also guide a questioning of such framing so as to be open to perspectives otherwise ruled out or denied.
However, as a practice MD he met a call for help with a clinical response that grew with life experience, which is different to lab research or meta study of studies. The body-mind problem always seeks externally in a reality set outside and apart from its problem to find and manipulate ’causes’ flagged to material causes. It thus maps & defines a world of causation to which it is on the one hand mortally subject, and on the other lord over in judgement.
I haven’t read Duesberg, but he clearly had integrity in his work and was willing to openly question the HIV>AIDS assertions and beliefs that were both weaponised and marketised as part of ratcheting psuedo-medical control over human thought and response.
Different tools serve different facets or needs. I see no call to set up scores and league tables for anyone’s contributions.
Real questioning ‘derails’ a mind capture to mass hysteria. Because it reveals choices where rails were thought to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No so-called scientist knows how existence is structured beyond the visible realm, because the so-called scientific world has no technical ability to find out how existence manifests itself in the sub-microscopic realm. This is why all the so-called atomistic-molecular sciences are just fairy tales in the series of the one about the emperor’s invisible clothes. So it’s not just antibodies that are hoaxes: all so-called submicroscopic particles are hoaxes. Atoms and molecules are inventions. Amino acids, proteins, nucleotide components, nucleotides and DNA chains…all these sub-microscopic particles are just fabrications because no one has ever isolated, purified and visualized any hypothetical sub-microscopic particle. More precisely: no one has ever provided direct, uninterpretable evidence for the existence of atomic and molecular structures. All the so-called evidence used to claim that submicroscopic particles exist is circumstantial and interpretable…that is, devoid of any real value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chemistry, Molecular Biology, Virology, Immunology, Genetics…all these so-called sciences are complete scams. The manipulation by which people are fooled into believing these scams is simple. It’s called ridicule. The Emperor’s Invisible Clothes: He who does not believe unconditionally is ridiculed as a fool.
Please fix Nobel Peace Prize in your introduction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone who asks a few basic questions will immediately realize that the investigative procedures used in the so-called submicroscopic sciences are used dishonestly because they are invoked as a scientific basis for claims that are never proven to be true. Electron microscopy, electrophoresis, PCR, X-ray crystallography and a host of so-called laboratory techniques used in the fields of Chemistry, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Virology and Immunology have been turned into scientific myths and based on them scientific narratives are created extremely misleading, brought to the attention of the general public in an impenetrable specialist language to impress with a view to manipulation. Most of the time, unfortunately, so-called scientists also use light-based microscopy in dishonest ways.
Before talking about what so-called sub-microscopic particles do, seek to find the direct evidence (non-interpretable evidence) of the existence of each so-called sub-microscopic particle in the fields of Chemistry, Molecular Biology, Virology, Immunology and Genetics. But before doing so, catalog all the so-called sub-microscopic particles (starting with electrons) that I refer to in the so-called sub-microscopic sciences.
Do an experiment: find out how many submicroscopic inorganic and organic particles are claimed to exist, then look for direct, uninterpretable evidence of their existence. More specifically, look for the evidence that the particles in question have been isolated, purified and visualized by optical microscopy… just as the existence of the microorganisms has been proven beyond doubt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
.”Assessments of alchemy
The most persistent goals of alchemy have been the prolongation of life and the transmutation of base metals into gold. It appears that neither was accomplished, unless one credits alchemy with the consequences of modern chemotherapy and the cyclotron.”
A lot what we know as ‘science ‘ seems to be basically alchemy, trial and error findings.
Ouch! Using Encyclopaedia Britannica as a valid critique of Alchemy?
Whoever wrote that knows as little as you about it, apparently 😉
Try reading some Paracelcus instead, or if you’re brave some George Ripley or Hollandus.
Firstly It was a critic of todays science, so get your facts right before you make any ‘clever’’ remarks ( the know it all) and accusations.
Of course most if the information available is unreliable including your suggestions , ,maybe if one can get hold of the initial sources somewhere in archives.
