By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"Skepticism and a never filed patent crushed his hopes and wasted his years. Robert Malone today has the bitterness of those who were right too early..."
The man is a bitter liar seemingly out for revenge.
Another crank to add to the list of your "esteemed" scientists.
Explain why? Properly and not some crank or quack or some beyond the grave misquotes. Explain exactly how the test works?. Tell me how you will avoid a significant chance of false negative tests which are far more dangerous than a false positive? Give me your alternative than can process 200,000 tests per day at an equivalent specificity and sensitivity.
Ideally without Google or other search engine.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:45 - Jun 30 with 1016 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:11 - Jun 30 by A_Fans_Dad
Of course he is right to offer vaccination, have I not said get vaccinated if you want to knowing all the information available?
His findings agree with others on HCQ and Ivermectin protocols, which is what I have been explaining since last year. You will not admit that due to suppression of those facts 100s of thousands of lives have been lost and will continue to be lost, because not everyone can tollerate the Vaccine, there are millions waiting to be vaccinated and even when vaccinated some of them will still get COVID and die.
You cannot accept that the truth is being deliberately suppressed and it is killing people unnecessarily and you and prof are part of that suppression.
You would rather believe that he is a liar and didn't save all those lives, just like all the other 1000s of doctors who have said that the medicines work.
You are a denialist.
ps Note the fluvoaxamine is one of the drugs that I mentioned earlier which you ignored which is supposed to be even better than Ivermectin, but more expensive. Just as Ivermectin is supposed to be better than HCQ. Oh look Vitamin D is there too.
Read the paper.
The main part of MATH+ is largely standard practice.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:49 - Jun 30 with 1011 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:45 - Jun 30 by Scotia
Read the paper.
The main part of MATH+ is largely standard practice.
From conversations I have had with those involved at the clinical end, it's not medication that has had the biggest impact, but the general management around use of ventilation, positioning and timing of any intervention. People are managed better than 18 months ago
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:53 - Jun 30 with 1005 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:49 - Jun 30 by Professor
From conversations I have had with those involved at the clinical end, it's not medication that has had the biggest impact, but the general management around use of ventilation, positioning and timing of any intervention. People are managed better than 18 months ago
That's what he seems to have been a bit ahead of the game on.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:56 - Jun 30 with 1004 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:11 - Jun 30 by A_Fans_Dad
Of course he is right to offer vaccination, have I not said get vaccinated if you want to knowing all the information available?
His findings agree with others on HCQ and Ivermectin protocols, which is what I have been explaining since last year. You will not admit that due to suppression of those facts 100s of thousands of lives have been lost and will continue to be lost, because not everyone can tollerate the Vaccine, there are millions waiting to be vaccinated and even when vaccinated some of them will still get COVID and die.
You cannot accept that the truth is being deliberately suppressed and it is killing people unnecessarily and you and prof are part of that suppression.
You would rather believe that he is a liar and didn't save all those lives, just like all the other 1000s of doctors who have said that the medicines work.
You are a denialist.
ps Note the fluvoaxamine is one of the drugs that I mentioned earlier which you ignored which is supposed to be even better than Ivermectin, but more expensive. Just as Ivermectin is supposed to be better than HCQ. Oh look Vitamin D is there too.
So you agree we have all the information we need regarding the vaccine?
Search a pdf of the paper. Not a single mention of ivermectin, regarding HCQ he authors only state it doesn't work.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:00 - Jun 30 with 1003 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:53 - Jun 30 by Scotia
That's what he seems to have been a bit ahead of the game on.
Yes, I would agree. He is about the only non-crank, but ironically in the 'lying MSM" of the BBC.
Malone was involved in early work on nucleic acids as vaccines (late 80s) but was never a lead on this work. He is a self-proclaimed expert, who has barely published in the past 20 years.
Bridle, who AFD knows full well I have met, is far more a cancer immunotherapy person. He is not an expert in the area by any means. And to be honest if he was as great as AFD says he would not be an associate professor (Senior Lecturer) in the Vet School at Guelph. Not that is a bad place, it's just pretty middling.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:07 - Jun 30 with 1000 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 16:32 - Jun 30 by Professor
Explain why? Properly and not some crank or quack or some beyond the grave misquotes. Explain exactly how the test works?. Tell me how you will avoid a significant chance of false negative tests which are far more dangerous than a false positive? Give me your alternative than can process 200,000 tests per day at an equivalent specificity and sensitivity.
