Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery

The most famous sufferer from Nobel Disease has died

Luc Montagnier has died. He was the Nobel laureate whose descent into pseudoscience and conspiracies led me to coin the term “Nobel disease.” His final conspiracy theory before his death was to claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS.

In 2010, I coined the term “Nobel disease” to describe Nobel laureates who in their later years succumbed to pseudoscience, quackery, bad science, and even conspiracy theories. (At least, I think I coined the term; it’s possible that someone else did before me and I just used it enough that it became associated with me.) Although I mentioned other famous Nobel laureates who descended into nonsense years after winning their Nobels, such as Louis Ignarro (who became a pitchman for HerbaLife), Linus Pauling (who peddled quackery touting vitamin C as a cure-all for the common cold and cancer), and the like, my prime example was Luc Montagnier, who received the Nobel Prize as co-discoverer of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and, beginning in the late 2000s—and likely earlier—started promoting quackery such as homeopathy, antivaccine pseudoscience, and, most recently COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

Even more recently than Montagnier’s embrace of the “lab leak” conspiracy theory for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has come a claim that’s been bubbling up in the COVID-19 conspiracy underground that COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS, and at the heart of it appears to be—you guessed it—Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier. I had been meaning to address the claim, mainly because readers were asking me about it, when I started seeing reports popping up on social media that Luc Montagnier had died. At first, the reports were all in French and were unconfirmed, but then yesterday mainstream news outlets like the New York Times were reporting that Montagnier had died:

Luc Montagnier, a French virologist who shared a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the virus that causes AIDS, died on Tuesday in the Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine. He was 89.

The town hall in Neuilly confirmed that a death certificate for Dr. Montagnier had been filed there.

For all the glory that Dr. Montagnier earned in helping to discover the virus, today known as H.I.V., in later years he distanced himself from colleagues by dabbling in maverick experiments that challenged the basic tenets of science. Most recently he was an outspoken opponent of coronavirus vaccines.

I love how the NYT and other mainstream outlets understate the magnitude of the crankery of those suffering from the Nobel disease, like Luc Montagnier. “Maverick experiments that challenged the basic tenets of science”? I suppose you could call his experiments claiming support for DNA teleportation and homeopathy as “maverick experiments that challenged the basic tenets of science,” but only if you define “experiments” very, very loosely.

What do I mean? Let’s look at one example by taking a trip back in time to 2010 again. At that time, Luc Montagnier, already in the throes of Nobel disease, teamed up with autism quacks to put together a pseudoscientific and unethical clinical trial. The trial was sponsored by the Autism Treatment Trust (ATT) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI), both institutions that are–shall we say?–not exactly known for their scientific rigor. Indeed, DAN!— which, as you might recall, stood for “Defeat Autism Now!”consisted of a large number of practitioners offering all manner of quackery under the rubric of “autism biomed.” These doctors were listed on the registry of the antivaccine autism biomed group known as “Autism Research Institute,”an organization founded by Dr. Bernard Rimland in 1967 and more recently rebranded as Autism.com. DAN! physicians generally became DAN! physicians by undergoing training through the ARI, which held yearly DAN! conferences to discuss the latest autism biomed quackery. (Interestingly enough, in either an apparent attempt to become more “legitimate” or in response to lawsuits against DAN! doctors, ARI stopped maintaining its DAN! registry at the end of 2011.) Back in the late 1990s through much of the first decade of the 21st century, though, if you wanted to find an autism biomed quack, the DAN! list was the first list to check. 

With that background in mind, let’s return to the trial, which I’ve mentioned before dating back years. Montagnier teamed up with a Dr. Corinne Skorupka, who was a DAN! practitioner from France, and Dr. Lorene Amet, who was described as a neuroscientist but was a PhD and not an MD (i.e., not a clinician). A description of this study by these quacks and Montagnier, oddly enough, can no longer be found on the Autism Trust website, but, thanks to the almighty Wayback Machine at Archive.org, still exists under the title Project: Cold Bacterial Infections in Autism/ Professor Montagnier, Dr. Skorupka and Dr Amet. Here’s how it was described:

We are finally in a position to run some very exciting investigations/interventions with the support of Professor Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (for the discovery of HIV) and Dr. C. Skorupka a DAN! practitioner from Paris and long time friend. The project proposes to look at potential bacterial and viral chronic infections in autism. Prof Montagnier is of the view that some abnormalities in autism as well as in a whole range of neurological conditions, such as chronic fatigue and multiple sclerosis may be caused by potential infective agents. These would be difficult to the immune system to track down and would affect cell function thereby contributing to the development of the pathologies. He has developed a new technique that detects, by resonance, the genetic material of these potential infective agents. Additionally, using a very sensitive PCR assay, he can screen for a range of gram positive and gram negative bacteria as well as mycoplasma and borrelia (Lyme disease). He can also look at viruses (PRC assays under development). We are not alone in believing that this approach can help develop our understanding of the causes of autism and enable it to be treated more effectively. The proposed treatment combines a succession of antibiotics with basic biomedical supplements and probiotics. These antibiotics block cell division rather than kill bacteria, thereby avoiding potential side effects. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no funding available to cover the costs of this project, but we are hoping to use the data collected to help us obtain funding for future research. 

We offer your child the opportunity to be part of this project and to access to the Montagnier Infection Screen protocol. There will be medical follow up from Dr. Skorupka. The details of the project are outlined below. The total cost per child is likely to be around £1800, spread over a six-month period (details below). The antibiotic treatment is not included and may cost some £30- £60 a month, depending of the particular antibiotic selected. Every two months each child’s progress will be reviewed by Dr. Skorupka and Dr. Amet at ATT with interim progress reviews carried out by phone. 

As I noted at the time, whenever you see an “investigator” charge patients to take part in an experimental protocol, be very very wary. Be very, very afraid. In general, with very few exceptions, reputable medical researchers do not charge patients to undergo experimental protocols; their studies are funded with grants from the government, private foundations, or pharmaceutical companies. As for the study itself, it was pure pseudoscience that proposed to unethically treat autistic children with long term antibiotics, à la chronic Lyme disease, the hypothesis being that infectious agents had something to do with their symptoms:

  1. Investigate the possibility that some cases of autism are associated with a range of bacterial infections, based on laboratory testing and clinical examination conducted by Dr. C. Skorupka in Edinburgh.
  2. Assess the ASD children for the presence of nanobacteria following Prof Luc Montagnier’s protocol of investigations. The protocol would require a blood draw conducted at the clinic with the help of our nurse. The blood normally has to be centrifugated immediately and the supernatant extracted, then frozen to -80C and shipped on carboice to France.
  3. Evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic intervention as well as behavioural evaluations (ATEC and ADOS). This would involve meeting with Dr Skopurpka and Dr. Amet every 2 months and reviewing progress over the phone in the interim month.

And here’s what parents would get for their money:

  1. A scan using Montagnier’s new “resonance” screening system for bacterial and virological material.
  2. A “very sensitive PCR assay”
  3. A progress review by Dr Skorupka and Dr Amet every two month’s, plus interim phone reviews.
  4. A blood test at the start of the treatment, and after 6 months of treatment.
  5. Behavioral evaluations at the start, and after 6 months of treatment.

As was noted at the time by autism advocates, there was no evidence of the study’s having undergone any ethical review in the UK, even though the study involved blood draws and antibiotic treatment in a vulnerable group, autistic children. I asked at the time…a lot. How was this study unethical? First, it charged the patient’s family for an experimental protocol. More importantly, it tested a hypothesis that was implausible from a biological standpoint given that there were no convincing preclinical data that support the idea that bacterial or viral infections either cause or contribute to autism. Based on an unsupported hypothesis that bacterial infections cause autism, Montagnier planned on subjecting autistic children to blood draws and treatment with antibiotics. The former could cause unnecessary pain and suffering, and the latter had the potential to cause the complications that can occur due to long term antibiotic use over several months. These include antibiotic-induced diarrhea and even C. difficile colitis, as well as a variety of other problems that can be caused when normal bacterial flora are killed off with antibiotics. Since there was no reason to suspect that these children had any sort of clinical infection that required treatment, giving them antibiotics for several months was all risk, no potential benefit.

Another blogger noted:

Luc Montagnier’s eccentricities have led him to a situation where vulnerable people will be exploited and the possibility that criminal acts will be committed.

This is the inevitable end point of quackery.  Staunch believers in unorthodox medical treatments and theories inevitably run foul of acceptable ethics, whether it’s homeopaths in Tanzaniaor  Nobel Prize winners in Paris.  It doesn’t matter how respectable the person or how prestigious their prize, quackery corrupts the mind and corrodes the reputation.  Their belief in the fundamental correctness of their thinking eventually leads them to actions where the norms of ethics and the rule of law are secondary considerations or no consideration at all.  This is why quackery should be challenged and those who associate with it discouraged.

I couldn’t have put it better myself! No wonder Autism Treatment Trust memory-holed the whole thing! Since Montagnier is now dead, I wondered, not having checked before, if anything ever came of this clinical trial. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t, given that it was obviously just more autism biomed grift.

Let’s come back to the claim, though, that COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS. You might remember that when Montagnier first started falling for COVID-19 conspiracy theories early in the pandemic, the first time around he claimed that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, long the focus of lab leak conspiracy theories ranging from the utterly bonkers claim that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered or even a bioweapon that escaped to the somewhat less implausible claim that SARS-CoV-2 was a naturally occurring coronavirus stored there that escaped, had been using HIV as part of a coronavirus vaccine (translated):

According to Professor Luc Montagnier, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for “discovering” HIV as the cause of the AIDS epidemic together with François Barré-Sinoussi, the SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that was manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the last quarter of 2019. According to Professor Montagnier, this laboratory, known for its work on coronaviruses, tried to use one of these viruses as a vector for HIV in the search for an AIDS vaccine!

“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.

As I pointed out at the time, short HIV sequences are common in naturally occurring coronaviruses; so finding them in SARS-CoV-2 did not mean that they must have been artificially inserted. I also noted that the Indian paper to which Montagnier referred was nonsense, as described in February 2020 in a commentary explaining why that paper was nonsense and noting that every new human pathogen causing outbreaks (such as Ebola) leads to conspiracy theories that the pathogen was engineered in a laboratory. Also remember that this was many months before there was a COVID-19 vaccine available, which is no doubt why the vaccine wasn’t mentioned.

Unsurprisingly, given his history, after the vaccine had been available for a while, Montagnier went full antivax, consistent with his antivaccine rhetoric in 2016 claiming that vaccines were responsible for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), his appearance in the antivaccine propaganda film disguised as a documentary VAXXED, and his regular appearances at the antivaccine autism quackfest known as Autism One back in the day, for instance, when he echoed a favorite antivax claim that COVID-19 vaccines will cause new variants of the virus that will kill us all (false), a claim on which Geert Vanden Bossche made his antivaccine name (and continues to tout) for and one that is basically the same claim that Andrew Wakefield had made about measles vaccines before the pandemic. Then there was the Wall Street Journal op-ed he co-authored a month ago in which he called President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate “irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for the government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen.”

You get the idea.

So what about HIV and COVID-19? Here’s an example of the nonsense being promoted by Montagnier and his followers:

That was from eight months ago, but for some reason this video and other publications in which Montagnier was cited as having shown that there were HIV sequences in the spike protein used as the antigen in COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines started bubbling up a week or so ago and, since news of his death broke, have shown up even more:

Thanks here for the reminder that Montagnier also promoted the antivaccine idea that diet alone could make one immune to COVID-19.

And then, this meme:

Antivaxxers even coined a term, VAIDS, for “vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome”:

I don’t know why these memes started bubbling up several days ago. From what I’ve been able to gather, Montagnier had been hospitalized for several days before his death on Tuesday. Perhaps some knew and that’s why they started resurrecting all these memes and false claims. Who knows? As far as I can tell, there’s nothing new here. It’s the same old nonsense from Montagnier dating back to early in the pandemic, when he used the presence of sequences looking like gp120 sequences from HIV-1 in the spike protein to claim that these sequences had been inserted into a coronavirus in an attempt to make a vaccine against SARS, going on to claim that these sequences were evidence that SARS-CoV-2 had been engineered.

Never mind that:

Blish explained the issue with the withdrawn paper’s author’s interpretation: “the authors did not include bat coronaviruses, including the bat strain that bears the strongest resemblance to SARS-CoV-2.” ( here )

Blish referred to another paper here co-authored by virus expert Feng Gao ( here ) which concluded that the highlighted patterns in the withdrawn report are not HIV-specific. According to Gao’s paper, the motifs were also found in at least “100 identical or highly homologous” sequences in “host genes of mammalian, insects, bacterial and others” and also in “all kinds of viruses from bacteriophage, influenza, to giant eukaryotic.”

And:

Coincidentally, experts noted that in addition to SARS-CoV-2 and HIV, the DNA protein sequences mentioned in the withdrawn study “are found in many different organisms, including the ones that cause cryptosporidiosis and malaria”. Further evaluation shows that “these proteins are not unique to coronaviruses and are common source of viral biology in a huge number of ailments caused by a variety of actors”.

Fact checker Health Feedback addressed the withdrawn report here and found that “the sequences analyzed by the study authors were so short that it is easy to find similarities to a wide variety of organisms”.

And also:

And:

Note the date: Late January 2020. This was before COVID-19 even became reached the stage of a pandemic. This claim that the gp120 sequences in the novel coronavirus meant that it must have been engineered was one of the earliest conspiracy theories about the virus that I encountered. Again, these gp120 “HIV sequences” are not specific to HIV and do not indicate that SARs-CoV-2 must have been engineered. Even so, in retrospect it makes perfect sense that, once there was a vaccine using the spike protein as the antigen that conspiracy theorists like Montagnier and his followers would then pivot to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 vaccine can give you AIDS because, you know, there are those gp120 sequences. Never mind that COVID-19 and AIDS are very different diseases caused by very different viruses and that, even if you accept the claim that there are “HIV sequences” in the spike protein, there’s no way that SARS-CoV-2 could cause AIDS, and there’s really no way the vaccine can cause AIDS or “VAIDS.”

There are, of course, other another variants of this claimed linkage between COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS floating around. One is based on an observation that adenovirus infections might potentially make people more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, which brought up concerns about adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines as they were being developed, even though the specific adenovirus strains used lacked certain genes that provoked immune responses to the virus. Of course, neither Montagnier nor any of the other cranks seems to be restricting their fear mongering about “VAIDS” to just adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines but, rather, are focusing on the spike protein as “containing HIV,” a nonsensical claim. Another variant of “VAIDS” is the claim that the COVID-19 vaccine itself causes an “AIDS-like” immunodeficiency, which is false. Finally, there have been rare observations of false-positive HIV tests after COVID-19, and one COVID-19 vaccine was abandoned because it produced false-positive HIV tests. However, a false-positive HIV test is not HIV, and none of these patients actually had HIV or AIDS, even if current COVID-19 vaccines could cause a false-positive HIV test. (They don’t.)

