I think the half-million dead from the coerced “safe & effective” shot, in the US alone, needs distracting away-from. Plus the two lab-leak viruses & related coverup, the lockdowns-and-masks-that-don’t-work, plus of course the engineered wealth transfer from the middle class to the Oligarchs…the new “supply chain” inflation…
Snake Venom? Or all the stuff I just mentioned? Reminds me of graphene. May be a thing, but no evidence from people I trust. https://openvaers.com/covid-data
A new anti-vaccine documentary ridiculously claims that the coronavirus is not a virus, but a synthetic version of snake venom that evil forces are spreading through remdesivir, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and drinking water to "make you a hybrid of Satan."
I kinda wonder if the fact-checks was written prior to the release of the documentary.
This kinda stuff is really all they have left. Shots have killed half a million Americans. 40% increase in deaths in the working-age population. I mean - look at it from their viewpoint. They had to do something.
Snake Venom. Think the documentary (and the fact-checks) will successfully distract away from those half-million dead Americans?
Safe & Effective.
Let me get this straight: “Snake venom. Graphene and Nanotechnology. These are the latest conspiracies that could be planted into the ether as a way to discredit anyone opposed to mandates and experimental vaccines. Don’t be fooled, BUT more importantly, don’t allow yourself to made into a fool.” “If you buy into these myths when there is no actual, simple scientific effort to prove or disprove them …”
But take seriously my conspiracy theory (without actual simple scientific proof) that the vaccine companies are spreading those lies to discredit opponents and sell more vaccines.
I came here looking for reasonable alternate viewpoints but I have sure seen a lot of oddball ideas and allegations here.
I admire that you sincerely argued the weakness of this theory, Chris.
I am a molecular biologist and I am a faculty is a research-led university.
This was finally one of these videos by you in which I didn’t learn really much. (I’ve been learning so much from you!)
One minor correction, though, it is rather unfair to say that it is rare to change amino acids without changing protein functions (~29min in the movie).
It is a lot more nuanced. For glutamate residues (which was what you used as an example), I tend to agree. But, it is more common that one amino acid change does not alter protein function at all.
Thank you for your great work.
But take seriously my conspiracy theory (without actual simple scientific proof) that the vaccine companies are spreading those lies to discredit opponents and sell more vaccines.
I never made that particular connection or assertion. Can you source what it is you are reacting to, please?
But, it is more common that one amino acid change does not alter protein function at all.
Good to know.
My point was that changing the charge (say from non-polar to negatively charged) of a given AA has a pretty darn good chance of altering the protein function, if not entirely eliminating the original function.
I don't have any particular knowledge about what happens if a nonpolar is swapped for another nonpolar but I'd bet that's less deleterious.
Is that roughly accurate?
My other point was that the "homology" between the proposed neurotoxins and SARS2 sequences wasn't a case of a single AA swap, but of as many as half to two-thirds of a given string being altered, with many not sharing similar charges.
That's enough that I am frowning at the idea of sequence homology and going to demand functional homology to make my frown begin to abate.
My hypothesis: if I had an unlimited budget to promote my highly profitable vaccines, I’d pay my public relations teams to start whisper campaigns and plant false narratives that embarrass our opponents. The trick is to take down the truth you don’t want in the public eye by attaching it to an obvious falsehood and then sinking both of them at the same time.
Politicians and the media do it every year during campaign season...
...And there is no doubt corporations engage in these kinds of espionage/psyops campaigns. So, doesn’t it make sense that billion-dollar corporations could work to protect billion-dollar profits by anonymously planting these outlandish conspiracies?
My bullshit meter was busy while watching this. At the time I thought I’d love to see what Chris thinks. It’s so refreshing to hear Chris’s breakdown of the theory. No I won’t spend anymore time on it.
For years I’ve been pretty good about being resistant to stuff like this, but right now I am disgusted and embarrassed with myself that I fell for this crap. Chris, thanks for your constant critical eye.
I was really offended by your coverage of Dr. Ardis’s hypotheses. Even the way you hesitated at calling him a doctor. Do you think he would present such information if he did not believe it had some validity? There are some holes in it, I agree. Why didn’t he run this by some other medical professionals before he went public? I think it’s because he was concerned about endangering their lives since he has received information about threats on his life. You could have presented your doubts without being so insulting. In time we will learn if there is validity to this.