Ideally without Google or other search engine.
Because as I showed you before, the studies show that anything over 28 cycles do not show any virus at all. ie the person tested was not infectious. All it is findings are remnants of any coronavirus, not specifically COVID19.
The inventor himself said that it was not designed to be used for tracking or identifying the Virus in a Pandemic it was only for Laboratory work.
The WHO Test as designed by Torsen has been challenged by Scientists from the day it was announced.
But hey we all know that you know better than anybody else. Including the Courts that have excluded any actions based on the test because it is not reliable.
He is on video saying that you can anyything you want with enough cycles.
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:07 - Jun 30 by A_Fans_Dad
Because as I showed you before, the studies show that anything over 28 cycles do not show any virus at all. ie the person tested was not infectious. All it is findings are remnants of any coronavirus, not specifically COVID19.
The inventor himself said that it was not designed to be used for tracking or identifying the Virus in a Pandemic it was only for Laboratory work.
The WHO Test as designed by Torsen has been challenged by Scientists from the day it was announced.
But hey we all know that you know better than anybody else. Including the Courts that have excluded any actions based on the test because it is not reliable.
He is on video saying that you can anyything you want with enough cycles.
Yawn
Complete nonsense.
The PHE validated against viral culture-and could pull out viable virus in close to 10% of PCR positives beyond Ct35. That means you reduce sensitivity to a point that 1 in 10 tests could be a false negative. In fact even at lower Ct the virus is not always detected in cell culture-its unreliable, difficult and time consuming.
Also the fact this is a triple assay -three gene targets gives it specificity of well over 99%. Funny how everyone I know is happy with this as the diagnostic. Who know far more than you.
The latest ONS reports also show symptomatic positives for primary and re-infection at Ct35.
And your alternative. No you don't have one and you don't know what you are talking about. When you have run qRT-PCR assays for 22 years come back and tell me.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:32 - Jun 30 with 989 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:15 - Jun 30 by A_Fans_Dad
Yes I know anybody that disagrees with you is a Liar, quack, shark and many other derogatory remark that you can think of.
It is obvious that the worst thing any doctor, researcher or scientist can do in your estimation is have a media account.
I am sick of it, character assassination is all you have to decry their evidence of what ever kind.
But it's not all people who argue against your "evidence" have.
It's laughable that you use the term evidence, would these people be considered an expert witness in court?
They just look in to what you post and point out the obvious failings, either in the limitations of the study or the people making the claim.
I don't assaninate anyone's character. I don't know them. But if someone makes an audacious claim I will look into it.
As I've said before every day people lie to me. They did today they will tomorrow.
You criticised me previously for not considering source material. You just accept what you read in what you think is source material without considering what the actual source is. A case in point is the recent paper on MATH +, you accept the interview on bitchute by one of the authors but not the actual published and peer reviewed paper from which it is derived.
You've claimed a lady who died of type 1 diabetes was killed by the vaccine, a disgruntled scientist nobody has heard of invented mRNA vaccines, an accountant is an expert on climate change and I could go on. You've been completely taken in by the websites you have read this nonsense on. To the point that you are putting your life at risk.
They aren't liars, quacks or sharks because they disagree with anyone on here. They are just all three.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:59 - Jun 30 with 939 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 22:24 - Jun 30 by Scotia
But it's not all people who argue against your "evidence" have.
It's laughable that you use the term evidence, would these people be considered an expert witness in court?
They just look in to what you post and point out the obvious failings, either in the limitations of the study or the people making the claim.
I don't assaninate anyone's character. I don't know them. But if someone makes an audacious claim I will look into it.
As I've said before every day people lie to me. They did today they will tomorrow.
You criticised me previously for not considering source material. You just accept what you read in what you think is source material without considering what the actual source is. A case in point is the recent paper on MATH +, you accept the interview on bitchute by one of the authors but not the actual published and peer reviewed paper from which it is derived.
You've claimed a lady who died of type 1 diabetes was killed by the vaccine, a disgruntled scientist nobody has heard of invented mRNA vaccines, an accountant is an expert on climate change and I could go on. You've been completely taken in by the websites you have read this nonsense on. To the point that you are putting your life at risk.
They aren't liars, quacks or sharks because they disagree with anyone on here. They are just all three.
You can't stop with the character assassination because that is all you have. "a disgruntled scientist nobody has heard of invented mRNA vaccines" Is a disgraceful slur.
