Teilhard The patron saint of the singularity and hoaxes

 historian Tom Holland discussing the Pittdown man hoax, and the racism (eugenic idea that British were superior because mankind evolved in the UK) behind why so may eagerly accepted the hoax:

I should add: This idea no longer is accepted, and the anti white rhetoric is partly in response to this racism 100 years ago...

but using evolution to prove one's superiority is not limited to the Brits.

the Chinese propaganda machine continues to push the idea that the Peking Man proves the Chinese are superior.

All authors agree that the Chinese discussions about Peking Man—and more broadly, paleoanthropology and prehistorical archaeology—serve a nationalist agenda with its racial implications.

However, there is not only a divergence regarding the significance of such a racial aspect in the nationalism, but also and more importantly a lack of a theoretical explanation as to why the discourse is racial, although simply by creating and applying those concepts a reader informed by fundamental knowledge about racial thinking can clearly see the association between them.

This theoretical elaboration is necessary not only because it will effectively engage the Chinese defence that has rejected even nationalist—let alone racial—implications of the discourse, but also because it will contribute to our understanding of the varieties of scientific racism that appear to have nothing to do with a harmful or even dangerous racist agenda.

Of course, the Peking man fossils were lost during WWII (how convenient), and some speculate that like Richard II, they might be found under a Peking parking lot. But similar fossil finds suggest that, unlike Piltdown man, they were real.

so what do both of these finds have in common?

Both had links to Teilhard Chardin, a Jesuit whose posthumous works postulated that mankind was evolving toward an omega point (published after he died because the Vatican recognized them as heresy and forbad their publication, so he gave them to a friend who published them after he died). He is sort of a saint to the modernists, who would like to turn the old fuddy duddy Church with it's ten commandments into the Church of what's happening now, promoting the green religion and the religion of if it feels good why can it be wrong.

Well, those sins have been around for centuries, and the green religion mixes both good and bad, the bad part being the elites who want to tell farmers how to grow stuff without modern seeds or chemicals, and if the society collapses from food being scarce and expensive, well, that is not their fault.

but these things are getting push back from those nasty conservatives but also from reality.

The real danger of Teilhard's ideas is the mythology of utopia that is infiltrating society.

the evolution to a superman/omega point proposed in his books is still resonating with the transhumanist types. And the heresy part is not the science of evolution, but the fact that in this myth there is no place for Jesus as Savior of the world, and that his life and death and resurrection are important.

Of course, when even the Pope goes around saying all religions lead to God and forgets to mention Jesus, this echoes Teilhard's ideas (and is based on an assumption that religion and God are not real but psychological ways to cope with reality).

The irony is that Teilhard was there when the fossils of the Piltdown man was discovered, and strangely enough, that he found a tooth that was needed to convince many that the skull was real.

Some people even suspect he was part of the hoax, but the more charitable insist that his actions  might have been a joke that went wrong. The Conversation discusses.

Nature magazine also discusses.

Regardless of who was responsible, the Piltdown hoax is a stark reminder to scientists that if something seems too good to be true, then perhaps it is. The hoax is unprecedented in its complexity (some of the Piltdown finds were more expertly modified than others, and the skill of the forger(s) is one of the aspects we are examining). But it is not the only example of trickery within palaeontological and archaeological circles.

Piltdown Man's temporary ascendancy undoubtedly cost the field. For instance, it delayed widespread acceptance of Australopithecus africanus, an early hominin found in South Africa in the mid-1920s, as a genuinely ancient relic of human evolution.

Less obviously, Piltdown Man demonstrates the power of the scientific method to expose the truth, eventually....(but only after) the discoveries at Piltdown were steadily undermined by finds made elsewhere, even though the reasons for the specimens' failure to withstand scrutiny were not fully articulated until 1953.

again, this makes one laugh. Why did it take so long? Fear of objecting to the scientific consensus? Fear of being seen as objecting to the trendy Darwinian Eugenics and maybe even allying oneself with those dumb Papists?

Dirty little secrect:

The political wish  to support British racial superiority rather than science per se sort of discouraged the discussion of the fossils as a hoax.

