There were so many things I left out because I hit the limit, such as Remdesivir being administered late in the disease progression being a factor, how there was no actual indication as to "what" snake venom he is referring to- snake venom is actually comprised of many proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, etc. that would all be factors to consider, how acetylcholine is actually found in many neuromuscular junctions and not just in the brain. If anyone finds anything else they had questions on please leave a comment!
If you haven't already seen it watch Amandha Vollmer's video rebutting this absurd snake-alicious sensationalism.
She also speaks to the problems in the "Covid truther" movement so it's worth the time as her talk addresses more than just Ardis' documentary and interview with Stew Peters.
It helps that she's pretty funny and straightforward.
"Everything is Covid-19- remember they sold you a story. It's all bullshit."
This is what too many who are "in the know" including Malone, McCullough, Kennedy, Kirsch, etc. won't confront. It's all fraud- it's all lies- the whole thing.
I do believe COVID is real but everything was being horribly mismanaged, so I would disagree with Amandha in that regard.
But it's always about having disagreements and having that open discourse. I saw the comment and it appears that they have similar arguments in that snake venom would likely be inactivated and digested when ingested (it's actually been hard to find studies about this).
Thanks for the substack, and I appreciate you realizing that you need to watch the video in order to comment on it. I saw the video last week, and I found it very entertaining and kept my mind open. I felt that Dr Ardis's emotions were intertwined and clouding his rational judgment. Then he added the religious language at the end, which is interesting considering the possible Freemason ties to covid, but I think sticking to the science when proposing new information like that is better.
Considering his circumstances from early 2020 it could be predominately emotion driven. However, I also find that the sudden argument about monoclonals felt like someone who may not have an understanding of basic Immunology, and it make me really wonder how much of the information he gathers he reads and reviews. I think the constant references to Google felt out of place for someone who was well-read in science literature. I don't expect a McCollough from Joe Rogan's interview but the serendipitous nature of finding things online stuck out to me.
Yes, it seems it was hard for him to lose his father (or was it his father-in-law?). Since remdesivir was involved, I could see how it would haunt somebody, feeling like their loved one didn't have to die. 🙏❤️
And you are right, the Googling was a tell. I really enjoyed the video, because it was like following a mystery as he put these broad pieces together. I think so many of us have been there, when we first began to wake up to government and broader forces not having our best interests in mind (for me it was 9/11). But if there's one thing I've learned from you substackers, the immune system and viruses are incredibly complex. One needs a lot of integrated knowledge to understand these types of things, like what was in the Twitter thread. I love this scientific community! I saw a video today talking about an online scientific paper publishing site, scientific papers that don't follow the narrative are getting rejected by the consensus "peer-review" process.
Actually I may need to watch it again. I believe Stew mentioned it may have been vancomycin for flu? Or maybe it was in reference to something else or I'm misremembering it.
For me it just felt too perfect for everything to fall into place which was also one of the biggest reasons I was skeptical. It didn't help that it occurred through "divine will" and thus culminated as some type of Deux ex Machina event. It just didn't sit right with me.
That's interesting. I would like to see such a website. I believe more websites are embracing open access which is great but I think more efforts need to be made to make the accessibility of literature even greater.
I had to look up Deux ex Machina, it definitely does apply!
The website is called citizen science, I don't know much about it. It was mentioned in Dr Sam Bailey's recent interview with Dr Kevin Corbett at min 52.50. It's an interesting conversation about his experience with the peer review process, which starts around 47.20.
It looks like the bottom website is to a new university program. It appears that "citizen science" is an approach to include social awareness within the teaching of science through environmentalism which I feel slightly leery about but I would need more information.
Oh, he didn't say anything about that in the interview, he just talked about it as a way to get science published without going through the pharmaceutical industry driven medical journals. But I am leery about that as well!
Lots of Stew’s guests have really wild stories. I haven’t seen enough proof submitted to believe many of them, but I still watch his show occasionally and just had to watch “Watch the Water!” It was Stew’s usual type of show to me. In fact, I was shocked in the past when a couple of well-known scientists/doctors appeared with him. I think Stew is so eager for the “truth” he believes everything people on “his” side tell him. He wants to believe.