This particular conspiracy theory, that the “gp120 sequences” in the spike protein mean that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a laboratory and that COVID-19 vaccines can give you AIDS or “VAIDS” is an unfortunately fascinating and instructive example of how a conspiracy theory can be created by sloppy science and then continue grow, metastasize, and create “variants,” if you will, for over two years and counting now. It just goes to show how conspiracy theories never die; they just evolve with circumstances. Sometimes, in fact, they don’t even really evolve much, but rather just keep resurfacing.

Worse, such a conspiracy theory becomes so much more credible-seeming when a Nobel laureate suffering from the Nobel disease like Luc Montagnier embraces it. This goes doubly when that Nobel laureate is someone who really should know better, given that he was a virologist whose Nobel prize was for discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS. Montagnier either knew, or should have known, that the “gp120 sequences” found in the spike protein in that study from January 2020 were common motifs in the proteins made in many more infectious organisms than just HIV and that the sequences were so short that they would be expected to be common based on random chance alone. If he knew, he was a liar. If he didn’t know, it’s just one more indication that the Nobel disease can truly trump one’s scientific knowledge. Whatever the case for Montagnier, unfortunately, his succumbing to the Nobel disease many years ago is now his legacy, far more than any scientific discoveries he might have made to warrant being awarded the Nobel Prize. Conspiracism is a hell of a drug.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

196 replies on “The most famous sufferer from Nobel Disease has died”

I’m sure we will read by Monday that his death is suspicious and big pharma is behind it because he’d figured it all out etc etc etc

The comments accompanying Children’s Health Defense’s tribute to Montagnier are illuminating.

While most are laudatory, some attack him as having “faked” the discovery of HIV, which to them is nonexistent.

Others have questions about the cause of Montagnier’s death, seeing how “convenient” his passing is for the establishment. 89-year-olds just don’t die naturally, y’know.

You know what is convenient for anti-vaxxers and general medical conspiracy theorists?

Having big conspiracy theorists die so that they can make more conspiracy theories about the death. It’s clearly a false flag operation.

Orac writes,

“In 2010, I coined the term “Nobel disease” to describe Nobel laureates who in their later years succumbed to pseudoscience, quackery, bad science, and even conspiracy theories.”

MJD says,

“Nobel disease” is better renamed “Nobel well-being.” Luc Montagnier’s ego dissolution with age may have provided increased empathy for other’s seeking alternative hypotheses for not so well understood human diseases and suffering. Is it likely Nobel laureate well-being increases when helping other’s who are desperate for a paradigm shift?

@ Orac,

Who coined the term “Respectful insolence?” I’m betting you did.

““Nobel disease” is better renamed “Nobel well-being.””

What an asinine statement MJD — but perfectly typical for a crank like you mjd. There’s nothing good to say about the results when people who, at one time, did good work, move to the fact-free, pure bullshit that has no basis in reality and helps nobody of the type you push.

zero media in France talk about [Pr Montagnier’s death]

Not true. (Le Monde, in French)

But then, most French media are not vultures. Or if they are, they are patient vultures who are not so hungry as to jump on the still-moving corpse.
Most French journalists have heard of Mark Twain.

But then, right now, the highlights in the French news are the recent Macron-Putin meeting over an impeding war in Ukraine, and the on-going and gruesome trial of a serial killer of children.
Oh, and the incoming French “freedom convoy”. Truckers complaining about vaccine passports, to emulate their North American counterparts. Passports, which, in their new form, will go into effect about next week and are very likely to be jettisoned in one month. Election year.

Most media that rely on having an audience are more or less vultures and more or less sensationalists, whether in France or elsewhere. What is arguably worse is that most media don’t seem to have a clue about science and just don’t care about it!

For years, Ben Goldacre had a column named “Bad science” in the Guadian. This never prevented the latter from publishing appalling science articles such as the great dangers of (non-ionising) electromagnetic radiations, for instance…

I reinstated my Audible subscription yesterday just to see if they had expanded their science offerings–so what was the first entry under “science and technology”? RFK’s hit piece of Fauci! The rest was about 80% self-help and other New Age type crap that could loosely be called non-fiction, but not science. A few works by Dawkins were thrown in just to justify the category.

I cancelled.

and is so short (6 AA) that the similarity is not higher than chance

In a previous position, my lab’s bioinformatician analyzed the peptides I identified by proteomics mass spectrometry analysis. She concluded that we should reject any identification based solely on a peptide of 7 aminoacids or under. Such a peptide could have come from anywhere (OK, from any dozens of proteins), not just the protein selected in the database by the matching software.
And our database was usually restricted to the proteins from a single species, the organism being studied. If you add now the proteins from all the other living beings in existence…

Nobel laureates are usually amazing people, but then there was Henry Kissinger and also William Shockley. Maybe Monsieur Montagnier had cognitive decline in his final years, happens to a lot of people.

Well you know this happens all the time to each of us. You get there sooner or later I suppose — if you place your marbles right or be lucky you got good care — you don’t die sooner.

Personally, not on his twitter channel. Farewell and good luck to Montagnier in his next job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL8Dj5xOjm0

I dont know whenever Nobel Disease gets talked about it ends in a Cult comparison around the lead scientist ego after they won the Nobel Prise

In fairness to Linus Pauling:
(1) he sincerely believed his nonsense about vitamin C (he took lots of it himself);
(2) he didn’t attempt to profit from his nonsense about vitamin C (no pitching the vitamin C equivalent of Herbalife); and
(3) he didn’t suggest that conventional medical treatments should be discarded in favor of vitamin C, either for lack of efficacy or actual danger (unlike Montagnier).
That doesn’t really excuse the nonsense, but it makes him less reprehensible than some of the others mentioned in the article.
And, as I understand it, and I’m not a doctor, it’s tough to overdose on vitamin C – you just make expensive urine, as someone once put it.

you just make expensive urine

Ah, that would be with other vitamines like vitamin B, more likely. And blue-green urine, in some cases.
With vit C overdose, it’s, let’s say, expensive and extensive number 2.

Still, his killer comment “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.” (https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry-idUSL5E7L51U620111005) was rather funny but just went on to show how conceited he really was, especially when he was eventually proved wrong…

Just like receiving a great literary prize for a first novel is usually a curse, getting one of the highest of honours must be pretty hard to handle, as there is not much room for improvement (aside from getting a second one!) and most of us aren’t well suited to accept what must feel like decline.

Of course, there are some like the great Feynman, for whom the joy only comes from discovering things ; these don’t care about the opinions of their peers and therefore they don’t care for honours but I suspect they’re a tiny minority…

It’s difficult for me to describe what I feel about Montagnier: his discovery of hiv was world changing and his later fall from grace, both astonishing and heart breaking.
What a monumental loss.

(aside) Whilst searching for material on Montagnier, I came across a new film premiering in May: Shots: Eugenics and Pandemics by John Potash (?)
It’s listed as being comedic (?) but his name was amidst a cast of all the usual Covid /vaccine denialists with the exception of Dr Fauci and a newsman. The description sounds like an anti-SBM screed from the Rockefellers to today’s ‘malfesance’.

If you can’t wait for John Potash (known as the Big K?)’s new opus, check out his 2018 classic film “Drugs as Weapons Against Us: The C.I.A.’s War on Musicians and Activists”. Counterculture figures were used to promote drugs as a means of government social control. There’s a paperback book version too.

Summary:

“…Drugs as Weapons Against Us tells how scores of undercover U.S. Intelligence agents used drugs in the targeting of leftist leaders from SDS to the Black Panthers, Young Lords, Latin Kings, and the Occupy Movement. It also tells how they particularly targeted leftist musicians, including John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, and Tupac Shakur to promote drugs while later murdering them when they started sobering up and taking on more leftist activism. The book further uncovers the evidence that Intelligence agents dosed Paul Robeson with LSD, gave Mick Jagger his first hit of acid, hooked Janis Joplin on amphetamines, as well as manipulating Elvis Presley, Eminem, the Wu Tang Clan, and others.”

The Nazis were involved too. I hate Nazis.

Seems to me reasonable to question the connection between CoVzid vaccines and HIV given how many trial subjects and others who tested positive for HIV after being vaccinated. This was swept under the rug after initial reports with no follow-up or explanation as to what happened with those who tested positive for HIV after vaccination. The story just disappeared. Then there us all the research and problems with the clinical trials regarding deaths, adverse reactions, and ineffective tivenessd of the vaccines which are actually not vaccines but genetic therapies. Then you have the evidence now confirming that the virus was indeed leaked fro the Wuhan Lab all over the main stream media. So it seems to me that perhaps he wasnot some fringe scientist but was actually ahead of the curve on the vaccines. We now know that thevaccines are unnecessary but still being pushed, even though almost every country has achieved herd immunity and the virus is mutating and weakening. So why is all the data and resesrch now being ignored to push a false narrative about the virus and vaccines? These points are not addressed in this article, only a reinforcement of the false narrativesregarding the virus and vaccines. I find it interesting that all data and research supporting this scientist has Bern completely ignoted.

None of this, of course, is true. There hasn’t been a wave of positive HIV tests attributable to being vaccinated, and no one is “sweeping it under the rug,” nor has the “lab leak” conspiracy theory been proven. Also, although Montagnier was a Nobel laureate, sometime between 2000 and 2010 he did indeed turn into a fringe scientists, an outright crank and antivaxxer. That is what he has been the last decade or two of his life, sadly.

And now the current administration is going to give away free ‘crack pipes’ in government speak ‘safe smoking kits’ is this a continuation of government sponsored targeting of the population and maybe even racial cleansing, considering that about 80-90% of the crack users are black.

“HIV given how many trial subjects and others who tested positive for HIV after being vaccinated. This was swept under the rug after initial reports with no follow-up or explanation as to what happened with those who tested positive for HIV after vaccination.”

I see someone cannot be arsed to fact check their spoon fed opinions.

He died a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER !!!! And be remembered as such, for as long as there is written history.

The difference……..

Everyone who posts here, will just die.

Not to be mean BUT honest…

40 years from now he will still be remembered for winning a Nobel. (and due to changing science MIGHT be accepted science).

Your website, as well as your work (i mean seriously how many papers written 40 years ago do you cite), will be relegated to the “wayback machine”

40 years from now he will be remembered fir, after winning a Nobel prize, helping a movement that works to mislead people into getting sick. As, in the last part of his life, becoming an agent of misinformation and harming others.

People will likely say, if anything, “what a sad end after the promising past.”

I think Orac is okay being remembered as the person who fought misinformation rather than one of those who promoted it.

Montagnier didn’t care what people like Orac think. He was motivated by scientific curiosity, and a desire to find cures for diseases. He had NO motivation to follow the mainstream herd, since he no longer had to worry about his career.

Orac is way over-confident, strays very far outside his own expertise. One man studied viruses for practically his whole life, the other never did. That does not automatically make the expert right, but it sure doesn’t make the amateur right either.

@Indie rebel He just believed that everything that came into his head is a TRUTH, because he a a Nobel Price winner,

Yes, he died a Nobel Prize winner. That doesn’t mean that nothing he did after making that trip to Stockholm matters.

Montagnier knew that–he didn’t retire quietly and stay out of the public eye after accepting the award*. Being involved in a project that touted the involvement of “Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier” means he should have expected that to be part of his legacy.

*A few people have declined the award, for varying reasons. Le Duc Tho famously declined the Nobel for peace in Vietnam because the country was still at war, and probably also because the prize was awarded jointly to him and Henry Kissinger.

You know who else won a Nobel Prize? Daniel Carleton Gajdusek.

Look him up and see if the Nobel balances out the other things he did.

(Fun fact, you will also die! We will all die! Have you made your death plan yet? No time like the present.)

What? Kary Mullis only qualifies for silver? I guess it’s a good thing that Gallo stole Montagnier’s research and misrepresented HIV’s relationship to AIDS and launched an entire industry founded on iatrogenic death and illness. Because Montagnier has the sickness! The dreaded Nobel disease!

Speaking of disease, I wonder what kind of pneumonia killed Kary Mullis, a healthy middle aged man, in the middle of summer, in 2019, before COVID is said to have existed? Was it the ephemeral vape lung? Or was it the [redacted] pathogenic agent that breached containment at Fort Detrick a few months prior?

By the way, y’all are really good at not debating. Kudos! I wonder why Orac writes ask this stuff about RFK Jr. without addressing the HIV/AIDS trutherism than underpins the thesis of his recent book? I mean he’s a conspiracy theorist right, and that’s a big old conspiracy. Why not hang it around his neck?

Seems like the elephant in the room. Half of RFK Jr.’s popular new book is devoted to the fact that there’s no evidence HIV causes AIDS. Which Mullis and Montagnier both agree with.

What, does the fruit hang too low?

“Half of RFK Jr.’s popular new book is devoted to…”

You bought it? Junior finds another mark. Ka-ching!

@Sue Dunham More than half of Robert Kennnedy Jr’s book is a lie. HIV/AIDS actually satifies Koch postulates,

“Speaking of disease, I wonder what kind of pneumonia killed Kary Mullis”

The fluorescent raccoon isn’t talking.

Although one could ask if it were nature or nurture that influenced her, Margulis’ daughter, Jennifer, has been writing about woo-adjacent material that anti-vaxxers/ naturalistas love.

@SD

Certainly it was chemtrails pneumonia and some unidentified nefariousness that lurks in your head. Frankly, you just can’t comprehend reality and no help will be sufficient but suppository ivermectin. The world laughs at your ignorance and moves forward.

BTW, science is debated all the time and obviously so. Bullshit not debated so much. Are you a caca eater — I think Rogan drew the line there, but may have no choice to cross it for likes.

You should sponsor the journal of bullshit and conspiracy just to entertain me.

Perhaps you yourself can address “HIV truth” here ? HIV/AIDS actually satisfies Koch postulates, you know. Mutlidrug therapy actually prevents AIDS. AZT is not highly toxic. Robert Kennedy Jr always lies.

>
Speaking of disease, I wonder what kind of pneumonia killed Kary Mullis, a healthy middle aged man, in the middle of summer, in 2019, before COVID is said to have existed?
>

Mullis was not a healthy middle aged man, he was a sick 74 year old man! It doesn’t matter what type of pneumonia he had, the bottom line is that it caused heart and respiratory failure, and that’s how he died.

This is why it’s fortunate that science-loving/knowledgeable people take the time and make the effort of creating media dedicated to science without submitting to the dictatorship of “democratic” audience numbers!

Did the science change ? and will people on this blog acknowledge that or attempt to explain it away.

“Mask Mandates Didn’t Make Much of a Difference Anyway”

washingtonpost.com/business/mask-mandates-didnt-make-much-of-a-difference-anyway/2022/02/11/57760db6-8b3b-11ec-838f-0cfdf69cce3c_story.htmli

Do you really think that Washingyon Post decides what is a scientic fact. Mask mandates do not work, if people do not obey them, obviously.