And later investigations suggest that Dawson, who found the fossil, had faked a lot of his fossil finds.

the Conversation article quotes his letter hinting that he knew about it, so why did he keep quiet about the hoax?

and indeed he might, since according to this WAPOST article, link2 he found the canine tooth 

Later "excavations" at two Piltdown sites revealed a jaw bone, teeth, stone tools and a piece of carved fossil bone deemed a "cricket bat." They also cast a cloud of suspicion over everyone who took part. A volunteer in Woodward's department, Martin Hinton, seemed a likely suspect, especially after researchers at the Natural History Museum discovered a trunk of stained bones he'd left in storage there. Some skeptics eyed Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit priest and prominent paleontologist, who discovered a canine tooth that figured prominently in the skull's identification.

so here is the ripple effect.

Darwininan evolution suggested there is no God because things evolved naturally. But it also suggested evolution of the fittest. Get rid of God and compassion for the weak( most religions say God wanted people be humble and help others and that greed is bad, and Christianity adds: since folk were getting it wrong and killing those who pointed this out, he sent his Son to show them.), 

Get rid of true religion, and voila, Greed is good, destroying the environment in the name of profit is good, and science is god. 

So Nazi eugenic ideas about untermensch were scientific, and destroying the retarded, the brain damaged, Jews, Gays, Gypsies was okay, and using Slavs and others in countries they conquered was justified.

But science demands honesty. Science is not dogma, but a description of what is observed, so future observations will change our ideas.(Catholicism at least has long held that God can be found not just in the Bible but in the book of nature, so accepts science as good. And don't point out Galileo: His theories could not be proved by science until they changed the orbits to oval instead of round, and decided the universe was larger than believed, so the parallax arguments no longer held).

And so before one condemns the Piltdown hoax, maybe condemn the medical journals and experts who pushed the various covid hoaxes without proper skepticism.

original Lancet article March 2020 Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 insisting that Covid came from wild animals. and they cite lots of experts who say this, while calling those who question this conspiracy theorists.

In Oct 2021, they printed another article An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 that said whoops, that article and several others not only didn't prove that theory. But these articles silenced those who questioned it. (sorry about that Chief).

it took them awhile: The rival journal the BMJ noted this in July 2021:The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?

Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say that objective consideration of covid-19’s origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.” A leader in this campaign has been Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit organisation given millions of dollars in grants by the US federal government to research viruses for pandemic preparedness.

Over the years EcoHealth Alliance has subcontracted out its federally supported research to various scientists and groups, including around $600 000 (£434 000; €504 000) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Shortly after the pandemic began, Daszak effectively silenced debate over the possibility of a lab leak with a February 2020 statement in the Lancet.  “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that covid-19 does not have a natural origin,” said the letter, which listed Daszak as one of 27 coauthors.

Daszak did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The BMJ.

so we have a butterfly effect.

expert whose organization funded the covid virus research in Wuhan gets others to support the idea that it came from animals and silenced anyone who questioned this.

And of course, the establishment that went along with this, and not only didn't allow anyone (even President Trump) to question the story, but managed to censor discussions of treatment, quarantines, and vaccines.

When science is god, then questioning the priests of science is heresy, and you will be punished for doing this.

and it started with Piltdown:

Science hoax on evolution not investigated because it went along with politics of British racial superiority.

 Priest who was there kept quiet for 40 years even though his letters hint he knew the truth.

Peking man bones are being used by China to prove the superiority of the Han Chinese race today.  

Priest who knew about the Piltdown hoax goes on to reject the central beliefs in Catholicism: i.e.  that Christ's life and death meant God intervened in history to make the world a better place and the good news that the reality behind the world is a God who loves you. 

Instead, we have evolution of man to the omega point, a theories similar to the tranhumanist theories  that imply man will evolve to become god.

Julian Huxley, the biologist and eugenicist (and brother to writer Aldous Huxley), was deeply impacted by Teilhard.