I wonder if the text to Dr. Ardis really happened and if it did, why? It just seems to be an odd little story to me. What would have been the next move from the texting doctor if Dr. Ardis hadn’t taken the bait?
I would say that Stew seems at least sincere, although very gullible/impressionable. He did not have the capabilities to rebut Dr. Ardis and so you can tell it was Ardis lecturing Stew and stringing him alone- take a look at the difference in demeanor and body language between the two of them and it's not subtle.
I agree. Stew is sincere, but I guess he wants to be the one to break something big so badly, that he’s not as discerning as he should be. I get the impression that he believes everyone of his guests. His show is very dramatic and entertaining and I’ve heard a lot of fantastical things. As you said, though, many viewers will believe it all. I’ve already seen people talk about the snake venom in water on fb.
Yes I know of people personally who have talked about it. It appears various religious circles may have picked up on this interview and so I'm wondering if the presentation is done to intentionally target those who are religious, and if that's the case I find that rather malicious in intent.
It's definitely hard. People want to be the first to break the news. You want to be the first person on a story and to get that widespread attention and notoriety. However, that just may end up backfiring. I struggle with this idea on my Substack but I want to limit how reactionary I am unless I can provide an actual scientific basis for my argument which usually means I may be behind by a few days or weeks.
I tried watching the video and couldn’t get through it, it was so bad. I used to listen to Stew’s podcast because he would occasionally have legitimate people on who provided good information. Also, we need strong advocates for the side that values liberty and bodily autonomy and I thought Stew could be a voice and vehicle for that. I was willing to put up with some shenanigans here and there because I understand entertainment and salaciousness sells. But, and yes it’s a big but, like Sir Mix A Lot big, I started to notice Stew was, like you mentioned, selling fear just like other media does. Irrational, nonsensical fear with an agenda and a product line available behind it. The fear peddlers were pushing conspiracy nonsense based on pseudoscience. When Carrie Madej came on and showed hydras in the vaccine vials my eyes rolled so far back in my head I could see my brain. Then Stew had on Kevin McCairn to discuss the covid fiasco and all Stew could do was sandbag him over Kevin’s criticisms of Carrie’s pseudoscience and history of pushing various conspiracies surrounding transhumanism and 5G, etc. Kevin was politely backing off and admitted it’s worth investigating anything properly but that the tact used by Madej would not be effective in convincing normies because her ideas were too wild and unsubstantiated. All Stew could manage was to attack Kevin for badmouthing her in a pathetic bout of white-knightism. This was the moment I realized that Stew’s program is 100% entertainment aimed at a specific demographic and he was likely to do more harm than good to the cause of liberty. He has few scruples and as you pointed out, is too ignorant and incurious to educate himself enough to rebut fantastical theories that may damage the reputation of legitimate guests on his show. I groaned when some of the more prominent scientists and doctors appeared on his show. Great analysis, I’m grateful to have a resource to confirm my immediate suspicions that this was total horse****.
No worries about the large wall. I usually respond in multiple paragraphs of possible incoherence.
And thanks for providing your own insight. I have never watched Stew and so this provides some perspective into a viewer's thoughts.
Like I stated in response to Canny Granny Stew at least seemed sincere to the extent he believes what he says. However, it's very apparent he is not aware of anything Ardis is saying, which also makes me wonder what research his team did. I do remember something about that vial contamination post which seemed quite fantastical at the time. I am going off of your word, but if the scenario played out how you stated it played out then I wonder if it is a defensive mechanism. It's similar to Fauci fanatics that take things personally when he is criticized and I argue it's because too many people are externalizing their intellect and may act accordingly.
As a group we ran over a dozen tests. Rain water tested positive for Covid19. Well water faint positive. Bottle negative. Ph9 water no trigger. Salvia negative. Tap water negative. Culligan 1Gallon Jug negative.
My amateur science is in my own stack.
7/8 outdoor tests positive for covid. My BBQ cover with fresh rain water tested positive.
Trust the same scientists who went along with the vaccine? No fully, they don't deserve it anymore.