I guess we all perceive things differently. I thought Chris was careful in his criticism to focus on the content not the messenger. And the content is really bad. I’ll be more blunt: Ardis was sloppy and completely misinterpreted some of the literature he cited to support his hypothesis. Chris did a great job of pointing out the repeated logical fallacies. Either Ardis is trying to be deceptive (I don’t think so, though am not totally sure) or else he just hasn’t learned critical thinking skills. Logic 101.
Bryan Ardis Misrepresents Key Literature To Make His Point
Chris, terrific job showing Ardis’s frequent logic errors.
A common logic error of his seems to be the “syllogistic fallacy.” He will often say that A causes C, and B causes C, and therefore A equals (or is or contains) B. For example, he says that remdesivir has a white-to-yellowish tint when stored, and so does snake venom, and then he offers this as support for the conclusion that remdesivir is snake venom. (You pointed out this example). Another example: The CDC is running PCR tests on municipal wastewater to predict COVID outbreak hotspots. Scientists have demonstrated how encapsulation in lipid nanoparticles can provide stability to snake venom in water. Therefore, what the CDC is actually doing is injecting stabilized encapsulated snake venom into water supplies. Over and over he makes these kinds of illogical claims. You did a great job showing several more examples.
I’d also like to highlight for your readers/listeners another logic error he makes, the “false premise.”
If a COVID patient is hospitalized they receive remdesivir since it is the standard of care (premise).
A patient was hospitalized. (premise)
Therefore, the patient received remdesivir. (conclusion)
This is illustrated below.
He misquotes the literature, sometimes badly. A key paper that he seems to cite in every interview is one from the Univ. of Arizona (J.M. Snider et al., “Group IIA secreted phospholipase A2 is associated with the pathobiology leading to COVID-19 mortality,” J. Clinical Investigation, Aug. 24, 2021; https://www.jci.org/articles/view/149236#SEC4; he usually refers to the news article about the study released by the university, “Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality.” https://news.arizona.edu/story/venom-coursing-through-body-researchers-identify-mechanism-driving-covid-19-mortality).
In this study, hospitalized COVID patients’ “blood and tissue samples” (according to Ardis; the paper mentions nothing about tissue samples) were studied and found to contain a phospholipase associated with venom, unlike any of the controls who did not have COVID and who did not have elevated levels of this enzyme. He notes that remdesivir is the “standard of care” for hospitalized COVID patients in the U.S., and therefore claimed that all the COVID patients in the study received remdesivir. He then offers that paper as proof that remdesivir is snake venom since all the patients received remdesivir and all had an elevated phospholipase levels similar to snakebite victims. Other scientists have noted that this lipase is produced in response to many viral infections and body stress and is not unique to snakebite (Chris made the same point).
But even if we ignore that rebuttal, a careful and thorough reading of the research paper shows that (a) many of the samples were collected from patients before remdesivir had received FDA approval for use, and (b) the supplemental data tables [which take a little extra effort to download and read] show that only 27-33% of the severe and deceased patients were on antivirals, including either remdesivir or Lopinavir/Ritonavir. So his assumption that 100% of the COVID patients received remdesivir is severely flawed. That means that the finding that 100% of the COVID patients had the phospholipase actually works against his argument instead of supporting it. This kind of reading and interpretation is just sloppy and careless all the way around. But Ardis strings together numerous papers in rapid fire succession to form a narrative that sounds good (he is a good talker!) but is incorrect.
On the other frequently cited paper, where alignments were obtained with krait and cobra venom, it should be noted that the study authors were just searching for sequence matches using a venom database. Obviously, if you are only searching a venom database, your “closest matches” will be venoms!
These 2 papers are the most foundational in his presentations/argument. If you recognize that this foundation is flawed, his argument crumbles. Add to it all the other issues that Chris, Pierre Kory, Dr. Mobeen Syed (“Dr. Been”), Steve Kirsch, Dr. Nass, and others have pointed out, and it really is a disaster. It is a shame he didn’t discuss these with experts in advance instead of becoming wedded to this idea and then describing it in a media blitz.