In 1957, Huxley wrote: “The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —not just sporadically…but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but trans­cending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.” This was the origin of modern transhumanism—a movement largely characterized by the concepts of emerging superintelligence, and an exponential arc of evolution.

the article goes into more of this idea, and indeed, how Pope Francis encyclical on the love of nature echoes his ideas.

This is getting into theology which is over my head but when I read this type of stuff, I notice it is about the elites evolving into supermen one with the universe, not about the guy planting rice or driving a tricycle trying to make a living, or the mom caring for her baby, or those living an ordinary life. 

In transhumanism and much of the modern world, the aim of life is success, happiness, and fulfilling your desires. Hmm... hasn't this idea been a plot in many sci fi stories (Cordwainer Smith anyone?) and movies.

This requires of course health and a high IQ and oodles of money. So the implication is that the lives of ordinary folk are worthless (useless eaters anyone?)

In contrast, in traditional Christianity, every life is valuable, and so is living an ordinary life, to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with him in the next.

So proposing evolution as God, with man's aim is not to know love and serve God, but as a cog in the evolution of a superman, who will presumably rule the world, suggests that science has evolved from a search for truth to the handmaid of the powerful to shape and control the world..

sigh.

MPox: Not caught by nearby contact

CDC traced contacts of those traveling in the same airplane with a person with MPox, and found no one got the disease.

During 2021–2022, 113 persons traveled on commercial flights while they were infectious with clade II mpox. Among 1,046 traveler contacts followed by U.S. public health agencies, CDC identified no secondary cases.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Traveling on a flight with a person with mpox does not appear to constitute an exposure risk or warrant routine contact tracing activities.

Hmm... guess none of these folks joined the mile high club during the trip. 

spontaneous micro stuctures

 

awaiting Youtube to remove the video, so I will post this transcript 

 0:00 a warm welcome to this talk it's Friday 0:02 the 6th of September now I've heard 0:04 about this phenomena years ago of course 0:06 but only just got some evidence to 0:08 support it so we can only just report on 0:10 it now this is from peer-reviewed 0:12 literature and it's a scientists based 0:14 in Japan and South Korea and what 0:17 they've done is they've taken covid 0:18 vaccines mostly fiser and Mna and 0:21 cultured them incubated them to try and 0:23 duplicate the conditions in the human 0:25 body and the found Nano structures have 0:28 developed now I don't expect you're 0:30 going to watch this video or or be 0:32 allowed to watch this video but I'm 0:33 going to do it anyway and if by some 0:35 chance a few of you actually get to see 0:37 it then that's brilliant now here's the 0:39 equipment that was actually uh used here 0:42 it's stereo microscopes now basically 0:44 all this means is you looking at it with 0:47 two eyes therefore you get stereoscopic 0:49 vision and what happened was that 0:50 initially they developed two dimensional 0:53 Nano structures and then some became 0:55 three-dimensional as well and of course 0:56 you can see that with a stereo 0:58 stereoscopic mic scope let's go and look 1:01 at some now that was the equipment that 1:03 they were using uh and of course these 1:06 days you know so much look down the 1:07 microscope it all goes on a screen so 1:10 you can take copies of it now these are 1:13 from the publication these are the some 1:15 of the Nano structures that were 1:16 observed in uh as I've said before uh 1:20 conditions that were designed to 1:21 duplicate human cells in the human body 1:24 that developed uh from the covid 1:27 vaccines the Mr the MRNA vaccine 1:30 now the scale here um we'll we'll I'll 1:33 just show you a couple of pictures and 1:34 we'll look at the scale so these are the 1:36 sort of structures that were finding I 1:38 mean what the heck is that you know that 1:40 that is a structure that 1:42 spontaneously um sort of put itself 1:44 together a spontaneous assembly of this 1:47 structure from the covid vaccine uh 1:50 cultures now the scale here uh 10 uh 10 1:53 micrometers um so that's uh so one one 1:58 micrometer would be uh one micrometer 2:01 would be um the size of a sort of a 2:03 bacterial cell seven micrometers would 2:06 be the size of a red blood cell so you 2:07 can see these are Nano structures but 2:09 this is a very detailed looking 2:11 structure that has spontaneously 2:13 assembled itself here really quite uh 2:16 really quite 2:17 um um yeah well look at it you know that 2:20 that that spontaneously assembled itself 2:23 what the heck uh is it um now uh of 2:27 course as always we don't have uh I 2:29 wouldn't be giving full answers to these 2:31 questions read the paper for yourself 2:33 but this these this means the presence 2:36 of these Nano structures needs to be 2:38 explained by the manufacturers and by uh 2:41 International authorizing agencies and 2:43 National authorizing agencies around the 2:46 world this is a peer-reviewed 2:47 publication and I believe it gives 2:49 questions to be 2:51 answered um even if it's only that this 2:54 is a load of rubbish then that still 2:56 needs to be still needs to be answered 2:57 let's look at a couple more pictures 2:59 before we look at the text 3:00 um so these spiral ones seem to come up 3:03 again spontaneously just put themselves 3:06 together spontaneous sort 3:08 of another Spiral there um another one 3:14 there tell you what I don't like the 3:17 idea of these spontaneously forming in 3:18 the themselves of my body if that is 3:20 indeed the case we don't know that but 3:21 if that's the case I don't like the idea 3:23 of it at all not at all and 10 3:26 micrometers that's actually pretty big 3:27 actually um if that's the scale there 10 3:29 micr M um so this this whole thing is 3:33 actually uh is actually quite 3:35 large uh relatively 3:37 speaking what is 3:40 that spontaneously formed 3:45 structure well that one anyway lots more 3:48 examples in the uh paper