First of all, FWIW, that article was a reprint of a Bloomberg opinion piece. And it actually argues that mask mandates alone aren’t sufficient, we need a high vaccination rate too. It argues for an 85% vaccination rate among school children. Currently we are at 23% for younger children and 57% for older ones. So obviously we have a lot of work to do.

It also argues for better masks when needed, not no masks. And it references the Bangladesh study which showed a definite if perhaps not quite statistically significant benefit from community mask wearing.

And, aside from the Bangladesh study, mask mandates weren’t generally implemented as a stand-alone strategy although they have been the last restriction to be dropped. Social distancing and capacity limits were widely used in conjunction. The results helped get outbreaks under control in the spring and summer of 2020.

But our long term goal needs to be to keep cases under control to limit exposure and development of another VOC with the primary metrics being limiting hospitalizations and deaths.

The CEO of Modera has been dumping his stock, he has sold over 60,000 shares in the last two weeks (that would be about 10 million dollars), you think he knows something?
Pfizer just stopped the application to give the jab to the under 5 year olds, pending further studies.
Is it the time that William Snyder escorts Doyle Lonnegan out.

Whatever Moderna execs “know”, it apparently hasn’t translated into savvy stock trades.

There were questions raised about “optics” back in 2020 after it became known that some top Moderna execs had sold substantial amounts of stock in the company. At that time the Moderna vaccine had not yet been approved and the stock price had been relatively flat. It only rose markedly later on in 2020 and for much of 2021, coinciding with the vaccine’s approval and successful utilization. The share price fell off late in 2021 and early this year and has been flat for the last few weeks, so any CEO selling in the last two weeks seem to have been ill-timed.

It has been amusing to see Kay’s trips down the conspiracy rabbit hole, but they’ve gotten progressively sillier over time.

@KW

I guess he knows how to sell stock although not very well considering it was worth 3 times as much 6 months ago?! Am I supposed to be terrified or something?

I’ve had 3 of the Moderna and feel great. I consider myself smarter than you, as well, based on the crap that comes out of your mouth regularly.

I’m happy there is continual study of the health benefits of masking and vaccination, and that they continue to be proven effective and safe for all.

Your blather is never considered safe or effective.

@Kay

The reason Pfizer is delaying approval of vaccine for babes is that they want the data from the third dose as the two dose isn’t giving high enough protection rate–but you proabably read that and just ignored it.

Mullis and Montagnier are not the only examples of researchers who have show how hard it is to be an expert in different fields, especially fields outside their expertises.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “Seems like the elephant in the room. Half of RFK Jr.’s popular new book is devoted to the fact that there’s no evidence HIV causes AIDS. Which Mullis and Montagnier both agree with.”

Yep, RFK writes he takes no position on whether HIV causes AIDS or not, then gives just interviews and mainly early studies that says it doesn’t. Including references to half dozen HIV/AIDS deniers, who, later died of AIDS. I actually met one of them twice, Christine Maggiore. Even sat and drank cup of coffee with her. A nice person. She refused anti-retroviral drugs when pregnant and infant died few days after birth of? AIDS. She refused antiretroviral drugs and at 51? Died of AIDS.

I have been following the AIDS epidemic since 1980s, even worked on a project that tested homeless people for HIV. The evidence is scientifically overwhelming, including electronmicrographic photos of HIV, of HIV attaching to cells . . . Studies of people who have AIDs, all have HIV. The genome of HIV has been completely sequenced. And overwhelming evidence shows that HIV attaches to CD4 immune cells, damages and kills them. It is CD4 cells of the immune system that direct the rest of the immune system, so when they are depleted, a remaining intact immune system doesn’t function, doesn’t know what to do.

He even gives as reference a book that denies the germ theory. Yikes!

Yep, I read RFKs book “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

Just one more example. He complains that an article he wrote linking thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines to autism was retracted. What he doesn’t mention is that, among other things, his article literally gave 10 times the amount of thimersosal that is in any vaccine and he refused to change it. Ever heard of Paracelsus? In 15th Century he wrote “the dose makes the poison”. Mercury exists in our environment, has for millions of years. Our bodies have adapted, that is, we can handle small amounts of mercury and many other toxins. I could list several other major flaws in his article; yet, he complains it was retracted. What does that say about RFK???

Dr. Joel says “Studies of people who have AIDs, all have HIV”. Yet according to RFK Jr, Gallo’s seminal study, published in May 1984, found HIV in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. So who is lying? This paper of Gallo’s is the “proof” upon which Fauci built his empire.

Then Dr. Joel mischaracterizes electron micrographs as “photos”…eyeroll.

To Aarno, on behalf of Kary Mullis, I will repeat his question. Where is the proof? You say HIV/AIDS etiology has satisfied Koch’s postulates. So cite your evidence.

Have you any idea how difficult it was to isolate viruses back then? We didn’t have PCR. We didn’t have ELISA until almost two years after he did his work. Are you really this dense??

Joel has already explained that the images are printed out as photos. Don’t try to be too clever, it’s misfiring and exposing your ignorance.

Gallo’s arugument is there:
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.3399881
AIDS caused by tainted blood and vertical transmission.are some proofs of causality.
Of course we know more about progession to AIDS now:
Bangsberg, David R.ab; Perry, Sharonc; Charlebois, Edwin D.a; Clark, Richard A.c; Roberston, Marjoried; Zolopa, Andrew R.e; Moss, Andrewc Non-adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS, AIDS: June 15, 2001 – Volume 15 – Issue 9 – p 1181-1183

“Joel had already explained that the images are printed out as photos.”

What? A photograph refers to how an image is captured, not how it is reproduced. Joel’s “explanation” for his casual use of misinformation is nonsense. Photography plays no part in electron micrography. Joel could have easily used the word picture instead of photo. People print pictures all the time.

Here’s another head scratcher: the “live” video feed from the Apollo 11 mission was actually a live conversion of the primary video feed. NASA designed a video standard that was not compatible with terrestrial broadcast systems, so according to them they had to play their feed on a single screen while broadcasting a live feed of that screen to the TV stations. This is one reason why the original TV footage was of such abysmal quality. Those desiring a look at the real original recordings of the original moon videos will be sorely disappointed. No one has ever seen them. NASA claims to have taped over the original evidence or thrown it out.

Sorry, don’t mean to be exposing you to too many conspiracy theories. But just like a “live” video from the moon is really a copy of a non existent original, a “photo” of a virus is really a data visualization printed from a computer.

“a “photo” of a virus is really a data visualization printed from a computer.”

And?

The image is converted into photons so that we can see it with our eyes on the monitor. You can record that image with a screen grab or equivalent. No different from the output of a digital camera.

Wang: “No different from the output of a digital camera.”

Totally wrong, a digital camera, like a film camera, contains a light sensitive medium. It records an image produced by light. Electron micrography is not light sensitive. It is not a photo.

@Sue Dunham “The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.”
HIV is found in people suffering AIDS. An HIV will eventually develop to AIDS
“The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.”
HIV can be grown in a cell culture
“The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.”
HIV tainted blood caused AIDS, and HIV in a mother causes AIDS in a child. There is a mouse model, too.
“The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.”
This can be done in a mouse model.
Etiology is that HIV kills T cells and thus causes immune defiency,.

OUTPUT of a digital camera.

An image file. A computer generated interpretation of raw data.

Interestingly enough, I found quite a lot of references to photomicrographs from SEM images, so it would seem that the people actually using and teaching the use of SEMs aren’t as strict as you.

@ Kay West

You write: “The CEO of Modera has been dumping his stock, he has sold over 60,000 shares in the last two weeks (that would be about 10 million dollars), you think he knows something?
Pfizer just stopped the application to give the jab to the under 5 year olds, pending further studies.”

First, there are now a number of COVID vaccines, so, perhaps, CEO of Moderna realizes that they will be selling fewer and as more and more people get vaccinated and/or infected by COVID, fewer vaccines will sell. I probably could think of several reasons; but for you, must be nefarious. As for Pfizer stopping application for vaccine for under 5 year old pending further studies, you think what? It could show that Pfizer is cautious and wants to make sure the vaccine both works in them and has extremely small risk. So, what will you write if they conduct a few more studies, find it works and is safe and it gets approved???

You just keep making a FOOL OF YOURSELF, literally twisting anything and everything to the negative without any foundation.

And they could have been reading the tea leaves and realized that the CICP likely wouldn’t approve the vaccinations if a 3 dose series was going to be needed without seeing the test results for a 3 dose series.

@ Kay Dunham

You write: “I guess it’s a good thing that Gallo stole Montagnier’s research and misrepresented HIV’s relationship to AIDS and launched an entire industry founded on iatrogenic death and illness.”

I posted a large number of comments in one set of exchanges that totally refute what you wrote. Just a few:

RFK Jr. then vs. RFK Jr. now: Still fiercely antivaccine after all these years
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/12/15/rfk-jr-then-vs-rfk-jr-now-still-antivaccine-but-turned-up-to-11/

Robert Gallo
Did you know that prior to discovery of HIV, he discovered Interleukin 2 and many aspects of retroviruses? Yep, he claimed discovery of HIV; but it was based on sample sent by Luc Montagnier.
From Wikipedia. Robert Gallo
“Gallo was the most cited scientist in the world from 1980 to 1990, according to the Institute for Scientific Information, and he was ranked third in the world for scientific impact for the period 1983–
2002.[1] He has published over 1,300 papers.[2]
Robert Gallo, who by the way was and is a superior scientist to Luc Montagnier. In fact, he had published a number of papers where he devised methods for looking at viruses, etc. before the 1984 article where he stated HIV was cause of AIDS. And he didn’t do anything wrong intentionally. He and Montagnier had been exchanging cell samples for some time. He sent one to Montagnier who, in his lab, accidentally allowed one of his cells to mix with Gallo’s, so when he sent another sample to Gallo, it contained a mixture; but Gallo did take credit; but one more thing. Montagnier’s 1983 paper only said he found a retrovirus in cells of AIDS patient. Didn’t say it was cause of AIDS. Gallo did and he was right. “So HTLV-IIIB and LAV were one and the same, and both came from the same sample. Between 1983 and 1984, the two teams did regularly swap samples, but quite how the crucial sample ended with a “discovery” in Gallo’s lab has never been fully explained.” [Andy Coghian (2008 Oct 7). Was Robert Gallo robbed of the Nobel prize? New Scientist]
“In the November 29, 2002 issue of Science, Gallo and Montagnier published a series of articles, one of which was co-written by both scientists, in which they acknowledged the pivotal roles that each had played in the discovery of HIV,[36][37][38] as well as a historical review in the New England Journal of Medicine.[39]” in Wikipedia. Robert Gallo.
One last thing. While Gallo has continued to do quality research, Montagnier now promotes, among other things, homeopathy

Gallo later decided that HIV is NOT the sufficient cause of AIDS, and there must be other pathogens involved.

This is a PANTS ON FIRE LIE. PERIOD.

Look at his recent tweets for crying out loud. He’s said no such thing.

Gallo did nothing of the sort. For a while he thought HHV-6 might speed up the disease, but he has always concluded that HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS.

It was Duesberg who claimed HIV was not sufficient to cause AIDS.

He said that coninfections make AIDS worse, which is entirely different thing. Read the original paper:
Lusso P, Crowley RW, Malnati MS, Di Serio C, Ponzoni M, Biancotto A, Markham PD, Gallo RC. Human herpesvirus 6A accelerates AIDS progression in macaques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):5067-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700929104. Epub 2007 Mar 14. PMID: 17360322; PMCID: PMC182926
“Although HIV is the necessary and sufficient causative agent of AIDS, genetic and environmental factors markedly influence the pace of disease progression”

@ Indie Rebel

Thanks! Absolute proof you are a liar. I disprove your claim in a previous exchange. I guess you are just TOO STUPID and/or DISHONEST, so you just keep making the same refuted claims.

@ William

Just a few papers of the over 100 I have, including lab test showing reduced aerosols, and international studies.

Kristin L. Andrejko et al. (2022 Feb 4). Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021. MMWR

Yafang Cheng et al. (2021 Jun 25). Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Science; 372(6549): 1439-1443

Heesoo Joo et al. (2021 Feb 12). Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates — 10 States, March–October 2020. MMWR.pdf

Montagnier has just died and Mullis a few years ago. It might be instructive to examine how scientific – as well as popular opinion- has treated other Nobel Prize winners who spiraled into alt med/ psych, 3 decades after their death and we have two:
Linus Pauling and William Shockley. Pauling descended into woo and befriended accomplished alties who laud him to this day and Shockley espoused unrealistic theories of heredity and intelligence. Interestingly, the latter’s bad ideas were even explained for a general audience in a popular film recently ( BlacKKKlansman)

If you look up either one, early achievements and later decline are both noted. I have no idea how he public vs scientists view either but
people can maintain two ideas about a topic simultaneously ( or else I doubt their abilities).

1000 links and Aarno

Insiders at moderna have been selling stock for about a year. I mentioned the CEO only because of the recent high level of activities in the last 8 months he has dumped over 127,000 shares. The gave guidance that vaccine sales were going to drop and wall street expect the settle price will be around 115 (it had been over 450) in one quarter alone last year insiders sold stock worth over 818,749,940 dollars.

“I guess he knows how to sell stock although not very well considering it was worth 3 times as much 6 months ago?!”
He was given that stock a compensation and considering that he got a 4 for 1 reverse split (if you had 4 share a reverse split means you only now have 1 share) meaning the stock when he acquired it was worth about 4 dollars . His first trade was for 10,000 shares at 319 a share on 26 november

Think of all the people who bought the stock at 400 dollars a share.

Thats why my reference ; Is it the time that William Snyder escorts Doyle Lonnegan out.

Prove that anything you say is true. Seriously, you are considered a liar here.

BUT — So what? What d heck is your point/argument on stock selling? I sold some Moderna on peak. Are you licensed financial analyst now? Prove something.

Thanks for a couple of humorous paragraphs. OMG — entertained watching you sink with your supposed intellectual acumen. Swing and a miss. Laughable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vtILjo26ew

“Prove that anything you say is true. Seriously, you are considered a liar here.”

This site has stock trades back to November 2021, a link in the site has the SEC filing, but then both of those could be lying as well.

Almost 60% of the stock (Moderna) is owned by hedge funds, that is never a good sign for your company.

etfdailynews.com/news/moderna-inc-nasdaqmrna-ceo-stephane-bancel-sells-9000-shares/

As to the reverse stock split

stocksplithistory.com/moderna/

and good for you for selling some, Doyle would be proud of you .