What assays did you conduct if you don't mind me asking? I've done PCR testing for COVID before and I have stated that the test is sensitive but works for those who are symptomatic and is being misappropriately used.
Remember that an understanding of the assay is required before we criticize it.
And I didn't argue that we should trust those scientists. In fact, that is the argument I am making and intend to make with this Substack- you should not blindly trust anyone, and I have made a point several times here that people should not blindly trust what I state to be true and factual.
But what I am finding frustrating is that people are using their trust as if it is some sort of binary. "I don't trust X, which makes me trust Y" when that is not the way people should be approaching these matters.
I want more people to engage in nuanced discussion, dissolve themselves of talks of absolutisms and binary thought, and dig deeper than the superficial and peripheral when engaging with the science.
If you find me on Telegram, channel is Vigilance and you can find my real handle in there. I can send you more information.
My own tests was 9 tests, same box, black light over them to test for premarking. I collected well water, bottled, rain at first. The did 6 more tests using rain water. I've had to rapid test for work and am familar with the process.
I agree with you, not to trust blindly. My findings were sent along to people with labs to test the rain water across Ontario in Canada.
Its amateur science. But 7 of 8 rain water samples triggering a full positive is alarming. If tests are fraud, people based PCR and Vaccine decisions on them. If the rain water is poison, people are planting crops that will be poisoned potential.
I never enjoyed the science fair growing up, but these results are wild.
As with everything, even my substack post suggests people try it at home and discern what is true. Either explanation for so many positives is concerning.
I'll check it out later when I have time. An issue with lateral flow assays is that they really just measure the "sticking" of whatever you squeezed onto there. The assays should have antibodies that bind nucleocapsid protein but really there's plenty of amino acid sequences. I tested positive on an antigen test several weeks after I had COVID and it was likely I was having viral shedding of inert/destroyed virus than anything actively infectious.
What's really frustrating is that antigen tests really should be saved as confirmatory tests instead of diagnostic tests but we've been using all of these as diagnostic tests which is not how it should go.
PCR tests certainly have been too heavily relied. They actually made sense when the vaccines were rolling out as it indicated that these vaccines were not sterilizing, which may be too much to ask for when trying to target a respiratory virus. But now it really just feels like there's no utility in constantly reporting on them.
Well you got people throwing money trying to debate the issue with governments and health officials that are a broken record for responses. No one to my knowledge has bought a few thousand tests and run the gauntlet. Imagine if PCR now would confirm rain water for Covid?...
Well when I did COVID testing we used purified water! Although that's not the response you were going for. Personally I wouldn't think it would work because of the PCR assay, but there are a lot of problems with testing procedures and it doesn't help that more information is being disseminated to the public.
I'm not looking for any response, just to provoke thought. I share your concerns about how people interpret information taken in.
I was testing the water itself, not human subjects. As said, bottled water was the only clear test - while having it's own issues. The test was purely on outdoor rain water, and that was triggering the rapid test. Much like when you do the rapid test, you swab, add it to the liquid provided, five drops into the end of the test - await results. In the experiments conducted, rain water by itself was able to trigger a positive test confirming the "individual" -- who was no one -- was positive for Covid19. As there is no human involved, the water itself was triggering a positive Covid19 reaction from the rapid test. The same box of kits was used on distilled, purified, alkaline spring water. It was taken into the city and used on tap water. All those other sources negative - the Ph9+ water did not even trigger the test at all.
The same box of tests was used on human subjects in concert with the above, and the tests all produced just the first line - negative for Covid19.
What I am saying is the rain tested positive for Covid19 - and all other places tested only generated the first line on the strip.
"Watch the Water"
We're trying to get our hands on a lab to do a PCR on rain water, but this is not easy.
Sorry if I did not explain this clearly, or I am not understanding your counter point. For Science :)
There were so many things I left out because I hit the limit, such as Remdesivir being administered late in the disease progression being a factor, how there was no actual indication as to "what" snake venom he is referring to- snake venom is actually comprised of many proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, etc. that would all be factors to consider, how acetylcholine is actually found in many neuromuscular junctions and not just in the brain. If anyone finds anything else they had questions on please leave a comment!