I have no interested in the history of alchemy . As most science is made up one can imagine how reliable are any historical sources , so very arrogant claims on your part.
“I have no interested in the history of alchemy”
Obviously, and no interest in understanding the practice of alchemy either. Maybe not such a good idea then to use quotes about alchemy, as if they mean something? (kiss)
Just about everything we have been sold as reality or truth by people with big egos or fraudsters turned out to be self-indulgent speculations.
So the game of the pot calling the cattle black is a waste of time.
Not interested in more story telling regardless who’s version it is.,
Anyone who claims the absolute truth or that their version is the truth without providing indisputable evidence is not to be trusted .
“or that their version is the truth without providing indisputable evidence”
there’s one more reason not to use a mainstream encyclopedia quote which claims factual authority about something the author clearly has no actual experience in. kind of ironic actually 😉
it sure looks like you thought you’d make a point by taking a cheap shot at a subject you admit you have no interest in, obviously know little to nothing about, and apparently defer to the mainstream opinion as fact. if I’m wrong on that, I apologize for my assumption
The cheap shot was at science as am not aware that alchemy uses the scientific method but am sure you will enlighten me .
Agree not the best link but as I mentioned, unless there is access to first hand sources , and even those could have been made up at the time.
I lost interested in more story telling. One really has to question if any of those people even existed as told .
“ History is a pack of lies about events that never happened, told by people that weren’t there.” – George Santayana.”
“ The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” – George Orwell”
A lot of this is the way the mind works.
If we understood how mind works we wouldn’t need someone else to blame for anything.
Grievance rises from denial and deprivation. But we are unaware for the most part of denials arising from a selective focus.
A spotlight conceals more than it reveals.
While the story ‘works’ for what we want, we gladly turn a blind eye to witnesses to its nature as a chosen self-illusion.
Like children suckling that which supports their sense of self-autonomy.
Become enraged when it is taken away.
But in human experience I am talking of a sense of fundamental betrayal of the life we wanted or thought to have, and be-lived real.
The virus theory says a lot about our use of the mind, as does all our modelling. In a video of Kastrup and Vernon yesterday it was put that Galileo’s ‘sin’ was not the heliocentric model (which goes back to the Greeks) but asserting it was (THE) Reality, rather than our map or model of representative appearances that reflect our mind – or rather our use of Mind, by which we ‘see’ through a glass darkly’ or in modern terms through a lens of false narrative identity.
Consider the use to which we put the past.
A narrative or mythic identity generates its own prequel or backstory as a basis for exploring experience as an unfolding of meanings.
What we then choose to remember or forget is a function of our active focus – which for many, defaults to a subsconscious illusion of self-autonomy.
Is this not the same as a wish to be unconscious rather than address the pain of conflicted predicates? Does this not ‘automatically’ find pathways and witnesses or proxy conflicts by which to reset some version of ‘Private, do not disturb!’.
Deconstructing false narratives in the light of a love of truth, is a world apart from debunking others so as to boost a sense of being right by painting it so.
My sense of the deceiver is that it loves ‘You are being lied to’ or ‘everything you have been told is a lie’, because that ensures the reset of gaslighting as the guide. A shift of perspective allows recognising truth is always revealing, but we didn’t want to see it, because we wanted to see something else.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me” is a call to self-responsibility for our OWN. & for our knowing. For false knowledge phishes our mind as a belief thief steals identity – in concept if not in truth. Yet that is part of how we learn to discern in place of identity boosting for a self & world set by sacrifice of wholeness to seek somewhere ‘else’ and be-live our result.
Recognising subjective bias became abused by a call to get rid of it, that set up an anti-psychic bias as reductionist ‘materialism’. Yet even it Mater is reduced to ‘dead stuff’ to be remade in its image, model and system.
A ‘felt field awareness’ of discernment within life is thus usurped by emotional reactions – including emotional suppression. The feeling of being is replaced by the feeling of being right as a judge of reality – even if such self-justifications occur as hindsight projected backwards to make a past in its own image.