 

do uh look at 3:52 it for yourself and check it out that 3:54 the paper is there and the pictures are 3:56 all there now um as I say I don't think 3:58 many people are going to be watch this 4:00 video because I'm not optimistic about 4:02 getting a wide distribution shall we say 4:05 but never mind we're going to do it 4:07 anyway

 

um so real time self assembly 4:10 self assembly these things are bolting 4:12 themselves together as it were of 4:15 stereoscopic stereo microscopically 4:17 visible so you can see them through the 4:18 stereo 4:19 microscope um specimens of mRNA products 4:23 mainly from fiser and madna a 4:25 comprehensive longitudinal study so 4:27 Construction in constructions 4:30 in incubated specimens of mRNA products 4:36 is what these workers did and our 4:39 observation suggests the presence of 4:40 some kind of nanotechnology in the C 4:42 injectables now I'm I know what I'm um I 4:45 know this is sounds pretty um uh 4:48 interesting material and I'm only I'm 4:51 being very very very careful not to go 4:53 outside of what the article is saying 4:56 the peer-reviewed article is saying and 4:57 of course I'll be giving you full 4:58 references and everything for that um so 5:02 I'm being very careful in this in this 5:04 video not to go outside what it's saying 5:06 observable observable realtime injuries 5:09 at cellular 5:11 level in the recipients of the safe and 5:14 effective co9 injectables are documented 5:18

 

Here For the First Time hence the fact 5:20 that we're doing it I think this paper 5:21 just came out a few days ago last week 5:23 maybe with a presentation of a 5:25 comprehensive description and Analysis 5:27 of observed phenomena that need to be 5:30 explained the global administration of 5:32 these often mandated products from late 5:34 2020 triggered a plethora of independent 5:37 research studies why weren't they 5:40 nationally sponsored and Industry 5:42 sponsored research studies why is it 5:44 down to Independent scientists and I 5:46 have talked to uh several other 5:48 independent scientists who've come up 5:50 with similar findings to this but I'm 5:52 can't talk about those because it's not 5:53 published in the peer-reviewed 5:54 literature we're going to stick to what 5:55 is in the peer-reviewed literature um 6:00 of uh of of modified RNA injectable Gene 6:04 therapies so of course they're injecting 6:06 genetic material instructing the body to 6:09 make foreign proteins they are not 6:12 injecting the protein directly most 6:15 noticeably those manufactured by fizer 6:17 and madna in this 6:20 paper uh analysis report analyses 6:24 reported 6:25 here consists of precise laboratory 6:28 bench science aiming to understand why 6:31 serious debilitating prolonged injuries 6:33 and many other side of this particular 6:35 adverse reaction um occurred 6:38 increasingly without any measurable 6:39 protective effect uh the contents of the 6:42 covid-19 injectables were examined under 6:44 a stereo microscope up up to 400 times 6:48 magnification um carefully preserved 6:50 specimens were cultured in a range of 6:53 distinct 6:54 media uh to observe immediate and 6:58 long-term cause and effect relationships 7:00 between the injectables and living cells 7:02 under carefully controlled conditions in 7:04 other words I'm not saying these 7:05 scientists succeeded in doing that but 7:07 what they were trying to do is duplicate 7:08 living conditions in the laboratory 7:11 bench where they could look at it under 7:12 these microscopes 