If you haven't already seen it watch Amandha Vollmer's video rebutting this absurd snake-alicious sensationalism.
She also speaks to the problems in the "Covid truther" movement so it's worth the time as her talk addresses more than just Ardis' documentary and interview with Stew Peters.
It helps that she's pretty funny and straightforward.
https://t.me/amandhavollmer/3428
"Everything is Covid-19- remember they sold you a story. It's all bullshit."
This is what too many who are "in the know" including Malone, McCullough, Kennedy, Kirsch, etc. won't confront. It's all fraud- it's all lies- the whole thing.
Well I guess that makes me a "COVID truther"!
I do believe COVID is real but everything was being horribly mismanaged, so I would disagree with Amandha in that regard.
But it's always about having disagreements and having that open discourse. I saw the comment and it appears that they have similar arguments in that snake venom would likely be inactivated and digested when ingested (it's actually been hard to find studies about this).
What makes you think Covid is real?
Thanks for the substack, and I appreciate you realizing that you need to watch the video in order to comment on it. I saw the video last week, and I found it very entertaining and kept my mind open. I felt that Dr Ardis's emotions were intertwined and clouding his rational judgment. Then he added the religious language at the end, which is interesting considering the possible Freemason ties to covid, but I think sticking to the science when proposing new information like that is better.
I'm also realizing I should have said "Dr. Ardis' theory doesn't hold water" at some point. Missed opportunity!
😅😅😅 oh darn, that would have been a good one!
Considering his circumstances from early 2020 it could be predominately emotion driven. However, I also find that the sudden argument about monoclonals felt like someone who may not have an understanding of basic Immunology, and it make me really wonder how much of the information he gathers he reads and reviews. I think the constant references to Google felt out of place for someone who was well-read in science literature. I don't expect a McCollough from Joe Rogan's interview but the serendipitous nature of finding things online stuck out to me.
Yes, it seems it was hard for him to lose his father (or was it his father-in-law?). Since remdesivir was involved, I could see how it would haunt somebody, feeling like their loved one didn't have to die. 🙏❤️
And you are right, the Googling was a tell. I really enjoyed the video, because it was like following a mystery as he put these broad pieces together. I think so many of us have been there, when we first began to wake up to government and broader forces not having our best interests in mind (for me it was 9/11). But if there's one thing I've learned from you substackers, the immune system and viruses are incredibly complex. One needs a lot of integrated knowledge to understand these types of things, like what was in the Twitter thread. I love this scientific community! I saw a video today talking about an online scientific paper publishing site, scientific papers that don't follow the narrative are getting rejected by the consensus "peer-review" process.
Actually I may need to watch it again. I believe Stew mentioned it may have been vancomycin for flu? Or maybe it was in reference to something else or I'm misremembering it.
For me it just felt too perfect for everything to fall into place which was also one of the biggest reasons I was skeptical. It didn't help that it occurred through "divine will" and thus culminated as some type of Deux ex Machina event. It just didn't sit right with me.
That's interesting. I would like to see such a website. I believe more websites are embracing open access which is great but I think more efforts need to be made to make the accessibility of literature even greater.
I had to look up Deux ex Machina, it definitely does apply!
The website is called citizen science, I don't know much about it. It was mentioned in Dr Sam Bailey's recent interview with Dr Kevin Corbett at min 52.50. It's an interesting conversation about his experience with the peer review process, which starts around 47.20.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/kevin-corbett-we-are-falsifying-the-hypothesis:8?r=5GNUjp39K1yG9gnv6227aftTzwyGX6dK
I think this is the site, citizen science.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/study/masters/msc-citizen-science
It looks like the bottom website is to a new university program. It appears that "citizen science" is an approach to include social awareness within the teaching of science through environmentalism which I feel slightly leery about but I would need more information.
Oh, he didn't say anything about that in the interview, he just talked about it as a way to get science published without going through the pharmaceutical industry driven medical journals. But I am leery about that as well!