True-guided life is not imposition of systemic ‘controls’, that we CAN recognise and release to restore our felt connection or coherence of thought, word and deed within a true relational exchange or giving and receiving.
Closed system thinking is set for getting, as it is set in limit and lack.
But what we have made can serve another purpose when we remember the nature of light is to shine or extend, and not to withhold by masking in self-specialness.
I’m reading Kollerstrom on Newton at the moment. We stand on the shoulders of giant fraud. It is a selfish ‘gene’ or a pattern set in conflict, passing as legacy like a wave through the ethers to shape a distortion through which to re-cognise or re-member wholeness now?
The purpose being served is for me key context for the seeming structures, ideas or models.. The need to be right against a wrong is always dependent on the evils its seems to war on. But perhaps the last to know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question everything. Doubt even the existence of God! Critically research everything. Think with your own mind. ————— “A year spent in Artificial Intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.” -Alan Perlis
We can question (our) existence, but only in concept.
Any definition of your existence is not you, and so everything you think is questionable.
That from which awareness of existence, or awareness AS existence arises, can be symbolised or mythically represented but our image or model is never reality it points to, or as a derivative, is taken out of context – in vain, so to speak.
Willingness to question everything we think we know is the way to release an active ignorance.
Belief is not necessary for truth to recognise itself true, but active belief against truth sets a condition in which truth ‘waits’ on welcome.
I have often quoted a bit of Bible to the current times;
“And WHO told you you were naked?” said the Lord.
If you allow naked to stand for defenceless, susceptible, lacking, self-conscious and bio-insecure’ you go past the mores of a merely sexual interpretation.
The serpent can surely represent the ‘suggestions’ of our own ‘thinking’ or thinking as a ‘self-consciousness’ set apart from its own life. Also known as inner self-conflict as a sense of disconnect.
However, my interest is that the gift of the Questioning of what our thought creates or makes is the means to undo the untrue. Because a true question rises from a true stirring of being and attracts answer in kind.
If we were without a reference point from which to evaluate true from false, we could indeed make a hell and be forever trapped in what we made.
The belief against such a reference point is a self-convicted certainty – with ‘convict’ doubling for self made prisons resulting from false freedoms.
I find the Image of reduction to or control by machine thinking very apt – ie – a Big Clue.
Question everything. Doubt even the existence of God! Critically research everything. Think with your own mind.
“A year spent in Artificial Intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.” -Alan Perlis
“Life is really simple, but we insist in making it complicated.”
“Progress is man’s ability to complicate simplicity.”
— Thor Heyerdahl
“Simplicity is the glory of expression.”
— Walt Whitman
“The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary,
so that the necessary may speak.”
— Hans Hofman
“Simplicity is an exact medium between too little and too much.”
— Sir Joshua Reynolds
„We are told that these things definitely exist and then lots of other nonsense is built off of those unproven premises”.
– Jordan Grant
No one has ever said that there is nothing in the submicroscopic field. Of course, there is something in the submicroscopic field. But the atomic and molecular models are only assumptions never confirmed by direct and uninterpretable evidence. The great deception with which people are fooled is that they are told that those who challenge the atomic and molecular model claim that there is nothing in the submicroscopic realm … which is not true at all. What those who challenge the atomic and molecular model say is that so-called scientists do not know how is structured what exists in the submicroscopic realm, which is why the atomic and molecular model cannot be promoted as true but only as an unproven assumption.
Great article on antibodies. One fact stands out – you can’t create an anti thing in the realm of reality to a thing that doesn’t exist.
An item of interest –
You could fertilize 40 acres of farmland with what’s in this article –
Why Spike Protein Causes Abnormal, Foot-Long Blood Clots, 200 Symptoms
It has combined many of the errors of virology and biology to create the illusion of the cause of a condition that the medical establishment desperately needs to promote as real. The blood clots are caused directly by the ingredients in the COVID injections, not by the alleged spike proteins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I note that project fear and gaslighting ride a bandwagon of stories.
S-protein (why support a spike agenda) is what exactly?