they were attempting 7:14 to duplicate the physiological 7:16 conditions of the human body the degree 7:20 to which they did that I'm not really 7:23 able to adjudicate on but they they did 7:25 their best to do that and again this 7:27 needs to be duplicated around the world 7:30 and it needs to be explained because I 7:31 mean he I mean look at that I mean look 7:33 at it I mean what is that what are these 7:37 things 

um I mean it's just yeah an 7:42 explanation is clearly required here I 7:45 would have thought I would have thought 7:48 let me know what you think anyway let's 7:50 carry on carefully control conditions 7:53 from such research reasonable inferences 7:56 can be drawn about observed injury so 7:57 they're saying that it's reasonable the 7:59 the the researchers here are saying it's 8:01 reasonable to uh make inferences from 8:04 what they're seeing in the laboratory to 8:05 what will be happening in the body 8:06 because they're trying to duplicate the 8:08 conditions in the body of course the 8:09 study should be done in the body as well 8:12 

this should be a a great trigger for 8:14 future research um done by authorized uh 8:19 institutions around the world and 8:21 

Regulatory bodies around the world this 8:23 should be done to explain this don't 8:25 hold your 8:28 breath right uh from such research 8:30 reasonable influences can be drawn about 6:33 and many other side of this particular 6:35 adverse reaction um occurred 6:38 increasingly without any measurable 6:39 protective effect uh the contents of the 6:42 covid-19 injectables were examined under 6:44 a stereo microscope up up to 400 times 6:48 magnification um carefully preserved 6:50 specimens were cultured in a range of 6:53 distinct 6:54 media uh to observe immediate and 6:58 long-term cause and effect relationships 7:00 between the injectables and living cells 7:02 under carefully controlled conditions 

in 7:04 other words I'm not saying these 7:05 scientists succeeded in doing that but 7:07 what they were trying to do is duplicate 7:08 living conditions in the laboratory 7:11 bench where they could look at it under 7:12 these microscopes they were attempting 7:14 to duplicate the physiological 7:16 conditions of the human body the degree 7:20 to which they did that I'm not really 7:23 able to adjudicate on but they they did 7:25 their best to do that and again this 7:27 needs to be duplicated around the world 7:30 and it needs to be explained because I 7:31 mean he I mean look at that I mean look 7:33 at it I mean what is that what are these 7:37 things um I mean it's just yeah an 7:42 explanation is clearly required here I 7:45 would have thought I would have thought 7:48 

let me know what you think anyway let's 7:50 carry on carefully control conditions 7:53 from such research reasonable inferences 7:56 can be drawn about observed injury so 7:57 they're saying that it's reasonable the 7:59 the the researchers here are saying it's 8:01 reasonable to uh make inferences from 8:04 what they're seeing in the laboratory to 8:05 what will be happening in the body 8:06 because they're trying to duplicate the 8:08 conditions in the body 

of course the 8:09 study should be done in the body as well 8:12 this should be a a great trigger for 8:14 future research um done by authorized uh 8:19 institutions around the world and 8:21 Regulatory bodies around the world this 8:23 should be done to explain this 

don't 8:25 hold your 8:28 breath right uh from such research 8:30 reasonable influences can be drawn about 8:32 OBS observed injuries worldwide that 8:35 have occurred since the injectables were 8:37 pressed upon billions of individuals so 8:38 they're saying that this basically what 8:40 they're saying is I think this is a 8:41 pathophysiological mechanism that could 8:43 explain the adverse reactions or some of 8:45 the adverse reactions that we are 8:48 tragically seeing and of course we've 8:50 interviewed quite a few people now on 8:52 this channel who suffered uh from this 8:55 as 8:56 well uh in addition to Cellular toxicity