First it was an accusation that the Moderna CEO had been dumping stock in the last two weeks (after the stock’s value had declined considerably). Now it’s claims of trading “in the last 8 months” and “over a year”. Gotta get your timelines straight, Kay, in order to generate conspiracy theories of even minimal face value.*

The investors that sold off massive amounts of Moderna stock before its mRNA Covid-19 became a resounding success are probably still kicking themselves.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-did-you-guys-sell-everything-inside-the-life-and-death-struggle-to-fund-modernas-covid-19-vaccine-11637934226

*does the Moderna CEO have secret insider info that the company’s vaccine will kill all its recipients within two years through 5G-generated brain damage? Stay tuned…

db
If you thought your company was going to do well and your stock price was going up would you sell? notice nobody inside is buying.

MODERNA (NASDAQ:MRNA) INSIDER TRADING HISTORY

marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/MRNA/insider-trades/

Of course people who get stock options and/or stock as compensation are going to sell their stock if they don’t particularly expect the stock to be climbing in the near term. That is standard financial advice – portfolio diversification!

Just from generic outside positioning, even without conspiracy theorizing, now looks like a probable general high point in Moderna’s stock at least for a while – they did great during the early vaccine push, but now their sales are slowing because most people are either vaccinated or refusing (or in poor countries that can’t afford it…), and it seems unlikely there’s going to be another major thing for them in the next year or two.

So… if the company does well, insiders probably are going to be fine even without holding more stock than they’re required to, and if it does poorly they don’t want to be holding stock and take a double-hit. And that is, again, standard advice: Don’t hold more stock in your employer than you have to.

Just because someone sells doesn’t mean they’re up to something nefarious. It could just mean they want cash, for instance to buy a house or a yacht.

As I said before, if a company insider trades on non public information (perhaps he knows something) he is criminally liable. Try to get that.
More probably executives cash their bonuses.

>
in the last 8 months he has dumped over 127,000 shares.
>

I’m not even sure that he’s sold that many over the past 8 months. But even if he has, it’s a drop in the ocean. He still owns 21.8 MILLION shares. 127,000 shares is barely a rounding error.

@ Kay West

You continue to write about selling of Moderna stock. And please explain what that means? I have actually read several books and a number of articles on the history of the stock market. Guess what? Usually doesn’t reflect on underlying economy. In fact, stock values went up while many people were unemployed for periods of pandemic. And some stocks did reflect improved profits; but others increased even when corporations and companies were losing money. So, once again, why point out sale of Moderna stock? Typical, you just grasp at straws, anything and everything you think confirms your rigid foolish ideological bias. Or, perhaps you believe you have ESP and have read the minds of the Moderna people who are selling stock and know why??? Delusions of Grandeur???

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

@ Sue Dunham

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “Dr. Joel says “Studies of people who have AIDs, all have HIV”. Yet according to RFK Jr, Gallo’s seminal study, published in May 1984, found HIV in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. So who is lying? This paper of Gallo’s is the “proof” upon which Fauci built his empire. . .Then Dr. Joel mischaracterizes electron micrographs as “photos”…eyeroll.”

Yep, Gallo’s May 1984 article didn’t find HIV in all the AIDs patients; however, he also wrote: “The number of HTLV-III isolates reported here underestimates the true prevalence of the virus since many specimens were received in unsatisfactory condition. Other data show that serum samples from a high proportion of AIDS patients contain antibodies to HTLV-III. . . These results and those reported elsewhere in this issue suggest that HTLV-III may be the primary cause of AIDS.”

However, only six months later, he wrote in another article: “In nearly 90 per cent of patients with AIDS it was possible to detect circulating antibodies reactive against HTLV-III. In more recent testing, using a combination of enzyme-lined immunosorbent and electroblog (Western) assays for detecting antibodies, all patients with AIDS were positive.” (Broder, Gallo, 1984) .NOTE. “all patients with AIDS were positive.”

RFKs book was published in 2021, so how come he only cited one earlier study, ignoring another study from 1984? And I have many many more newer studies. Could this be just one more example of just how dishonest the book is???

Second, I didn’t mischaracterize anything. Electron micrography is just one of a number of different approaches that together overwhelmingly make HIV the cause of AIDS. Check out one example, Earl, 2013. In addition, a number of anti-retrovirals that specifically target HIV have prolonged the lives of AIDS patients to the point that many 20 – 30 years later are still alive. Not what RFK claims. I could give numerous references; but you would ignore.

Finally, one example of an article on science behind HIV causing AIDS (Gallo and Montagnier, 2002). NOTE carefully who co-authors are. And, again, I have a ton of even later papers with additional scientific evidence.

So, you rely on/trust one book by RFK without any evidence you even tried to do an additional search on your own, something I have been doing with AIDs for 40 years. And, your comments indicate just how sure you are about yourself. Wow! Tell me, do you also believe in QAnon, etc.?

References:

Earl (2013 Aug). Catching HIV ‘in the act’ with 3D electron microscopy. Trends in Microbiology; 21(8): 397-404.

R.C. Gallo et al. (1984 May 4). Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science; 224(4648): 500-3.

Robert C. Gallo and Luc Montagnier (2003 Dec 11). The Discovery of HIV as the Cause of AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine; 349(24): 2283-2285.

Lesley A. Earl et al. (2013 Aug). Catching HIV ‘in the act’ with 3D electron microscopy. Trends in Microbiology; 21(8): 397-404.

Samuel Broder and Robert C. Gallo (1984 Nov 15). Retrovirus (HTLV-III) Linked to AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine; 311(20): 1292-1297.

Robert C. Gallo et al. (1984 May 4). Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science; 224(4648): 500-3.

Well sir, one of the reasons I have not done further research is because papers like the one you are basing your argument upon are behind paywalls and not available to a lowly plebeian like me. Perhaps you can fill me on the methodology of Gallo and Broder. But I suspect it is a massive exercise in confirmation bias. Correlation is not causation, yet Gallo announced even before the publication of his first paper that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. How was he so certain, from the very beginning? Given that Gallo stole Montagnier’s research in his lust for a Nobel, and had previously been discredited in his claim to have discovered a retroviral cause for leukemia, I would say the man burned his credibility pretty well. Until I see reason to believe otherwise, I would approach all of Gallo’s work under the rubric of the replicability crisis, which estimates that some 80% of all medical research is false. Gallo and Fauci had and continue to have huge professional and financial conflicts of interest in the official HIV/AIDS etiology. They have only found the answers they were yearning for.

As for the electron micrographs, I’m not dismissing their utility, I am saying that you were wrong to call them “photos”. That’s factually incorrect and rhetorically misleading. A deliberate elision to favor your misinformation propaganda. The studies you linked do look interesting – be a dear and let me know which ones are outside of your walled garden.

His work in this case has been reproduced THOUSANDS of times. Nice try.

One of the classic experiments we performed in virology lab was to cultivate viruses the way he discovered for HIV. Guess what we did next with those cultures? Ran them under SEM. We then printed PHOTOS of those captures and included them in our reports. Go back to teaching morons on YouRube University.

It seems like people like you forget there are hundreds of us, likely more, walking around with practical experience in matters you like to wax knowledgeable about.

MedicalYeti, I could forgive such sloppy colloquialism among the hoi polloi, but certainly not from any kind of science communicator. Electron micrography does not involve photons. There is no detection of light involved. You did not print any “photos” of a virus.

If you can’t even admit you are technically incorrect in this trivial matter, why would I expect a debate with you to be fruitful? So far you only seem capable of intellectually dishonest gymnastics.

Gallo’s argument for HIV causation is not behinf paywall. Read it:
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.3399881
It is quite short, too.
Effects of multidrug therapy
Lusso P, Crowley RW, Malnati MS, Di Serio C, Ponzoni M, Biancotto A, Markham PD, Gallo RC. Human herpesvirus 6A accelerates AIDS progression in macaques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):5067-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700929104. Epub 2007 Mar 14. PMID: 17360322; PMCID: PMC1829265.
Not beyond paywall either

Oh Sue. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Seek help. Start with the moon landings.

“Montagnier’s embrace of the “lab leak” conspiracy theory for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19”

Huh? What? Lab leak is a mainstream theory. Biden called for an investigation. Many legitimate mainstream scientists believe it is very plausible.

So … ARE YOU KIDDING??

Montagnier claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was human-made in an attempt to formulate an HIV vaccine and then escaped from the lab.

You won’t find many respectable scientists buying into that one.

@ Indie Rebel

We’ve gone through this several times. While the weight of the evidence points to a natural source, not totally impossible an accidental leak from Wuhan lab. So what? First, there have been numerous leaks from high level security labs in U.S., including a couple that had they spread would have been possibly devastating. Second, whether from nature or accidental leak, not only weren’t we prepared since sooner or later there would have been a natural pandemic, if this wasn’t one, and we screwed up so many ways. Read Scott Gottlieb’s (2021) Uncontrolled Spread.

The fact that we now have one more investigation says absolutely nothing. Biden is a politician and political pressures led to one more investigation. And if it finds was a natural outbreak, you will just keep on. And if it finds accidental lab leak, what then? I would be willing to bet that if it had been an accidental leak from an American lab that we would have tried to deny it. What would your position have been then?

As usual, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

Of course Covid didn’d come from a lab. It comes from aliens..Your outright rejection of this very plausible theory makes me wonder how much the CVP pays you.

@ Sue Dunham

You ignore that you have NOT given any other evidence than RFKs book, which I pointed out is one big LIE. I gave a couple of references; but could literally give hundreds. RFK doesn’t include in his book any papers that claim HIV causes AIDS. An honest review would include them, then attempt to find flaws in their methodology. RFK doesn’t.

You write: “Given that Gallo stole Montagnier’s research in his lust for a Nobel, and had previously been discredited in his claim to have discovered a retroviral cause for leukemia”

I explained that actually Gallo and his lab developed many of the techniques that Montagnier used and that they exchanged samples back and forth. Yep, when he thought he found HIV, he jumped on it; but you ignore that long before anyone even heard of Montagnier that Gallo and his lab had multiple peer-reviewed papers, none later found wrong. And, nope, his lab did discover a retrovirus for one rare form of leukemia and contributed to discovery of another retrovirus for other forms of leukemia. Give a friggin valid reference or shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.

Actually you are also wrong about correlation not being causation. It depends. Did you know that one can use a simple algebraic transformation to change a correlation analysis into a regression analysis? Do you know what partial and semi-partial correlations are? And if one has numerous correlation analyses of different studies, different samples, different laboratory techniques, etc. one can draw causative conclusions. But, as I wrote, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is literally overwhelming.

You write: “Well sir, one of the reasons I have not done further research is because papers like the one you are basing your argument upon are behind paywalls and not available to a lowly plebeian like me.”

WRONG. For instance, after retirement; but before the pandemic, I would drive out to one of several nearby universities, go in their libraries, and literally go through any paper copies of bound medical journals and photocopy articles. And if they didn’t have the journals, they usually had access to them electronically and I could use their computers, find articles, and either download to a thumb drive or print out. Anyone can go into a public university library and do the same; but, since you didn’t know that and obviously haven’t read any of the actual research, you just keep making a fool of yourself, basing your beliefs on RFK and . . .???

What is really upsetting is that you represent a significant portion of our populations, literally people who don’t understand science, people who base their positions on limited bases, etc. And literally NOTHING will change your mind. I, on the other hand, if some well-done studies, not one, refute something previous studies had supported, I will carefully read them, re-read the earlier studies, and possibly change my position. Why? Because I pride myself in basing my positions on science. Sometimes earlier studies, even well-done ones, turn out to be wrong. A completely blinded randomization can still end up with unmeasured variables that influence which of two groups have which results; however, the chances that additional studies will have the same chance randomization becomes ever smaller as more and more variant studies are carried out.

And as MedicalYeti explained, electron micrographs are printed out as PHOTOS. In fact, I found some of HIV entering a cell on the internet. And as MedicalYeti also explained, Gallo’s findings have been replicated in literally 100s of labs, etc.

I’m not going to try to prove a negative, honey. I’m asking you to prove a positive. Are Gallo’s two papers from 1984 sufficient to prove that HIV causes AIDS? Or do I need to assemble all 1000 pieces of Fauci’s puzzle?

Your challenge is to find scientific evidence, which demonstrates that AIDS can also be caused by something besides HIV. And you won’t do that by nitpicking terminology. And even if everything in Junior’s book is true (which I rather doubt), it is not a primary source of scientific evidence for anything.

And you’re up against 30 years of evidence that the triple therapy Dr Fauci helped develop really does work to protect people infected by HIV. And that screening blood donations for HIV prevents further cases like Arthur Ashe. 31 years ago I had to receive a blood transfusion and I had to wait a year to get tested to find out i was infected with HIV or not. Fortunately the answer was no.

Also, just FWIW, science is a collective process which used the skeptical method to examine evidence, determine if it supports the purported conclusions, and fit those conclusions into the general fabric of other conclusions about how the universe works. And those conclusions are always contingent on the quality of the evidence supporting them and tentative, that is subject to being adjusted or overturned if better quality evidence is discovered in the future.

And by doing that process, scientists (plural) eventually arrive at a consensus about specific subjects. It’s not skepticism or consensus.

And you won’t find that evidence by reading people who refuse to admit when they are proven wrong.

Dr. Joel: “I would drive out to one of several nearby universities, go in their libraries, and literally go through any paper copies of bound medical journals and photocopy articles. And if they didn’t have the journals, they usually had access to them electronically and I could use their computers, find articles, and either download to a thumb drive or print out. Anyone can go into a public university library and do the same.”

Do you have any idea his much this statement drips with privilege? What if I can’t drive to “several nearby universities”?

Well, Sue, if you have access to a public library, there’s a service called Interlibrary Loan. If you really want access to this research, you can get it. But I know it’s much easier to lob lies in the anonymity of the internet.

@SD

Too bad for you and your so under privilegedness. You CAN drive to a University and that is what Joel is saying. You didn’t, you don’t, and that is why you are not worth more than a spitted napkin of interest. Some just get sick of this despair against learning by the most basic methods we know work. Yet more so is the problem of the evil of you promote of such harmfulness through the garbage you think you know. Vaccination works. Masking and social distancing work to reduce the suffering of human beings. You don’t care.

Ultimately, it means your information about the world or in particular about medical issues is crap and unverified — not worthy of oration to anyone. No sympathy for you and your overwhelmingly inaccurate statement about what you think is true. So much free knowledge is provided to you BTW without a drive to a University but you are simply here to gainsay something nonsensical which any can see through.

Sadly/Amusingly you willfully destroy your own mind and body. Some people almost care about you, but really care more about people who get caught listening to the BS of ignorance that the antivaxx (no I’m not antivaxx) group provides. No, we aren’t invading Ukraine — despite the fact of an invasion force on the border. No amount of PR double speak will convince the world that you ain’t full of shit.

Poor Sue. Sad data point.

Or, alternately, taxpayer funded research could be freely available on the internet.