It appears to be an intrinsic element in a GoF narrative riding on the marketing of ‘solutions’ for respiratory infection assigned to patho-genetics.
But when they say s-protein is found in the body – what is found?
I just found Torsten’s interview here: Maybe I’ll find out.
(translation option top right corner)
Great interview. The injections are toxic in and of themselves. The body doesn’t produce any harmful toxins through alleged spike protein production. However, light microscopy will not detect GO nanoparticles in sheets below a certain limit. However, micro Raman spectroscopy can be used to obtain its signature under specific circumstances. Its appearance can also be detected by electron microscopy. Its interference in the electrical charge of the cell can also be demonstrated. The PEG coating on the lipid is toxic also. As for mRNA in the lipid, you would need a study showing the presence of biological material within it. To date I’ve seen no such studies. Additionally, I would question if what is claimed to be synthetic mRNA is actually biological material at all, if it is present within the lipid.
“A lipid nanoparticle is typically spherical with an average diameter between 10 and 1000 nanometers. Solid lipid nanoparticles possess a solid lipid core matrix that can solubilize lipophilic molecules. The lipid core is stabilized by surfactants (emulsifiers).”
“Graphene-based materials usually have sizes ranging from several to hundreds of nanometer and are 1-10 nm thick [8, 9], which is also the definition of ‘nanoparticles’ or ‘nanomaterials’.”
“As was shown by Abbe over 100 years ago, the wave nature of light imposes a fundamental constraint on the attainable spatial resolution known as the “diffraction limit of light” (1). For commonly used dyes and high numerical aperture oil immersion objectives, this resolution limit is on the order of 250–300 nm.”
It is apparent that sheets of graphene oxide nanoparticles might be produced and placed inside lipid nanoparticles that cannot be seen with light microscopy.
Others metals could also be present in the injections as was discussed in the interview. And then there is the possibility that all the injections are not created equal.
I would question to what extent the body can break down the PEG lipid coatings and then fail to neutralize the contents within the lipid particles. The body may not be able to deal with chemical elements below a certain size limit. And if these elements are toxic then the situation is hopeless. We know the body cannot repair damage from certain kinds of radiation became it has no defense mechanism to do so. The body was created to deal with toxic elements created in a natural environment. It probably has no defense against unnaturally produced toxins that are injected into it bypassing natural barriers.
Thx. My sense of the body or indeed life, could be called a work in progress of unfolding potentials. Change and challenge can be a death spiral or a growth spurt or both…and more. Narrative beliefs found and accepted false are many. Neuro plasticity, or adaptive development of bacteria that digest ‘unbiodegradable’ plastic – for example. So as well as the science, I note the stories that we want to believe – especially negative self-reinforcements, which run less obvious because they are self-limiting and destructive.
I have a concern that the mRNA theory/dogma will serve as the story of broken genes – in place of this focus in toxic lipids/nanoparticles. Broken genes can then reset the idea of original sin as the basis for biotech control.
I sense that inheritance and in-formational fields are much more subtle and alive than genetic dogma – linking more to quantum coherent domains in water as biofield interactions at nano scales and timings. Hence I also think the intent attempt to marketise or weaponise biofield technology™ – which includes hyping ‘Potential applications’ to attract investors, that then acquires a momentum as an identity complex of invested stakeholders that may be unwilling or misinformed when the hype turns out to be …hype.
There is no direct evidence (non-interpretable evidence) of the existence of the so-called graphene oxide, which is why any “indirect evidence” (“interpretable evidence”) of the existence of the hypothetical graphene oxide is irrelevant, as it cannot be confirmed by experiments of correct control. You cannot claim that there is a “signature” of graphene oxide that is detected by indirect methods, as long as the existence of the hypothetical graphene oxide has not been uninterpretably proven by direct means.