 8:59 if that wasn't bad 9:01 enough our findings reveal numerous on 9:04 the order of three to so that's between 9:07 that's that's 10 to the 6 that's um 3 to 9:09 four million of these artifacts per Mill 9:13 of the injectable heck that's 9:15 four four one two three one two three up 9:19 to up to four million between three and 9:22 four million dear me visible artifacts 9:25 self assembling entities self- 9:28 assembling entities ranging from about 1 9:31 micrometer to about 100 micrometers 100 9:33 microns or greater of many different 9:36 shapes as we said one me one micrometers 9:38 about the size of a bacterial cell if 9:40 you've got good young eyes you could 9:41 probably just about see an object of 100 9:44 micrometers uh it's a 10 10th of a 9:46 millimeter isn't it with the naked eye 9:48 at a push I probably couldn't at my age 9:50 but maybe we my glasses 

anyway the 9:55 researchers go 9:57 on they were animated were like entities 10:00 dis chains spirals tubes right angled 10:03 right angled 10:04 structures right angled structures 10:07 containing other artifact artifactual 10:09 entities within 10:11 them artifacts within 10:13 artifacts all these are exceedingly 10:16 Beyond any expected and acceptable level 10:18 of contamination of the covid-19 10:22 injectables thought 3 to four million 10:24 per Mill is way off the scale indeed an 10:27 incubation studies revealed the uh 10:30 Progressive self assembly self assembly 10:34 of many artifactual structures what the 10:37 heck are they as time progressed during 10:40 incubation simple one and two 10:42 dimensional structures over two or 3 10:43 weeks became more complex in shape and 10:46 size developing into stereoscopically 10:48 visible entities in three 10:52 dimensions these became 10:54 three-dimensional 10:55 structures in their incubated cultures 10:58 designed to replicate the conditions 11:00 inside the human 11:03 body 

um they resembled uh carbon nanot 11:07 tube filaments ribbons tapes some 11:09 appearing as transparent thin flat 11:11 membranes others as 11:13 three-dimensional spiral beaded 11:16 chains some of these seem to appear then 11:19 disappear over time our observations 11:22 suggest the presence of some kind of 11:25 nanotechnology in the covid-19 11:27 injectables now this is directly from 11:30 peer review literature 

um I don't expect 11:33 you'll see it I suspect strongly that I 11:36 am currently uh talking to myself in the 11:40 back room in Carlile 11:42 somewhere um um if some if you do get to 11:45 see it then we consider that a bonus you 11:48 can think about it um now I'll just give 11:51 you some of the uh references here for 11:53 this so this is the uh this is the 11:55 journal here 

uh International Journal of 11:59 vaccine theory practice and research the 12:03 international journey of Journal of 12:04 theory practice and research is a 12:06 peer-reviewed scholarly Open Access 12:08 Journal uh concerning the development 12:10 distribution and monitoring of vaccines 12:12 and their components all content is 12:15 freely available without charge to the 12:16 user or his her institution which of 12:19 course is excellent 

users May Read 12:21 download copy distribute print search or 12:23 link the full text of Articles or use 12:25 them for any other lawful purpose 12:28 permission is not required from the 12:30 publisher nor from the author but we do 12:32 give them full credit of 12:35 course isn't this 12:37 refreshing this is 12:39 our work we're reporting on it and it's 12:44 it's free it's in the public domain it 12:46 is the anti antithesis of the 12:48 control of the control 12:51 agenda that so often we've seen with 12:53 people not wanting to release papers for 12:56 decades after the uh research was been 12:59 done very refreshing so that is about 13:01 the journal there um the actual article 13:05 itself is uh we got the article 13:10 itself um what do I do oh there we go 13:13 that's the that's the journal there uh 13:15 that's the full journal and again you 13:18 can download the full Journal quite uh 13:21 excellent so that's the paper that's the 13:24 journal 