Lots of Stew’s guests have really wild stories. I haven’t seen enough proof submitted to believe many of them, but I still watch his show occasionally and just had to watch “Watch the Water!” It was Stew’s usual type of show to me. In fact, I was shocked in the past when a couple of well-known scientists/doctors appeared with him. I think Stew is so eager for the “truth” he believes everything people on “his” side tell him. He wants to believe.
I wonder if the text to Dr. Ardis really happened and if it did, why? It just seems to be an odd little story to me. What would have been the next move from the texting doctor if Dr. Ardis hadn’t taken the bait?
I would say that Stew seems at least sincere, although very gullible/impressionable. He did not have the capabilities to rebut Dr. Ardis and so you can tell it was Ardis lecturing Stew and stringing him alone- take a look at the difference in demeanor and body language between the two of them and it's not subtle.
I agree. Stew is sincere, but I guess he wants to be the one to break something big so badly, that he’s not as discerning as he should be. I get the impression that he believes everyone of his guests. His show is very dramatic and entertaining and I’ve heard a lot of fantastical things. As you said, though, many viewers will believe it all. I’ve already seen people talk about the snake venom in water on fb.
Yes I know of people personally who have talked about it. It appears various religious circles may have picked up on this interview and so I'm wondering if the presentation is done to intentionally target those who are religious, and if that's the case I find that rather malicious in intent.
It's definitely hard. People want to be the first to break the news. You want to be the first person on a story and to get that widespread attention and notoriety. However, that just may end up backfiring. I struggle with this idea on my Substack but I want to limit how reactionary I am unless I can provide an actual scientific basis for my argument which usually means I may be behind by a few days or weeks.
I tried watching the video and couldn’t get through it, it was so bad. I used to listen to Stew’s podcast because he would occasionally have legitimate people on who provided good information. Also, we need strong advocates for the side that values liberty and bodily autonomy and I thought Stew could be a voice and vehicle for that. I was willing to put up with some shenanigans here and there because I understand entertainment and salaciousness sells. But, and yes it’s a big but, like Sir Mix A Lot big, I started to notice Stew was, like you mentioned, selling fear just like other media does. Irrational, nonsensical fear with an agenda and a product line available behind it. The fear peddlers were pushing conspiracy nonsense based on pseudoscience. When Carrie Madej came on and showed hydras in the vaccine vials my eyes rolled so far back in my head I could see my brain. Then Stew had on Kevin McCairn to discuss the covid fiasco and all Stew could do was sandbag him over Kevin’s criticisms of Carrie’s pseudoscience and history of pushing various conspiracies surrounding transhumanism and 5G, etc. Kevin was politely backing off and admitted it’s worth investigating anything properly but that the tact used by Madej would not be effective in convincing normies because her ideas were too wild and unsubstantiated. All Stew could manage was to attack Kevin for badmouthing her in a pathetic bout of white-knightism. This was the moment I realized that Stew’s program is 100% entertainment aimed at a specific demographic and he was likely to do more harm than good to the cause of liberty. He has few scruples and as you pointed out, is too ignorant and incurious to educate himself enough to rebut fantastical theories that may damage the reputation of legitimate guests on his show. I groaned when some of the more prominent scientists and doctors appeared on his show. Great analysis, I’m grateful to have a resource to confirm my immediate suspicions that this was total horse****.
Crap sorry about wall of text. I wrote fast and neglected formatting.
No worries about the large wall. I usually respond in multiple paragraphs of possible incoherence.
And thanks for providing your own insight. I have never watched Stew and so this provides some perspective into a viewer's thoughts.
Like I stated in response to Canny Granny Stew at least seemed sincere to the extent he believes what he says. However, it's very apparent he is not aware of anything Ardis is saying, which also makes me wonder what research his team did. I do remember something about that vial contamination post which seemed quite fantastical at the time. I am going off of your word, but if the scenario played out how you stated it played out then I wonder if it is a defensive mechanism. It's similar to Fauci fanatics that take things personally when he is criticized and I argue it's because too many people are externalizing their intellect and may act accordingly.
As a group we ran over a dozen tests. Rain water tested positive for Covid19. Well water faint positive. Bottle negative. Ph9 water no trigger. Salvia negative. Tap water negative. Culligan 1Gallon Jug negative.