Can you use a tool to detect the presence of something that the tool is made of? If you try to do this someone will always argue that you’re merely detecting what is in the tool and not what is external to it. This is the case with atoms and subatomic particles. We can only use the matter/energy composition of our instruments to measure other matter/energy compositions. If we say that the things we measure are not real then we must also conclude that our instruments are not real because they are of the same composition. All the elements we know of are listed on the periodic table of the elements. What makes them different from each other is their atomic structure. There are various ways of measuring and manipulating the structure of the elements to demonstrate the reality of their existence. Several of the ways of manipulating them is to subject them to the various forces of nature. A particle accelerator is an example of this. It measures the reaction of subatomic particles in collision at various energy levels. It really doesn’t matter whether you think of particles as waves of energy or as particles. There is still something there that can be measured, manipulated and classified. Graphene oxide, which is an allotrope of carbon, has its own unique classification relative to all other elements.
Mentions graphene oxide at around minute 25, something that may resembe
He seems to think there is synthetic mRNA in the lipid. But didn’t he also say that the lipids don’t penetrate the cell membranes? His conclusion is that the injections contain some unknown toxic substance. If I recall correctly mRNA is extremely fragile and easily disintegrates. I have my doubts about how they would be able to manufacturer it.
Submicroscopic sciences are just scams with no science in them.
Remember the fairy tale about the emperor’s invisible clothes.
“It is easier to deceive people than to convince them that they have been deceived.”
– Mark Twain.
Something is happening, and can be verified.
The explanations or theories that are posed or assumed true may be wrong.
The trend is to mathematical models that can be used to pose as science without empirical verifications.
Your inputs simply negate everything under the god of ‘everything is a lie’.
It may be a partial perspective or a limited perspective rather than a ‘lie’.
It becomes a lie if assumed to be the whole truth and used as a basis to deny science or dialogue.
Following a discussion today.
Spot the inconsistencies, fabricating the science to fit some empirical observations?
May not be the best links and my knowledge in chemistry very rusty but one can figure out that it is made up.
Dmitri Mendeleev Publishes his Periodic Table – 6th March 1869.
And the electrons were supposed to have been first discovered in
October 1897: The Discovery of the Electron
Each element is distinguished by the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons that it possess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It gets even better
Looked up protons and neutron , they were ‘discovered’ even later than the so called electrons . It sounds more like we make up a theory and produce the science later and put together indirect interpretations to fit the theoretical models.
I did a quick search , apparently the proton was suggested in 1815 and credited to 1917 as for the neutron it was ‘discovered’ in 1932.
And when I think we had to learn a lot of the made up ‘ stuff’ that includes the theoretical models in chemistry, fortunately missed out on most of the quantum mechanics.
“ The discovery of the proton is credited to Ernest Rutherford, who proved that the nucleus of the hydrogen atom (i.e. a proton) is present in the nuclei of all other atoms in the year 1917.”
“ The British physicist Sir James Chadwick discovered neutrons in the year 1932. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in the year 1935 for this discovery.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! They create a concept for a new molecule and fit it into a hypothetical model or framework and then claim that this proves it exists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once institutional science has a paradigm they use it as a fulcrum of infinite hardness, with the ability to lever anything into existence because the paradigm cannot be questioned.
This is a constant hazard once one has a paradigm. You have to always check what the new data does to the paradigm as a whole, as well as what it does to any competing paradigms, and stand ready to discard any paradigm at any time based on new data or new arguments. This readiness is exactly what institutional science lacks and can never have by its very nature. They will never countenance foundational questions, even if the foundation was built on assumptions and guesses in the first place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I assume , if virology falls a lot of the unfounded theories will be also questioned.
Matter of time before we get sites like chemlieology and a physiclielogy .
The state of science.
At around 2 hours and 47 min,
The god particle and the Quantum Zoo,
paraphrasing l as if they are on drugs and hallucinating and making up this shit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To fail to discriminate an imagined model and the reality to which and in which it is applied is to mistake illusion for truth. To persist in self-illusion in place of truth and set over against it, is the lie and the father of it, for a wish is held that reality be different than it is and the mind is set to react as if such were in fact true.
Truth is no more the domain of science, than health the domain of medicine.
Yet logic serves any experience of accepted active self identification and release of false or limiting perspectives, as the developing consciousness. Sowing and reaping is no less a logic than garbage in; garbage out.