I've downloaded in PDF of course 13:27 and that's the attribution 13:29 non-commercial 13:30 nondirective deed I quite fully 13:33 understand that but it it just it's 13:35 great that it's basically uh share you 13:37 are free to share and uh it's just um 13:42 it's it's just and of course we give 13:43 full credit to the authors which I will 13:44 do now 13:46 um these are the authors here physician 13:50 Dr Young M Le uh Republic of Korea and 13:54 uh Professor BR brow okar Christian 13:57 University Japan 13:59 of course the links as always are there 14:01 to check them out for yourself so what 14:03 we've done is report on a peer review 14:05 paper it's in the scientific literature 14:06 as we've completely demonstrated in this 14:08 video I'm just sorry that um I suspect 14:12 that not many of you all get to watch 14:14 this video but there we go 14:20 um yeah isn't that transparency 14:22 refreshing and really refreshing to see 14:25 that this is our work look at it share 14:28 it agree with it disagree with it do 14:30 further work to prove it do further work 14:33 to say it's a load of rubbish but it's 14:34 there open for public peer analysis 14:40 brilliant the antithesis to so much of 14:42 the more 14:44 commercial 14:48 research of the 14:51 past few years and 14:53 decades but for now look the paper for 14:56 yourself let me know what you think 

if 14:58 any of you you actually get to see 15:01 it so bye hope I'm not talking to myself 15:04 but thank you for watching if somehow 15:06 you have COVID-19 vaccine

the PDF link to the article is here.

I haven't had time to read it, and it is probably something I am not an expert in (these sciences didn't exist when I was in medical school).

this journal's readers forum is looking for specialists to debunk the work and calls the journal that published this a sham journal.

there are a lot of people pointing out that one of the authors is a naturpathic doc, and that the main author seems to be someone who works on AI but no medical background except for conspiracy theories.

more debunking here. but when the article claims:

 

Specifically, the authors mentioned vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, and the antiparasitic drugs ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, none of which have proven effective at preventing or treating COVID-19.

Uh, actually there are articles that suggest these medicines work (and others that suggest they don't). So that is an unproven statement.

These are serious charges, especially in these days when anti vaxxers can claim anything and be believed by a significant subgroup of the population.

after the Dengue vaccine debacle, we saw a lot of anti vax stuff here, and that led to people not getting routine shots for their kids, and we had children dying of measles, and cases of whooping cough, whooping cough and even diphtheria.

Al Jezeerah has a report here. (I use AlJ because it is good for reporting on third world problems, and is not controlled by the US.)

This report notes the exaggeration of deaths supposedly caused by the vaccine (a few, but most of the deaths were not related, nor were the lives saved given publicity). And they report on the deaths caused by parents to afraid to get routine vaccines for their kids, especially measles vaccine.

that is why I had to laugh when the anti CIA conspiracy theorists claimed that the CIA put up stuff on social media to discourage people from taking the Chinese vaccine for two reasons :One, people were already suspicious of vaccines (indeed, our DOH refused to sign a non liability paper to get the mRNA vaccines offered to us in Jan 2021 because they didn't trust big pharma) and two: Population studies in Indonesia, which widely used the Sinovax, found it didn't work.

In other words, the anti vax people are gaining credibility because of the censorship of very real problems with the disease, and alas they tend to exaggerate the problems, and this will lead to more people dying, as we saw in the Philippines after the Dengue vaccine.

But what is not addressed in the debunking article is the actual claims about these microstructures.

anyone? Anyone? 

these seem to be crystalization problems that indeed would be better investigated by non physicians but experts in nano technology.

or as Dr. C asks:

 this should be a a great trigger for future research um done by authorized institutions around the world and  Regulatory bodies around the world 

... to explain this. 

Sigh.