My amateur science is in my own stack.
7/8 outdoor tests positive for covid. My BBQ cover with fresh rain water tested positive.
Trust the same scientists who went along with the vaccine? No fully, they don't deserve it anymore.
What assays did you conduct if you don't mind me asking? I've done PCR testing for COVID before and I have stated that the test is sensitive but works for those who are symptomatic and is being misappropriately used.
Remember that an understanding of the assay is required before we criticize it.
And I didn't argue that we should trust those scientists. In fact, that is the argument I am making and intend to make with this Substack- you should not blindly trust anyone, and I have made a point several times here that people should not blindly trust what I state to be true and factual.
But what I am finding frustrating is that people are using their trust as if it is some sort of binary. "I don't trust X, which makes me trust Y" when that is not the way people should be approaching these matters.
I want more people to engage in nuanced discussion, dissolve themselves of talks of absolutisms and binary thought, and dig deeper than the superficial and peripheral when engaging with the science.
If you find me on Telegram, channel is Vigilance and you can find my real handle in there. I can send you more information.
My own tests was 9 tests, same box, black light over them to test for premarking. I collected well water, bottled, rain at first. The did 6 more tests using rain water. I've had to rapid test for work and am familar with the process.
I agree with you, not to trust blindly. My findings were sent along to people with labs to test the rain water across Ontario in Canada.
Its amateur science. But 7 of 8 rain water samples triggering a full positive is alarming. If tests are fraud, people based PCR and Vaccine decisions on them. If the rain water is poison, people are planting crops that will be poisoned potential.
I never enjoyed the science fair growing up, but these results are wild.
As with everything, even my substack post suggests people try it at home and discern what is true. Either explanation for so many positives is concerning.
I'll check it out later when I have time. An issue with lateral flow assays is that they really just measure the "sticking" of whatever you squeezed onto there. The assays should have antibodies that bind nucleocapsid protein but really there's plenty of amino acid sequences. I tested positive on an antigen test several weeks after I had COVID and it was likely I was having viral shedding of inert/destroyed virus than anything actively infectious.
What's really frustrating is that antigen tests really should be saved as confirmatory tests instead of diagnostic tests but we've been using all of these as diagnostic tests which is not how it should go.
PCR tests certainly have been too heavily relied. They actually made sense when the vaccines were rolling out as it indicated that these vaccines were not sterilizing, which may be too much to ask for when trying to target a respiratory virus. But now it really just feels like there's no utility in constantly reporting on them.
Well you got people throwing money trying to debate the issue with governments and health officials that are a broken record for responses. No one to my knowledge has bought a few thousand tests and run the gauntlet. Imagine if PCR now would confirm rain water for Covid?...
Well when I did COVID testing we used purified water! Although that's not the response you were going for. Personally I wouldn't think it would work because of the PCR assay, but there are a lot of problems with testing procedures and it doesn't help that more information is being disseminated to the public.
I'm not looking for any response, just to provoke thought. I share your concerns about how people interpret information taken in.
I was testing the water itself, not human subjects. As said, bottled water was the only clear test - while having it's own issues. The test was purely on outdoor rain water, and that was triggering the rapid test. Much like when you do the rapid test, you swab, add it to the liquid provided, five drops into the end of the test - await results. In the experiments conducted, rain water by itself was able to trigger a positive test confirming the "individual" -- who was no one -- was positive for Covid19. As there is no human involved, the water itself was triggering a positive Covid19 reaction from the rapid test. The same box of kits was used on distilled, purified, alkaline spring water. It was taken into the city and used on tap water. All those other sources negative - the Ph9+ water did not even trigger the test at all.
The same box of tests was used on human subjects in concert with the above, and the tests all produced just the first line - negative for Covid19.
What I am saying is the rain tested positive for Covid19 - and all other places tested only generated the first line on the strip.
"Watch the Water"
We're trying to get our hands on a lab to do a PCR on rain water, but this is not easy.
Sorry if I did not explain this clearly, or I am not understanding your counter point. For Science :)