That we can sow and reap misery is in our capacity to turn a blind eye to an act of withholding or withdrawal from a true relational communication, to engage in private or self-adjusted ‘realities’ of social and personal masking, set over and against our reality, framed by masking beliefs as threat and enemy to deeply invested and defended identity. For the miser gives not of himself but grudgingly from a mind set in grievance over fears of pain of loss.
So what of our philosophical and scientific models, that have consolidated to utilitarian technologism by which the ‘user’ becomes the utility to its own system, and the model the basis from which living sacrifice is exacted to ‘save’ its appearance as the asserted and necessary reality – instead of a true feedback or appearances or symptoms by which to address and undo fallacies that set conflict, pain, sickness and loss as defaults from which to ‘build back from’?
The truth of anything is not in itself, but in the purpose to which it is being used or serving. Clearly we say one thing while doing another and so the honest evaluation of our current results, is our check against self-deceptions set in mutually reinforcing emotion or identity-backed reactions,
The notion of infinity particles aligning to love has to recognise Infinity as Self-extending, and love as unifying coherence of integral resonance or wave function’ – such as was held to be the nature of the aether.
At the heart is our focus in and of infinity. Awareness as existence un-thinged or un-thought. But the movie of a masking mind runs as if a reality-experience to which we are subjected, thrilled and killed by. The psychic-emotional underpinnings of our experience-results are kept hidden by the driven intent to resolve deeper conflict in a surface of symptoms flagged as ‘powers’ unto themselves. As reflecting a wish or belief to be a power unto our self.
There Is true Context of which we are integrally in and of.
There is freedom to create or think experience of, excepting this, what we are actively accepting, sets the basis and range for what can unfold therefrom.
But while we focus in our appearances as fact, we are not aware of the thought that literally creates our perceptions and responses.
I generally write to bridge this apparent divide – bringing in psychic/spiritual responsibility as well as philosophical perspective. The cult I see growing is base on ‘you are being lied to!’ or ‘Everything is a lie!” – as if THAT in itself confers some kind of virtue of moral superiority!.
A lie passes OFF as true. There are no counterfeit 11 dollar bills. Love of truth is not shared by gnawing on a bone of lies, or endless rabbit holes that arrive where they began but as illusions of being more ‘awake’ because we have studied the ‘arts of the enemy’. Yet only love of true CAN in truth share anything. So regardless all evidences, the truth of love reveals beneath appearances through the undoing of what temporarily passes off as true to a limited and limiting understanding and appreciation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
youstupidrelativist.com has been around for a long time. Modern physics debunking site.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mike and others are doing great work in debunking the falsehoods. Keep it up..
Someone has been telling me for some time that something just does not feel right , even with all the stories in the alternative circles.
I think Dr Cowan got it right.
Humanity has lost objective reality .
Everyone is making up stories similar to prescience or as kids, when we used to sit around the campfire and let our imagination go astray and scare the shit out of each other.( gain of fiction)
Now the BS it is done with fancy equipment by the adults that never grow up or the new priests , the ‘scientist’ , only they can do the ‘science’ and tell us about the particles that even they cannot see ( at submicroscopic level) and all the ‘wonderful’ theories about viruses, atoms , molecules.
And you have the academics and media spreading the ‘gospel’ and the ‘good ‘news to the masses who all cheer the ‘ break-through ‘in science , the ‘ wonderful ‘ imaginary discoveries.
The world has turned into a lunatic asylum.
Humans are just creating more problems with their ‘science’ and then, claim only more science will solve the problems we created eg. pesticides or toxic medication/ injections and we need to detox or other medication for side-effects.
Take away from Dr Tom Cowan interview
The only choice is a society based on reality.
There is an objective reality, interesting video towards the end how humanity got astray by a nihilism way of thinking.
By assuming there is no objective reality , to create a non-existent reality playing ‘god ‘ and making up stuff eg.viruses, cellular biology structures, artificial food etc .