@Sue Dunham There are many other papers written about AIDS than two Gallo’s papers you mentioned. Honey, you really should be more up tp date,

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “Perhaps you can fill me on the methodology of Gallo and Broder. But I suspect it is a massive exercise in confirmation bias”

While out walking my dog I realized just how literally STUPID you are. I wrote: “In more recent testing, using a combination of enzyme-linked immunosorbent and electroblog (Western) assays for detecting antibodies, all patients with AIDS were positive.” (Broder, Gallo, 1984)”

Fill you in on their methodology? ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) and Western Blot are two of the absolute most used lab tests for detecting microbes, including viruses. They have been used for four decades. They are included in some undergraduate biology textbooks, all undergraduate microbiology textbooks, and, of course, all undergraduate immunology textbooks. And they are even taught in some criminology courses. The fact that you didn’t know this says it all, that is, you completely lack the basic understanding of science to form any valid opinion. And, by the way, if I see something that I don’t recognize and think it important I simply do a Google Scholar, PubMed, over even just plain Google search. Search Google and you will find a ton of articles explaining the two. And, you can use “electroblog (western) assays” in search and will also find them.

So, you are just one more intellectually dishonest ignorant commenter on this blog. Oh well.

Intellectually dishonest?

I complained that I couldn’t read a specific paper because it’s behind a paywall, and asked you to provide me more information about that specific paper, and you respond with an ad hominem attack calling me an idiot. But I’m not looking for an explanation of how HIV antibody testing works. I’m looking to understand how Broder and Gallo selected their subjects.

The broader issue is this: Gallo formed his thesis before he had the evidence to prove it. He announced proof of his thesis before publishing his first study on the subject. His first study did not provide proof, which is why you have to resort to citing his follow up study in the first place. Why is that shit behind a paywall anyway? Who financed the research?

You are another failure at science communication. Do you understand why average people despise you? Most of us are simply looking for transparency – not mealy mouthed defense of for profit research that we can’t even read without donating a few more bucks to big Fauci.

“While out walking my dog I realized just how literally STUPID you are.”

So, even the dog knows that HIV is the etiologic agent of AIDS?

MediYeti says “ It seems like people like you forget there are hundreds of us, likely more, walking around with practical experience in matters you like to wax knowledgeable about.”

And it seems you forget that there are millions of us who base our existence on principles, including principles such as informed consent with regard to medical interventions. We insist on the scientific method, which is a tool of skepticism and not consensus. For this reason we demand the right to hypothesize and, as the case may be, proven wrong. All theses must submit to falsifiability, whether scientific or conspiratorial. Anyone who says the “science is settled” and dismisses opposition out of hand (as Fauci has done for decades) is a DEMAGOGUE. Any government who insists on its interpretation of science and represses dissenting voices is TOTALITARIAN. Look at how this power is politicized, how the Democrats have seized the mantle of “settled science”. They act like a bunch of holy men. Beyond reproach.

You could be scientifically right about everything. But you are still faced with an insurmountable problem: you are allied with political and media forces who echo your rhetoric, despite having a long and proven track record of shamelessly lying to the public. I am not going to believe the TV when it says mRNA jabs are totally safe and effective, when the TV also assured me that Saddam had WMD, or Donald Trump conspired with Russia to cheat Hillary out of the big chair, or more recently, that inflation is transitory, or that Vlad will attack Ukraine “tomorrow” (when was that, last month?) using a false flag video (in a hat tip to Alex Jones?). You are allied with the wrong people, because they ultimately pay your bills. Lying war criminals. Are you going to let them get away with bastardizing science for the sake of imperial policy? Or are merely going to let them claim your mantle?

I didn’t say you were a Democrat. I said the Democrats have branded themselves with “settled science”. They have been the loudest and most insistent advocates for pandemic countermeasures. Are these people scientists? Do you agree with them about the COVID pandemic? If so, why? Do you think that they magically return to sanity and compassion when faced with a public health threat?

You are all in lockstep now, don’t expect to be easily distinguished from liars and crooks.

@Sue Dunham You can actually do independent research about vaccines. Intersting thing is that was Ronald Reagan who signed National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act into law.

“Are you going to let them get away with bastardizing science for the sake of imperial policy?”

Cue the Star Wars theme music.

“Are you going to let them get away with bastardizing science for the sake of imperial policy? Or are merely going to let them claim your mantle?” …

Won’t you fight for your life?

And antivaxers ally with Republican party, with Senators Paul and Johnson. How this is not political ?

I love you, Sue.

Don’t forget – you are in the heart of the uber-NPC-psychopath territory, here.

These guys really, vehemently believe Epstein actually killed himself…
– When the CCTV had failed…
– And the guards had wandered away…
– In the suicide-proof cell.

Yup – he just did himself in, right there.

😉

Prince Andrew paid Virginia Giuffre 12 million to avoid trial. Other victims can and will sue. Other perperators will come into the light.

Epstein was not in a suicide proof cell when he killed himself. He had been recently moved to a regular cell. If you think being arrested for raping and sex trafficking minors is not enough to make a rich man kill himself, you don’t know much about the world. Richer men have killed themselves for less.

@thevaccinationstation3405

npc.jpg

Of course he did, sucker. Killing yourself in jail is the high of fashion at the moment, don’t cha know – just ask Jean-Luc Brunel. If anyone knows what’s in fashion – it’s him.

Those multiple duffel bags full of computer hard-drives collected from Epstein’s possessions are now sealed by the court. Locked-down harder than a Canadian trucker’s bank account.

I guess we’ll never know who or what was contained therein.

For your (panda) eyes only, Mr Bond.

You are very well programmed. You can’t even see the contradictions in the words you copy and paste from your master’s instructions – and you do it not for the money, but because you think that by marching in lockstep with every other “original thinker” you will sound independent. A dozen of you post this kind of crap every week at this blog, each one of you hugging the little fantasy that no one has ever been as smart and independent as you, and pretended that you’re being censored, even as you post on someone else’s site. I don’t know how much you pay the guy who stands behind you reminding you to inhale and exhale, and to chew before you swallow, but he’s earning every cent. Here’s hoping that you live long enough to realize how stupid you’ve been – I can think of no greater punishment for you than enlightenment. Yours in love.

P.S. Good news. Masking and social isolation has driven an entire family of influenza to near-extinction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00642-4 – well, this is sad news for people who like human misery, but for normal folk, it’s good news.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “I’m not going to try to prove a negative, honey. I’m asking you to prove a positive. Are Gallo’s two papers from 1984 sufficient to prove that HIV causes AIDS? Or do I need to assemble all 1000 pieces of Fauci’s puzzle?”

“Sufficient” Yes and No. In science, something you don’t understand or don’t want to understand, we don’t “prove” anything. Proof is a logical concept. In science one forms an hypothesis based on observations, then tests it. If the results confirm the hypothesis, then one has ONE study confirming it. If others either replicate the study and/or do variants of it and also confirm the hypothesis, then the hypothesis and related hypotheses have stronger confirmation. Eventually, if enough studies are confirmed a theory develops. In science a theory is NOT the same as in lay language. In science a theory is a collection of related strongly confirmed hypotheses. And I gave you reference to a paper by Gallo and Montagnier that basically summarizes what was known by 2003. And it is available FREE on the internet: “Robert C. Gallo and Luc Montagnier (2003 Dec 11). The Discovery of HIV as the Cause of AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine; 349(24): 2283-2285.” Simply cut and paste the title and place in Google. In fact several of the papers I referenced are available, sometimes one has to scroll down several pages because the journal doesn’t offer; but the authors or someone else has posted it. And no one “assemble all 1000 pieces of Fauci’s puzzle.” One can find books, even in public libraries, and up-to-date reviews. One can even read Wikipedia articles, many based on huge extensive reference lists, which often include other reviews, some available free on the internet. And you keep proving you base your position of RFKs completely unscientific dishonest book. HIV as cause of AIDS is NOT Fauci’s puzzle. Fauci, as a public figure, simply explains it. I could stand in front of an audience with slides, etc. and explain history and current science of HIV and AIDs, would that make it my puzzle? Obviously, you choose to believe RFK and give NO indication you are even remotely open-minded.

I could give you a list of books on how scientists draw causative conclusions; but I highly doubt you would ever even read one of them. I actually have had THREE graduate level courses in Philosophy of Science (basically how science works and draws conclusions) as well as umpteen courses in various different methodologies from laboratory to public health.

As for your trying to prove a negative, as I have made clear, you don’t indicate any basis for judging anything in science, including not even knowing what ELISA and Western Blots tests are and not even trying to find in search of internet. They are OBJECTIVE tests that Gallo used, not something he made up for confirmation bias.

It’s Fauci’s puzzle because he controlled billions of dollars in funding. He chose which research to fund, and which to deny. Which is why Duesberg hasn’t gotten a dime since 1987. When Gallo’s “discovery” was announced, before his work had even been published, it was heralded as the discovery of the probable cause of AIDS. Hypotheses are extremely prone to confirmation bias, especially when a fortune is on the line. Fauci would only fund research he estimated to be sympathetic to Gallo’s hypothesis. The result is a confirmation bias extravaganza. RFK Jr. claims HIV/AIDS has never satisfied Koch’s postulates. Is he wrong?

Here’s the deal. I shouldn’t need more than one paper to prove that HIV causes AIDS. Not how it causes AIDS, only that it causes AIDS. One paper based on clinical research. If need be I will pay five dollars a gallon and drive ninety miles to the nearest university and look it up. Just tell me which one it is.

You do realise that America is not the only place that research into HIV takes place and that other funding sources are available?

A bit better. Multidrug therapy prevents AIDS:
Bangsberg DR, Perry S, Charlebois ED, Clark RA, Roberston M, Zolopa AR, Moss A. Non-adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS. AIDS. 2001 Jun 15;15(9):1181-3. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200106150-00015. PMID: 11416722.
It is freely avaiable, so you have no exuse not to read it.
You can Pubmed for Duesberg papers. There are many of them. Fauci does not decide who get grants. They are based on peer review

RFK is wrong. This has been repeatedly, fully explained. I don’t know if you are Duesburg himself in drag or just a garden-variety crank but this theory has been so sufficiently discredited it’s like you are beating the glue that used to be a dead horse. Get some new material.

There is one paper. Find it yourself, dingleberry. Shouldn’t be hard. It is one of the all time most cited on PubMed. The journal rhymes with defiance. Here’s another hint-neither Gallo nor Monty were authors.

While we are on the subject of RFK Jr, how do you feel about the news that he was in that sex island Epstein owned? All those allegations those three girls are making sound pretty horrible. He might be in for a bit of jail time.

For anyone reading who is tempted to buy into this baloney…

There seems to be some confusion about scanning electron microscope images since, according to Sue, they are not “Photos” since we are using states of electrons rather than “Light.” I won’t get into the physics here but I want to disabuse any person who is reading her replies thinking: “She sure told that PhD and that DO with two master’s degrees!”

What is produced on the monitor of an SEM apparatus is a MICROGRAPH. To quote the manufacturer: ” Micrography is the practice or art of using microscopes to make photographs.”

Sue is in over her head. I doubt it’s the first time.

@ MY

There are of course people that try hard to make dumb people angrier. The comment about photons is more than ignorant for those who understand imaging.

Photons aren’t necessary to make an image as electrons, x-rays, cat scan, mri, and injected dyes show.

Seems nothing more than deception.

x-rays are photons. Just saying.

But yes, this nonsensical argument about the use of the colloquial term “photo” to describe an image to try and further some stupid argument about viruses not existing is just absurd. Everyone understood what was meant. Like when colleagues show me “photos” of their babies in the womb, I don’t get into a song and dance about sound waves being different to light waves. Specificity is only required when the alternative may mislead.

Preston: “But yes, this nonsensical argument about the use of the colloquial term “photo””

Mr. Preston, all I did was roll my eyes at the fact that Joel mischaracterized electron micrographs as photos. I didn’t start the argument, I i have certainly not tried to claim that viruses don’t exist. This nonsensical argument has been carried on by MedicalYeti and Silly Joel because they are too proud and or stupid to admit that I am technically and linguistically correct: a electron micrograph is not a photograph. I acknowledged the colloquial usage, non scientific usage. They are the ones who have doubled and tripled down on their error and now here you are dragging this BS out further.

Yeti: “Micrography is the practice or art of using microscopes to make photographs.”

Obviously the manufacturer is being colloquial as well. An electron micrograph is not a photograph. Period.

Furlong: “Photons aren’t necessary to make an image”

Well thanks for the news flash there, Einstein! Photons are however necessary to make a photo.

@ SD

You poor punching bag of ignorance. Do you even understand what light is or how we see things?

Sue’s digging in heels about “photographs” of virus particles brings back fond memories of 1978-79 when I got access to the only SEM facility in my state to document various life stages of the insect I was studying for my thesis. After the technician prepped my specimens, I got to run the joystick, rotate, and zoom in and out. And when I found a keeper, I hit “print” — and got a 4″x6″ B&W Polaroid print.

I still have some of these pictures framed on my office wall.

I suppose, though, that Sue would complain that these are B&W pholos, so not showing the gold plating.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “The broader issue is this: Gallo formed his thesis before he had the evidence to prove it. He announced proof of his thesis before publishing his first study on the subject. His first study did not provide proof, which is why you have to resort to citing his follow up study in the first place. Why is that shit behind a paywall anyway? Who financed the research?
You are another failure at science communication. Do you understand why average people despise you? Most of us are simply looking for transparency – not mealy mouthed defense of for profit research that we can’t even read without donating a few more bucks to big Fauci.”

Of course he formed his thesis/hypothesis before he had evidence. That is what scientists do, they form hypotheses, design studies, and then conduct them. His hypothesis was NOT before he had “proof”, as I already wrote, we don’t prove things, we confirm hypotheses. As for his first study not supplying “proof”, one, not ‘proof” and the point is that is PROOF of just how dishonest RFK is, a book written in 2021 only citing articles that support his extremely dishonest biased position. As for “a few more bucks to big Fauci,” I’ve dealt with this before. As a high ranked public servant Fauci has to provide an account of his assets regularly. While RFK is worth between $50 and $60 million dollars, some in stock funds which certainly include pharmaceutical companies and has a current income close to Fauci’s, Fauci and Wife are worth around $5 million dollars. Given they have worked well over 40 years, just conservative investment would have resulted in such. I gave link to previous comments where I explained this in detail and gave references. And there is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL EVIDENCE that Fauci has made any unethical monies collaborating with pharmaceutical companies. As usual, you base what you believe solely on RFK.

As for “paywall” behind many peer-reviewed journal articles, I agree with you. At least 90% of research is funded by NIH or sometimes non-profits, then those who do the research write it up, submit it to journals and journals make a fortune. There are a few quality journals online that are free and open to public; e.g., Public Library of Science. They charge authors around $2,000 which covers cost of formatting, posting, and maintaining website. NIH could pay this for ALL studies funded by them. Advantage of online journal articles is that they include links to APPENDICES that often give valuable additional information.