I didn't claim the lady died of the Vaccine when it was diabetes, the newspaper I linked to did.
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:11 - Jul 1 with 835 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:49 - Jul 1 by A_Fans_Dad
You can't stop with the character assassination because that is all you have. "a disgruntled scientist nobody has heard of invented mRNA vaccines" Is a disgraceful slur.
I didn't claim the lady died of the Vaccine when it was diabetes, the newspaper I linked to did.
I don't understand your push on 'look at the data, not the sources'.
If the scientific field you need to have credibility.
If as you said Dr. Malone invented the tech then fine, I'll listen. If he didn't, I wont.
So, Did Dr. Malone invent the tech? (please don't cite his wife)
[Post edited 1 Jul 2021 13:26]
2
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:41 - Jul 1 with 828 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 12:49 - Jul 1 by A_Fans_Dad
You can't stop with the character assassination because that is all you have. "a disgruntled scientist nobody has heard of invented mRNA vaccines" Is a disgraceful slur.
I didn't claim the lady died of the Vaccine when it was diabetes, the newspaper I linked to did.
Apart from also having clear evidence that the "disgruntled scientist" didn't invent mRNA vaccines as he (and you) claimed.
What is disgraceful about calling him out for lying to the world?
You didn't link a newspaper. You named her amongst a host of others who also didn't die because of the vaccine.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:10 - Jul 1 with 818 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 13:41 - Jul 1 by Scotia
Apart from also having clear evidence that the "disgruntled scientist" didn't invent mRNA vaccines as he (and you) claimed.
What is disgraceful about calling him out for lying to the world?
You didn't link a newspaper. You named her amongst a host of others who also didn't die because of the vaccine.
I showed you the data that he was part of the team that invented both DNA & RNA vaccines, just as he said in the video, the fact that you can't accept it is your problem.
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:17 - Jul 1 with 817 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:10 - Jul 1 by A_Fans_Dad
I showed you the data that he was part of the team that invented both DNA & RNA vaccines, just as he said in the video, the fact that you can't accept it is your problem.
No you didn't you showed a chart on wikipedia and he was named in the references.
Twice out of 194 references.
1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:08 - Jul 1 with 798 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:17 - Jul 1 by Scotia
No you didn't you showed a chart on wikipedia and he was named in the references.
Twice out of 194 references.
Malone is apparently very bitter and has self proclaimed he was the inventor of nucleic acid vaccines. The truth is he was one author (middle author so not senior or the main investigator) on a couple of papers which showed that nucleic acids could be transfected into mammalian cells, and subsequently was shown by Jon Wolf that this gave an immune response. Patents were filed, but their preliminary tech failed to deliver anything like a workable mRNA vaccine and the patents were not granted. He is one of a team who came up with an outline idea, but certainly not the lead researcher, and other subsequently developed ways to deliver nucleic acids stably to cells to act as vaccines. A bit like Leonardo and the helicopter. A concept, but not a technology delivered.
0
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:19 - Jul 1 with 782 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 14:17 - Jul 1 by Scotia
No you didn't you showed a chart on wikipedia and he was named in the references.
Twice out of 194 references.
Not only can't you count, it is 3 mentions you named 2 people who developed RNA vaccines Weissman & Kariko, who are also on that list the earliest input from Kariko and Weissman is in 2005. The earliest input for Malone is 1989, then 2 in 1990, so who was first in the development?
When you can't even read what you are looking at it is time to give up. At least prof recognises his input under Wolff, even if he can't spell his bloody name properly.
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:19 - Jul 1 with 781 views
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 17:08 - Jul 1 by Professor
Malone is apparently very bitter and has self proclaimed he was the inventor of nucleic acid vaccines. The truth is he was one author (middle author so not senior or the main investigator) on a couple of papers which showed that nucleic acids could be transfected into mammalian cells, and subsequently was shown by Jon Wolf that this gave an immune response. Patents were filed, but their preliminary tech failed to deliver anything like a workable mRNA vaccine and the patents were not granted. He is one of a team who came up with an outline idea, but certainly not the lead researcher, and other subsequently developed ways to deliver nucleic acids stably to cells to act as vaccines. A bit like Leonardo and the helicopter. A concept, but not a technology delivered.
Prof, whose name is on the first paper Wolff or Malone and who is the lead on the paper?
-1
Most reliable information.Covid-19 on 18:22 - Jul 1 with 780 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