And the books he plans to write, one of them about
What is real biology, 200 blank pages and on the last one , it is all BS.
• What responses has Dr. Cowan received regarding his stance on viruses?
• What is needed to prove something exists?
• They say there’s not enough virus in a person to measure, even in someone who is said to have died from it.
• Supposed isolation of a virus by giving antibiotics and starving the cell sample.
• Separating the snot from the person and putting it in a culture. Culture cells die, supposedly proving the virus exists.
• List of structures or functions said to exist in human biology that haven’t been proven to exist or proven to not exist. They are actually artifacts of the way we find thing in cells.
• Ribosome supposedly makes protein and means the rib of the body. They are mocking you.
• DNA in nucleus makes RNA, which supposedly goes to ribosome and makes protein. How can RNA escape from the nucleus yet nothing can get into the nucleus?
• Mitochondria supposedly located in endoplasmic reticulum. But the cristae lines look like cracks formed from freezing.
• Can’t be receptors in membranes.
• How does water make structure out of impulse?
• Wedding ring image created in water in petri dish laid on top of a wedding invitation.
• What is falling down? Water creates a London Bridge image.
• Antenna on top of Taj Mahal dome structure, and other historical buildings, conveying information to water.
• Thoughts or conceptions become actions which have consequences.
• What was the cause of death of a HIV scientist dying after 4 COVID jabs? His belief that the jabs would help him.
• Can’t treat anyone for an illness as long as their brain work is delusional.
• Dr. Cowan doesn’t want to change the system. Instead, commit to finding reality. The world will give you clues and help you.
• Trust senses, verify reality with others, then do science and validate every step. Keep looking to see if evidence is congruent with belief.
• Guides or angels will help you in your quest for discovering reality.
• How come all these smart people think something else? How smart are they really? Are they committed to not looking at the evidence?
• No such thing as right or wrong. No objective reality – it’s only what I say that determines right or wrong. That is the path of nothing is real, of nihilism.
• There is an ultimate reality. We don’t create reality, it is given in the world. We do create beliefs though.
• Creating reality is where we went wrong.
• Real food comes from nature. Eating fake or human engineered food is what makes people sick.
• Is more meat and less carbs a species appropriate diet? There are no successful human cultures that only ate animal foods. They ate what was growing In abundance in their area.
• You can’t live without killing things. Overly sentimental to think otherwise.
• Parasites come in and eat the impurities in us. Stop poisoning yourself and the parasites go away. They recycle your dead and dying tissue. Parasites eat poisons.
• What to do for someone that’s had the jab? Use it as a lesson in you’ve got to see the world differently. It’s a spiritual awakening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In any case, no test can detect antibodies if the underlying body has never been detected” Stefan Lanka
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is to ask you to look at ‘Bolus theory’ regarding vaccine injury. (If you haven’t already). There are some things we might take issue with, but not the core principles discussed.
This is primarily (as I can infer) an inherent risk with any injected substance of going into the vascular system and secondarily the destructive actions of PEG when it does so.
Aspiration is not required or recommended for vaccinations and serves to minimise risk of injecting into the bloodstream.
In my little search to clarify the field I looked at
Another context for me is a sense of distrust with what I see as a major media meme running with regard to sudden death ‘syndrome’, collapsing in public, and shutting down matches for a ‘medical emergency in a member of the crowd attending. The upshot of which is a growing conviction in vax-deaths being denied. (I don’t doubt vax-deaths occur and are denied). But the psyop seeks to use our emotional charge to set its narrative – and I suspect the mRNA as genetic damage – will be used to reinforce genetic dogma as the basis of life – along with reset to ‘original sin’ under the Church of Biotech Control Inc. The nocebo of being diagnosed at risk of sudden death (let alone all the other reported adverse effects) is not superficial. Many young men suicided on receiving a positive (hiv) Aids test result. Others accepted cytopathic and usually fatal treatments.
Of course this goes out to anyone reading the comments 😉
I know it’s not directly virus-related, but the issue beneath is a false and destructive model of life, biology & disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Brian! I will check it out. 🙂