Nope. you aren’t looking for transparency, as it is obvious that whatever anyone write, no matter how many references, no matter how clear, how logical, how scientific, you have made up your mind, so to you, anything that disagrees with your moronic closed-minded position is “mealy mouthed defense of for profit research that we can’t even read without donating a few more bucks to big Fauci.” Fauci doesn’t get monies when a library subscribes to a journal or individuals pay to download an article. Just another example of RFKs dishonesty and stupidity. According to him Fauci is literally either the most powerful man in the world or among them. Wow!

So feel free to despise me. Though a poor analogy, would be the same as a drunken driver who ends up crippled, after already losing his license for driving under the influence, despising people like me who don’t drink, drive safely, and at 75 still capable of walking my dog one mile twice daily and a half hour on a stationary bike. Yep, instead of driving drunk, you close your mind to anything that disagrees with you.

@ Sue Dunham

You write to MediYeti: “I am not going to believe the TV when it says mRNA jabs are totally safe and effective, when the TV also assured me that Saddam had WMD, or Donald Trump conspired with Russia to cheat Hillary out of the big chair, or more recently, that inflation is transitory, or that Vlad will attack Ukraine “tomorrow” (when was that, last month?) using a false flag video (in a hat tip to Alex Jones?). You are allied with the wrong people, because they ultimately pay your bills. Lying war criminals”

Yep, our government has lied many times to us about POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL TOPICS. But I don’t rely on what they say about scientific subjects, I go to the literature and not just one or two papers and based on my education and training form an opinion. As for mRNA vaccines, as I’ve written several times, before volunteering in Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine trial, I devoted several weeks to reviewing mRNA, etc. I also found in a search of PubMed over 300,000 papers on mRNA going back to its discovery in 1960s. In addition, prior to COVID pandemic, I found almost 400 papers on research on mRNA vaccines and read several dozen of them. And on Dec 30 and 31 New England Journal of Medicine published Phase 3 clinical trials of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines based on at least two months of data for each participant, over 30,000 in each study. Having studied vaccines, etc. for 40 years I know that if a serious adverse reaction will occur, it will show up within a few weeks. However, I don’t rule out some weird extreme outlier, namely, 1 in million, who possibly could somehow, without any indication first two months, develop a serious reaction. No current evidence; but I don’t rule out anything. However, for sake of argument lets say one or two per million develop some serious adverse reaction, overwhelming evidence from around the world shows the current COVID vaccines have save at least 1,000 lives per million, so any gambler would certainly love odds of 1,000 to one or two. As for you having right to form your own opinion. You haven’t. You have made it clear you don’t understand even the most basic principles of science and you rely on RFKs book. And as I’ve explained over and over, we live in communities. YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFECT SOME INNOCENT THIRD PARTY. YOU COULD BE ASYMPTOMATIC AND STILL INFECT SOMEONE WHO EITHER COULDN’T BE VACCINATED FOR SOME HEALTH REASON OR THE VACCINE DIDN’T TAKE. WHILE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME THING, THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN’T DRINK AND DRIVE. THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN’T DUMP TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN TOILET OR ALONG ROADSIDE, ETC. ETC

You write: “And it seems you forget that there are millions of us who base our existence on principles, including principles such as informed consent with regard to medical interventions. We insist on the scientific method, which is a tool of skepticism and not consensus. For this reason we demand the right to hypothesize and, as the case may be, proven wrong. All theses must submit to falsifiability, whether scientific or conspiratorial. Anyone who says the “science is settled” and dismisses opposition out of hand (as Fauci has done for decades) is a DEMAGOGUE. Any government who insists on its interpretation of science and represses dissenting voices is TOTALITARIAN”

‘Informed consent” So what does that mean? You have made it absolutely clear that you don’t understand science, haven’t even really tried to learn about mRNA and mRNA vaccines, don’t know history of vaccines, etc so, you are certainly NOT INFORMED. You insist on the scientific method, well, the studies to get the vaccines approved, the follow-up studies all around the world were based on the scientific method. RFKs book certainly is NOT. As for “the science is settled”, yes and no. When faced with what we know about pandemics, the SCIENTIFIC BASES OF VACCINES, at some point a decision must be made. I wonder what someone like you would say if FDA decided NOT to approve of COVID vaccines and the number of deaths exceeded two million with, perhaps, another million with long covid, especially if you decided to learn about vaccines, etc. after the fact?

I realize you won’t bother; but a great book to start with, inexpensive on Amazon.com, and only 160 pages: Lauren Sompayrac. How the Immune System Works (6th Edition).

I repeat: WE LIVE IN COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES, NOT JUST RIGHTS

p.s. since lockdown I haven’t gone almost daily to local YMCA where I alternated between swimming 1500 yards and weight-lifting followed by half hour on stationary bike. I have tried to keep in shape by continuing to walk my dog one mile twice daily, purchased stationary bike, use half hour almost every day, and some light dumbbells. I found a gym five minutes walk from me and it has the equipment I need; e.g. Smith machine for squats; but they don’t require proof of vaccine or masks, so though I received both Moderna vaccines and booster, I decided to wait to new Omicron booster available, hopefully, end of March, will immediately get it, wait 10 days for it to take effect, then join the gym; but will wear N95 facemark while working out. Though risk will be low, not zero, and at 75, though masks minor inconvenience, better safe than sorry. I actually spoke the other day with someone who spent two months in hospital with COVID, several months to recuperate, and still 1 1/2 years later lacks smell and taste. And he was in early 50s, not obese, not diabetic, not not not. Fortunately, he worked for a great company, COSTCO, that paid his entire salary for the five months, otherwise, what would have become of his three underage kids? And he got the booster! ! !

Not only does drunk driving kill people, so does sober driving. Should we outlaw driving altogether or is the risk to the community acceptable?

I am harping on informed consent because no information about the risks of mRNA therapy has been disclosed. Maybe in some places, but certainly not on television. Now, I made the effort to inform myself about mRNA vaccines, and after learning that they had not been studied in humans prior to Warp Speed, I decided it would be prudent to wait for more than two months of safety data concocted by the drug manufacturer, who incidentally has a history of pushing toxic pharmaceuticals on the public. I informed myself, and I did not consent. Done. But on the whole, it is YOUR responsibility, as a doctor advocating a medical intervention, to inform your patients of the risks. This has not happened. Instead, the television has offered the public crude material inducements, economic threat, and straight up psychological manipulation to manufacture consent. You acknowledge that the TV has a documented history as an evil propaganda tool. Now acknowledge that these people are your bedfellows in the vaccination campaign. Acknowledge that to the common person, your scientific position has been discredited by its association with known war crime propagandists. Y’all are in lockstep.

You are framing the vaccine as a layer of protection for the whole community. So why is it that the most vaxxed countries have the highest current rates of disease and death? Why are case rates positively associated with vaccination rates? And if the vaccine does not prevent transmission of COVID, much less the Omicron variant which appears evolved to avoid spike protein antibodies, then how does me getting a vaccine protect the community? Gibraltar has a ~100% vaccination rate. Was their community protected from Omicron? Or did Omicron wash over Gibraltar the same way it did everywhere else?

If you think I, with a 150 IQ, am too stupid to follow the science, then what must you think of the average American? Your condescending vitriol shows what you really believe. You believe people who disagree with you are too stupid to know better. For this reason you would be happy to enact mandates in violation of Nuremberg, because you know what’s best for patients, so their informed consent is not actually necessary. In fact, misinformed consent (and, er, extortion) has been your best strategy to gain voluntary compliance.

This is America buddy. Take your fascist fantasy back to where it came from.

@SD

That kinda sucks for you because everyone here has an IQ of 210 and a PhD to back it up. I’m a good democracy – progressive loving American.

Take your fascist fantasy back into that tiny box you think is perfect.

“If you think I, with a 150 IQ, am too stupid to follow the science,”

If intelligence was all that was required, then there would be no need for any scientific qualifications at all.

Dunham, it took a total of 0.2 seconds to prove one part of your diatribe wrong – mRNA vaccines have been tested on humans since at least 2013*….. seven years BEFORE Operation Warp Speed was even announced. This fact alone puts into question your research skills (or should that be “research skills”) thereby undercutting much of your argument about mRNA vaccines.

oh, BTW, congratulations on your IQ of 150 – you qualify to join MENSA……

*CV7201 Rabies Vaccine

Thank you Rann, I was not aware of that information. 101 people shot up with mRNA in a preliminary rabies vaccine investigation – no randomization, no blind, five year study duration.

So I could fix my statement with a simple adverb – mRNA therapies were not seriously studied in humans prior to Warp Speed.

“[Da]bbling in maverick experiments that challenged the basic tenets of science.” Personally, I find this description delightful, because it makes him sound like Victor Frankenstein, which is appropriate given the flights of fancy Montagnier ended up putting forth.

Sue Dunham

“And literally NOTHING will change your mind. I, on the other hand, if some well-done studies, not one, refute something previous studies had supported, I will carefully read them, re-read the earlier studies, and possibly change my position. Why? Because I pride myself in basing my positions on science.”

To paraphrase him”

You are dumb and I on the other hand are super smart.

Ask him what science did he change his position on ?

And yes he does believe this….

“You believe people who disagree with you are too stupid to know better.”

Informed Consent

Informed consent takes time and effort. In my home state ballots often have a number of initiatives and elected positions. I often devote between 10 and 20 hours reading and researching the initiatives and the people running for office. However, some of the initiatives are 60 pages or more, which takes considerable time to just read them, let alone do web searches. And some of the political positions have candidates who I wasn’t able to find any real additional information on. So, what do I do? Simple, I leave often some initiatives and some political positions blank. If I can’t obtain a minimum of info to make an informed decision, I don’t allow “biases”, etc. to cloud my judgment.

So, what about, for instance, infectious diseases/pandemics and vaccines? Does one have to have a degree in relevant subjects? NO! But one does have to put in considerable time and effort. Here are a few suggestions:

There are a number of free courses online in virology, microbiology, epidemiology and other related subjects. Actually in some cases multiple courses. I have followed several and they were quite reasonable.
Do a search of PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database, Google Scholar, and even Google. Learn how to write good search words; e.g. use capital AND, OR, etc. between terms. PubMed actually has online guidance.
Once you find ABSTRACTs of relevant paper/reports, search by title. Some articles available free, others not. Don’t give up, scroll down sometimes several pages and you may find the article posted by author or some other group.
If you can, go to local public university library where you can photocopy articles in journals and/or use their computers to access electronic databases with tons of journals, download articles to thumb drive or print out.
Some public libraries also subscribe to various electronic database and if you have their library card you can access some medical journal articles. Many also subscribe to Scientific American, Nature, and/or Science.
Find online course curriculum in microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, etc, offered by universities. These usually include textbooks and articles. You may be able to find an inexpensive used copy of the textbooks online; e.g., amazon.com or even buy an earlier edition.
While can be interesting to find early research on subject, if time limited search for reviews/meta-analyses. Don’t rely on one. They include often huge reference lists and you can use them to find other articles of interest.
Finally, as the Delphic Oracle said: “Know Thyself”. Not easy and never perfect or complete; but when an opinion/position pops into your head ask yourself what you base it on. You might discover that you really didn’t do any critical research, just picked it up from one or two sources without questioning, etc.

None of the above guarantee an informed consent; but without, no opinion you have can be considered based on informed consent, just scientific ignorance, unconscious biases and hang-ups, etc. and often actually result in decisions that go against ones best interests.

And some people will reject anything and everything that contradicts their uninformed positions, basically ascribing those who contradict them, no matter how well they make an argument, how many references, as just part of some global conspiracy. RFKs book makes claim that Fauci basically controls medical journals. If that were true then where else can we get valid science? From blogs which often give NO references or one or two cherry-picked, sometimes even misquoting? Given that if one follows the medical journals, even well-done studies are later refuted by several additional studies, what does that say about their biases? One can find nowadays numerous published case reports, early small research studies, including alleged adverse events, etc to COVID vaccines. So, they did get published; but later larger better studies followed, not one or two; but many. Not just American or UK researchers; but researchers from around the world, some funded by Big Pharma; but others NOT.

We don’t live in a perfect world. Bad studies do get published; but good studies eventually refute. Biased studies do get published; but good studies eventually refute. Not relying on one or two studies, understanding the basics of microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. and taking the time and effort to arrive at an informed consent is the best we can do. And if done properly the vast majority of decisions will be valid, not every last one; but majority. Unfortunately, the less one knows/understands, the more certain some people are, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. And believing that anyone, regardless of how well they explain their position, is just part of some conspiracy, means one is totally CLOSED-MINDED AND FOOLISH.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “Not only does drunk driving kill people, so does sober driving. Should we outlaw driving altogether or is the risk to the community acceptable?”

As I’ve written over and over, we don’t live in a perfect world. Drunk driving significantly increases the risks. You really are STUPID to see things in extremes of black and white.

You write: “I am harping on informed consent because no information about the risks of mRNA therapy has been disclosed. Maybe in some places, but certainly not on television. Now, I made the effort to inform myself about mRNA vaccines, and after learning that they had not been studied in humans prior to Warp Speed, I decided it would be prudent to wait for more than two months of safety data concocted by the drug manufacturer, who incidentally has a history of pushing toxic pharmaceuticals on the public. I informed myself, and I did not consent”

First, the mRNA vaccines were tested on animals. Second, there is a ton of info available on various websites, including CDC, FDA, WHO, and many nations Departments of Health as well as medical journals about adverse events. Check out, for instance CDC website VACCINE SAFETY, especially Vaccine Safety Datalink. Third, having high vaccinations rates overall doesn’t say if various enclaves/groups have low vaccination rates (in fact likely such groups ignore most if not all of the mitigation strategies). Numerous studies from around the world have found that the overall number of hospitalized and dead were NOT vaccinated. However, vaccines are NOT perfect. Again, we don’t live in an extreme world of black and white. However, both understanding of vaccines, now they work, and the huge amount of current studies, tells us that they significantly reduce ones risk of severe covid, hospitalization, and death vs minuscule risk of serious adverse events. And you, in your immense ignorance, confuse cases with harm. I wouldn’t doubt that at some time I have been exposed to COVID, perhaps, OMICRON, and had someone done a nasopharyngeal swab or other test, come out positive; but I have NOT had a single days discomfort during the pandemic. If you understood our immune systems, you would know that on any given day we are exposed to thousands of potentially pathogenic microbes, some stopped cold before they even enter and other stopped before they can do damage. So, yep, many who have been vaccinated have been infected with the highly transmissible OMICRON and, yep, some have developed severe infections, etc. And the studies show that those who got the booster had a much lower risk. Seatbelts only prevent death and serious injury by about 50%; yet I have always worn a seatbelt, long before mandated. And even with OMICRON the protection conferred by the vaccine is much higher than 50%.

You write: “If you think I, with a 150 IQ, am too stupid to follow the science, then what must you think of the average American? Your condescending vitriol shows what you really believe. You believe people who disagree with you are too stupid to know better. For this reason you would be happy to enact mandates in violation of Nuremberg, because you know what’s best for patients, so their informed consent is not actually necessary. In fact, misinformed consent (and, er, extortion) has been your best strategy to gain voluntary compliance.
This is America buddy. Take your fascist fantasy back to where it came from.”

First, I actually took grad courses in psychometrics, intelligence tests, etc. and intelligence tests do NOT measure intelligence, they measure a combination of things; e.g., certain learned skills, language, education, even cultural. But even if they measured some innate intelligence, it has to be applied properly. And now we play the Nazi card, Nuremberg. As a Jew who grew up knowing concentration camp sole survivors of large families, who read everything I could about concentration camps, Nazi Germany, and lived for six months in Israel where I met even more survivors I find your resorting to Nuremburg trials as ABOMINABLE. The Nazis were a death cult, SS even had it as emblem. They killed handicapped people, psychiatric patients, gypsies, of course, Jews, and many more. Despite what you choose to believe in your arrogance and ignorance, mandating vaccines is certainly not to harm people; but protect the individual and third parties. Are you really TOO STUPID to know the difference. Would Nuremburg laws rule out isolating people with active smallpox? Well, asymptomatic cases of COVID can be just as harmful.

So, claiming I base what I write on “fascist fantasy” just shows what a STUPID CALLOUS DESPICABLE PERSON YOU ARE. And by the way, some of the major Nazis were quite intelligent, including Hermann Goering, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. Intelligence doesn’t say how it is applied.

You should quit while you’re behind, before you explode in an incoherent rage. First you write a rambling comment about informed consent that suggests you have no understanding of what informed consent means, then you confirm your ignorance by not making the connection to Nuremberg, where the principle of informed consent was codified. You don’t seem to get it. Informed consent does not mean that it’s my responsibility to inform myself. It means it’s your responsibility to inform me. You are a doctor? You want me to get vaccinated? Then inform me of the risks. How many deaths per million? How many injuries? And even after you inform me, the choice is still mine. Because I have human rights.

If you can’t or won’t inform me of the risks, or if you seek to mandate compliance, then you are just as dangerous as any ethnosocialist.

The vaccines do not protect the community because they are not capable of creating herd immunity. You don’t even have a valid public health reason to mandate them. Those who want them have taken them. Give it up already.

@Sue Dunham You do not know much about informed consent or Nueremberg. Nuremberg was about human trials, not about using an approved medical product. Vaccines does have an information statements included

@ Kay West

You write: “Ask him what science did he change his position on ?”

When I studied psychology ulcers were considered result of stress and diet. Therapists and doctors would put people on restricted diets and teach them stress reducing techniques; e.g. mediation, systematic relaxation, etc. Then in 1981 a researcher, Barry Masters, from University of Western Australia, wrote a peer-reviewed article where he found that almost all with ulcers had the bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, had ulcers. He treated them with antibiotics and the ulcers disappeared. At the time scientists didn’t believe bacteria could survive stomach acid; but they then learned that H. pylori uses its flagella to burrow into the mucus lining of the stomach to reach the epithelial cells underneath, where it is less acidic and H. pylori also neutralizes the acid in its environment by producing large amounts of urease, which breaks down the urea present in the stomach to carbon dioxide and ammonia. These react with the strong acids in the environment to produce a neutralized area around H. pylori. Well, I read this and no, didn’t immediately stop believing diet and stress reduction way of dealing with ulcers; but in less than a year as more studies came out, I changed my mind, despite 15 years of courses, readings, etc. I could give more examples.

You write: ““You believe people who disagree with you are too stupid to know better.”

When I have given detailed clear refutations to your beliefs, including multiple references, yep, you are TOO STUPID, TOO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, to even consider, not automatically agree with me; but consider what i write. I have literally torn to shreds some of the papers you have referred to. Have you ever even admitted I was right about those papers?
As I’ve written over and over, YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK.

So, keep claiming I simply think people too stupid when they disagree with me rather than I consider people too stupid when, regardless of how strong an argument I make, how backed up with numerous references, they refuse to even consider that they are possibly wrong.

And if you haven’t noticed, at least a half dozen other commenters have more or less said the same about you. And NOPE, I do NOT personally know any of them, never spoken on phone, met in person, or exchanged e-mails.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “Electron micrography does not involve photons. There is no detection of light involved. You did not print any “photos” of a virus.”

From Wikipedia. Scanning electron microscope

“Analytical signals based on generated photons
Measurement of the energy of photons emitted from the specimen is a common method to get analytical capabilities. Examples are the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) detectors used in elemental analysis and cathodoluminescence microscope (CL) systems that analyse the intensity and spectrum of electron-induced luminescence in (for example) geological specimens. In SEM systems using these detectors it is common to color code these extra signals and superimpose them in a single color image, so that differences in the distribution of the various components of the specimen can be seen clearly and compared. Optionally, the standard secondary electron image can be merged with the one or more compositional channels, so that the specimen’s structure and composition can be compared. Such images can be made while maintaining the full integrity of the original signal data, which is not modified in any way.

And check out gettyimages: “1,944 Scanning Electron Microscope Premium High Res Photos”

Just one of numerous websites with SEM photos. You apparently totally don’t understand that photos can be obtained from various different types of input, light is just one of them and even light photos involve some sort of translation process, either certain chemicals and paper or electronically

I’m still way more right than you are. I technically misspoke when I said no photons are involved in electron micrography, because as you cite above, photons are sometimes emitted from the sample when it is struck by the electron beam. I also learned that in detection of secondary electrons, the electronic signal is converted to a photonic signal by a photomultiplier. But there is a reason the Wikipedia article consistently uses the term image or micrograph and avoids the term photograph. A photograph is defined as “an image recorded by exposing a photosensitive surface to light”. But in electron micrography, per wiki: “the resulting image is, therefore, a distribution map of the intensity of the signal being emitted from the scanned area of the specimen. Older microscopes captured images on film, but most modern instrument collect digital images.”

Further in the article we have wiki’s description of an Everhart Thornley detector:

“The amplified electrical signal output by the photomultiplier is displayed as a two-dimensional intensity distribution that can be viewed and photographed on an analogue video display, or subjected to analog-to-digital conversion and displayed and saved as a digital image.”

So the data that is generated via electron micrography may be photographed. Otherwise the data can be directly converted into a digital image. But then the data is purely electronic. No photosensitive surface is exposed to light. An electron micrograph is not necessarily a photograph. Printing it out certainly doesn’t make it so. It is actually a data visualization.

Getty’s usage is also colloquial, and presumably substantially incorrect.

@ Sue Dunham

Though as I wrote IQ tests DON’T measure innate intelligence, if you did score 150, given usual standard deviation 15 points, means you scored better than 98 out of every 100 who took the test. First, which test was it? Second, if you think you are so intelligent, please, tell us about your accomplishments; e.g., degrees, published articles, occupational achievement; e.g., head of data lab or head of electronic research group or. . . or.

I question your claim of intelligence partly because you claim you couldn’t find info on COVID vaccine safety, etc. etc. etc. when simple search words, even on Google found numerous websites, some valid, some not valid; but an “intelligent” person should be able to distinguish between them. Not you, of course.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “First you write a rambling comment about informed consent that suggests you have no understanding of what informed consent means, then you confirm your ignorance by not making the connection to Nuremberg, where the principle of informed consent was codified.”

Actually, the code specifies informed consent for “Medical Experiments” Vaccines are NOT medical experiments and as I’ve explained, neither are the mRNA vaccines. Informed consent was required of clinical trial volunteers. And given the huge amount of studies/papers, etc. since vaccines introduced, not even close to a medical experiment:

“The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally.”

And you keep harping on being informed of the risks. Actually when people received the vaccine, as with every vaccine, they were given a Vaccine Information Statement that includes list of minor adverse events and major adverse events and, as I’ve already written, one can easily find up-to-date info on CDC, FDA, WHO, and a number of other websites. For someone claiming to be highly intelligent seems if someone doesn’t spoon feed you every last bit of information, you are totally incapable of finding.

You write: “The vaccines do not protect the community because they are not capable of creating herd immunity. You don’t even have a valid public health reason to mandate them”

Actually they could if enough people got vaccinated To create herd immunity one first has to know the basic reproduction number, simply, on average, how many people can one person infect. It is much higher for COVID than, for instance, flu. So, one has to read that number, to determine how many need to be vaccinated, probably around 90 – 95%. I would have to look up exact. And herd immunity doesn’t mean an end to people getting sick from virus, just an end to mass breakouts. Individuals who are not vaccinated could be infected by someone; but it won’t have a major spread. However, if we had achieved 95% vaccinated after vaccines approved, instead of more than 400,000 deaths, probably far less than 50,000. Of course saving the lives of 350,000 or more means nothing to an IDIOT like you. So, the vaccines are capable of achieving herd immunity, thus, a valid public health reason. And even if they don’t achieve herd immunity they reduce number of serious cases so hospitals not overwhelmed, staff not suffering burn-out, and people not dying because couldn’t get appropriate medical care. YOU REALLY ARE STUPID ON STEROIDS!

WOW

so in 41 years you changed your science opinion only once. (that was back in 1981)

“And if you haven’t noticed, at least a half dozen other commenters have more or less said the same about you.”

Just because you proclaim someone is wrong does not make it so.

“If I were wrong, it would only take one to prove me wrong.”

And back to name calling,

“TOO STUPID, TOO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST…YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK”

Yes everyone is too dumb to understand your brilliance.

Sue, he can’t “Give it up already” his manhood is at stake, he is an internet troll/bully, if you run his name on a search engine you will find he post on lots of sites, with the same line, he is brilliant and others are too stupid to recognize how brilliant he is.

So lets just go to wayback machine (ok like 3 weeks ago) on his brilliant replies.

“WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!Keep making a fool of yourself STUPID AND DISHONEST MORON You really are IGNORANT FUCKING HYPOCRITE. DECENT OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE refute you HYPOCRITE, VERY STUPID HYPOCRITE.YOU REALLY ARE FULL OF SHIT. DISHONEST DISHONEST STUPID absolute fool of yourself YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. ASSHOLE ASSHOLES like you ASSHOLE YOU REALLY ARE A SICK INDIVIDUAL IGNORANT ASSHOLES like you ASSHOLES like you ASSHOLE ASSHOLE ALL OR NONE MORONS LIKE YOU FUCKIN MORON IGNORANT, DESPICABLE ASSHOLE. MORONIC ASSHOLE JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU GO TO HELL! ASSHOLES ASSHOLE STUPID and/or DISHONEST ASSHOLES STUPIDITY AND DISHONESTY STUPIDITY AND DISHONESTY. ASSHOLE STUPID DISHONEST ASSHOLE STUPID FUCKIN ASSHOLE ASSHOLE ASSHOLE FUCKIN ASSHOLE DISHONEST DISHONEST ASSHOLE”

Because of your spittle when you type, its a good thing your mac keyboard is water resistant,

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “First you write a rambling comment about informed consent ”

YOU ARE EXTREMELY SICK. I simply gave a variety of sources for becoming informed about the current vaccine, etc. Not a rambling comment; but an orderly list of procedures. And I made it quite clear that informed consent, emphasis “informed” takes time and effort. YOU ARE EXTREMELY SICK. GET HELP!

@ Sue Dunham

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. NOT AD HOMINEMS BUT ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF SOMEONE WHO GETS IT WRONG, CLEARLY POINTED OUT; YET IGNORES.

Pure projection my friend. Question, is an electron micrograph or a printout of such accurately described as a “photo”, or is such usage colloquial (ie, unstudied) and technically misleading?

I hesitate to litigate any more against you, because you are so foolish that I begin to suspect you are someone’s idea of a prank, and not just a vain mediocrity. But suffice to point out your constant inconsistency and hypocrisy. You just used the phrase “ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF SOMEONE WHO GETS IT WRONG” to describe the phrase “EXTREMELY SICK”. Is that any way to describe being wrong? Yes, I’m sure you would love to prescribe something to cure my thoughtcrime. Maybe you can also go for some electroshock, prefrontal lobotomy, whatever it takes to allow me to “get it right”. To make me well.

@ Sue Dunham

I just want to get this straight. If we were debating before an independent panel of judges and I clearly refuted each and every one of your statements with logic, science, and valid references, then pointed out how you failed to disprove me, how you then ignored my valid refutations, so then said I thought you stupid, intellectually dishonest and/or mentally disturbed, the judges would ignore ALL my refutations and declare you the winner??? Just how STUPID are you??? The epitome of Dunning-Kruger Effect.

@IR

Yea! Does it mean you go away? I love Joel and his excellent information. More curious, is this a call to some process you control? Interesting statement you provide. Thanks!

I disagree with what you say because you provide insufficient evidence and more often wrong stuff easily shown to be wrong and harmful.

If you are saying there’s no way you could lose a hypothetical debate, I can’t prove you wrong. But you lost this one.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “If you are saying there’s no way you could lose a hypothetical debate, I can’t prove you wrong. But you lost this one.”

NOPE. Didn’t say I can’t be proved wrong; but you certainly haven’t done so. Not even close.

My scorecard says otherwise here and on the grand scale of information reliability and practice. SMH.

DB
Bacon isn’t good for you either.
My Mac has a nifty little program that can search a website and bring up any words i choose, so I don’t have to search/copy/”pasta” but I do like pasta with bacon and white wine sauce.

harrison
you suffer from dunning kruger effect (it was pointed out to you at least 18 months ago and now you have acquired its usage) as you fit the last sentence “lack of self-awareness” as you have proven in your reading and writing skills as posted here and the other sites you visit

“The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area.
This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.”

and based on your emotional outbursts and language Dunning-Kruger applies to you:

“The Dunning-Kruger effect has been found in domains ranging from logical reasoning to emotional intelligence,” and ” They are often driven by a desire for status and power and the need to appear smarter than the people around them.”

@ Kay West

You write: “WOW so in 41 years you changed your science opinion only once. (that was back in 1981)”

I didn’t say that was the only time, just gave as an example. Just one more example of how STUPID/DISHONEST you are. And, nope, I’m not going to waste my time giving more examples, given nothing will change your mind. When you criticized my wanting to be addressed as Dr. and I explained that when PhDs testify before Congress, State Legislatures, School Boards, Courts, etc. they are always addressed as Dr, not Mr, not even this did you admit you were wrong. By the way, I found online that even Paul Kruger has been addressed as Dr Kruger, depending on the circumstances. And, though I don’t know what occurs on university campuses nowadays, when I was at university we either addressed PhD instructors as Dr or Professor, never as Mr. Sometimes the instructors would give us permission to address them by their first names; but we did this ONLY after given permission.

You write: “Just because you proclaim someone is wrong does not make it so.”

NOPE, if I just “proclaim wrong does not make it so”; but in your IMMENSE STUPIDITY and DISHONESTY you leave out that I give logical, rational, scientific explanations, including often several references. And just because you think what you write is valid also doesn’t make it so.

And once again you cut and paste what I labeled you, as usual, ignoring that each one was preceded with a clear, logical, rational, scientific refutation of what you wrote, which you then ignored, so my labeling you clearly is because of the aforementioned.

So, please feel free to ignore the above and cut and paste: YOU ARE AN EXTREMELY STUPID, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, AND/OR MENTALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL.

@ Sue

You write: “Question, is an electron micrograph or a printout of such accurately described as a “photo”, or is such usage colloquial (ie, unstudied) and technically misleading?”

Light is simply seen as either energized particles or wavelengths. When these energized particles strike something, either cells in eye’s retina or camera lens, etc. they are then translated by various means into images. Well, electron micrography uses electrons, energized particles, which strike something, and are then translated by various means into images.

I have a half dozen microbiology textbooks and they explain in detail different ways of viewing cells, etc. Do you know what darkfield micrography is? How about phase-contrast? There are a fairly large number of different types of micrography; but the end result is for the researcher to be able to view the microbe and even its insides. And all of my texts and other papers call them when printed out “photos”.

You simply give your opinion, while I simply reproduce what textbooks state.

You are profoundly obstinate and ill informed. Yes, photons and electrons can both be modeled as energized particles. Who cares? So can paint. The point is that photons and electrons and paint molecules are all fundamentally different types of particles. I can paint a paint sensitive surface and call it a photo. But that would make me a moron. I can also take a photo of an image of a horse call it a photo of a horse. But that would make me a liar. Next you talk about different types of micrography while failing to note the distinction between optical micrography and electron micrography. This is the whole freaking point. It is not technically accurate to call an electron micrograph a photo, although you may take a photo of it. Therefore to call an electron micrograph a photo is a technical mischaracterization.

Then in your other comment you imply that digital photography is “purely electronic”, leaving aside that the electronic data is generated by photons striking a photosensitive medium. This is what does not occur at any point in electron microscopy.

@ Sue Dunham

You write: “So the data that is generated via electron micrography may be photographed. Otherwise the data can be directly converted into a digital image. But then the data is purely electronic. No photosensitive surface is exposed to light. An electron micrograph is not necessarily a photograph. Printing it out certainly doesn’t make it so. It is actually a data visualization.”

So, it may be photographed. So what should we call the photograph? A photo! ! ! As for the data being purely electronic, so what do you call images captured on a cell phone? I call them “photos”.

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “That is how this ahole talks to anyone he disagrees with. No one should reply to his filth.”

First, let me remind you that you were the first one to call me asshole, prior to that I did NOT use that term.

Second, when you continuously ignore being wrong, you are tiresome. In a previous exchange you claimed Gallo admitted that other viruses caused AIDS. I found the article and he said that other viruses could accelerate the process; but HIV still, by itself, would cause AIDS. It is tiresome dealing with someone who is wrong over and over and not only refuses to admit it; but then just repeats. I don’t call people “whole” because they disagree with me; but because when I refute them with logic, science, and references, they ignore it. You are a prime example.

@ Kay West

You write: “harrison
you suffer from dunning kruger effect (it was pointed out to you at least 18 months ago and now you have acquired its usage) as you fit the last sentence “lack of self-awareness” as you have proven in your reading and writing skills as posted here and the other sites you visit”

First, I learned about the Dunning-Kruger Effect probably 30 years ago. Second, give one example of something you claimed followed by my refutation and explain the flaws in my refutation; e.g. logic, science, and often several valid references. So, given I earned a competitive doctoral research fellowship, then a doctorate, then a competitive NIH post-doctoral research fellowship where I earned an MPH in community health and an MS in epidemiology/biostatistics and earlier went a separate course line in clinical psychology, including one year internship and licensure; yet, I certainly lack self-awareness of my abilities. I’ve asked you over and over what is your training/education/occupation, etc. never a response.

Just one more example of your inability to actually support what you write and turn it on its end. I can give references to 15 peer-reviewed journal articles and 50 OpEds published by magazines with substantial readerships, etc. And my OpEds often include extensive reference lists, sometimes over 100. Please give just one example of a paper written by you.

So, once again, feel free to cut and paste the following, ignoring the above: YOU ARE STUPID, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, AND/OR MENTALLY DISTURBED

“When you criticized my wanting to be addressed as Dr. and I explained that when PhDs testify before Congress, State Legislatures, School Boards, Courts, etc. they are always addressed as Dr, not Mr, not even this did you admit you were wrong. By the way, I found online that even Paul Kruger has been addressed as Dr Kruger, depending on the circumstances. And, though I don’t know what occurs on university campuses nowadays, when I was at university we either addressed PhD instructors as Dr or Professor, never as Mr. Sometimes the instructors would give us permission to address them by their first names; but we did this ONLY after given permission.”

I might remind you that you went to school 50 years ago, did they wear robes and those funny hats too, things have changed and is that your idea of “I give logical, rational, scientific explanations, including often several references”.When you post about Rand Paul, John Barrasso and Tom Coburn you never have used the term DOCTOR. Again I point out to you that the IRS nor PGE uses that term. So there is no rule that I have to follow. But if you insist on a title, I have one you can call me. “MOST EXALTED HIGH PRINCESS”.

“First, I learned about the Dunning-Kruger Effect probably 30 years ago.”
WOW did you get a preprint or are you psychic.
Dunning-Kruger didn’t write their paper until 1999 22 years ago.

And I have observed you post about law, climate, politics, religion, gun control, world history and claim expertise in all those areas
“Confidence is so highly prized that many people would rather pretend to be smart or skilled than risk looking inadequate and losing face. Even smart people can be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect because having intelligence isn’t the same thing as learning and developing a specific skill. Many individuals mistakenly believe that their experience and skills in one particular area are transferable to another.
Please cite those 15 peer-reviewed papers you wrote, oh sorry, you reviewed. As to your OpEds I have seen what you write in organizations you are a member of and have read some of your other ‘works’. I think we are plowing some old ground on the readership of a couple of those magazines if you would want me to post your ego driven rants about the readership I will be happy to repost.
If you were half as good as you claim you are (which you aren’t) I have given all that information previously.

Again the Dunning-Kruger effect,
“Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Emotional intelligence is generally said to include a few skills: namely emotional awareness, or the ability to identify and name one’s own emotions; the ability to harness those emotions and apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving; and the ability to manage emotions”

@ Kay West

You write: ““First, I learned about the Dunning-Kruger Effect probably 30 years ago.” WOW did you get a preprint or are you psychic. Dunning-Kruger didn’t write their paper until 1999 22 years ago.”

I wrote “probably 30 years ago”. So what? Typical of you to focus on a bit of trivia. The fact is that I have read about Dunning-Kruger and have probably a dozen publications, etc.

You write: “I might remind you that you went to school 50 years ago, did they wear robes and those funny hats too, things have changed and is that your idea of “I give logical, rational, scientific explanations, including often several references”.When you post about Rand Paul, John Barrasso and Tom Coburn you never have used the term DOCTOR. Again I point out to you that the IRS nor PGE uses that term. So there is no rule that I have to follow. But if you insist on a title, I have one you can call me. “MOST EXALTED HIGH PRINCESS”.”

I checked with staff of my local city council member and a lawyer friend and in both cases when a PhD testifies before legislative bodies, school boards, and courts, they are addressed as Dr. I don’t remember ever commenting about Rand Paul, don’t know who John Barrasso is, don’t remember commenting about Tom Coburn. However, when they are addressed in public, they are addressed as Congressman or Senator, not Dr. But not addressed as Mr. nor by journalists, etc. by first name. And the IRS does NOT address me as Mr. nor by my first name.

You write: “Please cite those 15 peer-reviewed papers you wrote, oh sorry, you reviewed.” NOPE. I was first author or co-author on 15 peer-reviewed publications. I have reviewed others.
I will give just one: Joel A. Harrison (2013). Wrong About Vaccine Safety: A Review of Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous Disregard”. Open Vaccine Journal; 6: 9-25. [Note it has 142 references. When I write papers I don’t just form opinions, I do the research. Actually I have over 250 papers that I found and downloaded to a folder for this article.]

You write: “As to your OpEds I have seen what you write in organizations you are a member of and have read some of your other ‘works’”

I wrote one paper for an organization I used to be a member of, Physicians for a National Health Program. I wrote around a dozen papers for Every Child By Two, now called Vaccinate Your Family, a non-profit that supports vaccines. I contacted them and offered to write papers. I was NOT and have NEVER been a member of their organization. I have written two papers for this blogs sister website: Science-Based Medicine. I have written over 30 OpEds for a local online magazine that has an average of 300,000 readers per month, East County Magazine. I submitted them as would anyone else and it was up to them to publish them or not. And I have written OpEds that were published in Swedish newspapers. And probably a few more. I’ll have to think about it. And all of my OpEds have been well-received and include extensive reference lists. As opposed to you who makes claims based at most on one or two papers which I, in turn tear apart and you ignore.

You write: “And I have observed you post about law, climate, politics, religion, gun control, world history and claim expertise in all those areas”

“Expertise” Not exactly; but well-informed based on extensive reading, attending seminars, etc. So, no where in the above do I claim “expertise”; but just write and include extensive references. As opposed to you who write comments, again, with few or no references and yet think you are right and ignore my refutations, no matter how logical and scientific.

Finally, you write: “But if you insist on a title, I have one you can call me. “MOST EXALTED HIGH PRINCESS”.”

First, as I’ve explained over and over I earned my PhD. Princess implies either marriage to royalty or born to royalty. Does either apply to you. So, based on your continuous MORONIC comments, how about title: MORON ON STEROIDS?

I’ll try to think of some more.

So, as usual, you continue to MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

Please, one more time, why do you think you know better than me? As I wrote above, even on topics I am not an expert in, I am well-read, attended seminars, etc. Oh, by the way, you included politics, my BA is in Political Science, which included three courses in Constitutional Law. As for gun control, when I was on the faculty of a medical school, one of my colleagues was a researcher in gun violence, held numerous seminars, and loaned me several books and photocopies of probably 50 peer-reviewed journal articles. You do understand that gun violence is a subject researched by epidemiologists? As for climate, following Jimmy Carter’s speech, I began reading every single article in Scientific American, some articles in Nature and Science Magazines, read half dozen books, attending lectures and seminars, and since advent of internet bookmarked and followed papers on National Oceanographic and Aeronautic Administration, NASA, and several others. So, my expertise in in infectious diseases, vaccines, epidemiological methods, public health; but, given three courses in Constitutional Law and continuing readings, including several books on history of Supreme Court, and BA in Political Science, MA in Social Psychology, while not claiming expertise, I am reasonably well-knowledge and always back up what I write, not always in short comments, with extensive reference lists. Something you don’t do. And, again, what do you base your opinion/positions on???

You really are STUPID when you continue to write comments that are so easy to tear apart.

Once more: What do you base your opinions on? Ms MORON ON STEROIDS

And once more, who cares if I first read Dunning-Kruger 22 years ago or off the top of my head guess “probably” 30 years ago? Only someone too STUPID to enter into an intelligent dialogue; but instead focuses on some trivia. And doesn’t even understand the word “probably” which, of course, most people would understand to be a guess, not an exact number.

@ Kay West, MORON ON STEROIDS

You write: “The Guardian: “Explaining” vaccine hesitancy by amplifying antivax disinformation – RESPECTFUL INSOLENCEsays:
February 16, 2022 at 11:06 am
[…] of the first to claim that SARS-CoV-2 must have been “engineered” because there were short peptide sequences resembling those of an HIV protein in the spike protein of the virus, but he was far from alone in […]

If you have even read my comments, first, I have NEVER ruled out the possibility COVID escaped from Wuhan Lab; but, despite your relying on a newspaper article, there is extensive research, gene sequencing, and they have found numerous examples of coronaviruses that are very close to the current one in, among others, in horseshoe bats. And the Omicron variant has 30 mutations in its S-Spike protein. Nature does its thing. But you have also ignored that there have been numerous leaks of even gain-of-function viruses from American labs, which, fortunately did NOT spread. One was a gain-of-function coronavirus. And as I’ve explained and you in your IMMENSE STUPIDITY AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ignore, we were grossly unprepared, despite tons of research and expertise predicting ever more pandemics breaking out. So, whether from lab, less likely, but not impossible, or from nature, we were grossly unprepared and our response was inadequate, inconsistent, etc. The best single book that will explain this is: Scott Gottlieb’s “Uncontrolled Spread” he explains step by step our mistakes, lack of preparation, and why we will probably be unprepared for the next pandemic which could be a lot more deadly.

So, as usual, you find one or two papers and think you have made a point; but what you have done is just continue to display your STUPIDITY

Why don’t you get Gottlieb’s book and read it carefully. As I’ve written in previous comments, I am currently reading a new edition of textbook in immunology; both to refresh what I already have learned and to learn any new developments. And I am editing colleagues next edition of undergraduate Microbiology book. And I continue to download new papers on COVID-19 and also read on other subjects, unfortunately wasting time responding to IDIOTS like you.

“I might remind you that you went to school 50 years ago, did they wear robes and those funny hats too, things have changed”

Not that much.

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/why-class-2021-medical-school-graduates-are-poised-become-change-agents-our-health-system-needs

http://gsd.harvard.edu/resources/commencement-information/

Back when I graduated from high school, they decided to do something different and had us all in white robes. Looked a bit like a Klan rally.

Mr. Wang points out that some SEM images are also referred to as photomicrographs. The definition of photomicrograph is “a photograph of a microscope image”. Now a microscope image may be produced in two ways: with an optical microscope, or with an electron microscope. We have been arguing about the nature of the microscope image itself: it is not a photograph. The image produced by an optical microscope cannot be recorded without a photographic sensor. Effectively the microscope is an extension of the camera lens. But electron micrographs can be directly digitally recorded.

Photographs are records of photonic information that have been captured by a photosensitive medium (whether analog or digital). Electron micrographs are records of electronic information that have been translated into levels of brightness. As far as I understand there is not even a medium involved in SEM. It is a point by point electron count. As I said before, it is possible to photograph an electron micrograph. But since an electron micrograph may be saved digitally, an SEM image is not necessarily a photomicrograph. Your comparison to digital cameras is invalid because digital cameras first create a photographic image. The digital photograph begins as a photographic image and becomes a digital file. The electron micrograph begins as a collection of electronic data and becomes a digital image (in the sense that each pixel is numerically defined, although it may be represented on an analog monitor). At this point the electrographic image may be saved or photographed.

Here’s the difference: a photograph is an original image. So is an electron micrograph. An SEM photomicrograph is is an image of an image; a copy of an original in a different medium. An SEM photomicrograph of HIV is still not a photo of HIV. In fact, HIV cannot be photographed at all, it’s too god damn small, that is the whole point! That’s why I rolled my eyes at Joel.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: