Again, plenty more to add here such as snake venom being used as a therapeutic agent which actually would counter the rampant fear mongering that we're all being poisoned.
If anyone has any more of Ardis' articles please feel free to comment with a link. I'm rather interested in seeing how much analysis he has actually done with respect to the studies he cites. Something tells me he may be one of those "didn't get past the abstract" type of people...
It's also interesting seeing a possible schism forming within the FLCCC, which may not be a good thing in the long run, but I suppose this is one of those things to watch out for in the near future.
Ardis himself doesn't appear to have written much - he doesn't have a blog on his website but a shop and a podcast. He also has a big section devoted to booking media engagements with him.
Do you know if there are any podcasts or meetings where he cites any of the articles he looks at? I'm really curious since he appears to both want transparency while also not being direct about the studies he is referring to. I wonder if he is trying to lie by omission when he makes references to some of the studies that he does.
If I remember correctly I think they were showing some of the headlines/studies in screenshares/screenshots in both the Watch the Water and Mike Adams interviews. That doesn't mean he reviewed them closely. He seems to do science by headline.
Yes and that is likely to have come from Stew's editors, which makes me wonder how well-versed are they to know what videos to show. Like I mentioned they used a video of Melatonin binding to Melatonin receptors when talking about how Melatonin acts as an anti-venom. I think what's happening is that Ardis is telling them what to look for and they try to find it and unscrupulously add it to the interviews.
That's the thing too. Ardis is wrong about the melatonin. It doesn't act as an anti-venom at all. It is simply an antioxidant that can potentially minimize the damage from a snake bite, but that's not the same thing as as having properties that neutralize the venom itself.
Yes I mentioned it when discussing the children somehow having fewer symptoms. I cited a study that combined melatonin with anti-venom. It's obvious it is being used for its ability to reduce oxidative damage and I'm not sure why Ardis doesn't understand it. I'm trying to watch the 2 hour podcast I sent you to get a better perspective. I will say that the interviewer is at least asking questions, although it's still not to the level I would expect.
Another very informative article and thanks for the links.
I was sad to see Dr Jane Ruby be more divisive against the flccc at Dr Kory. Instead of just relaying that these doctors have different opinions, they dismiss them "because of their arrogance". They may also dismiss them on some scientific grounds, I don't know enough to deeply understand the science like you do, but they're bringing in a divisive tone which is a shame. We need to be able to disagree without being divisive, and we should know that from experience over the past 2 years. I know we all slip up in this area from time to time, it does take maturity.
And I agree that doctor Ardis seems to have some grandiosity, although I feel a little different flavor. He's done all this research alone, and he said he's been very emotional in the process. I think the emotionality makes it harder to take in information that would prove the theory wrong. It's like the emotionality is a tenuous glue holding the parts of the theory together. To take in other information makes the glue even more tenuous, bringing anxiety and insecurity. The grandiosity covers for the tenuous, anxious, insecure nature involved in the theory.
I love your humor, "I mean, just look at the little guys. Of course the would be perfect for producing antibodies". 😅 It's peptides all the way down baby! 😍
Well I'll admit that I'm learning at the same rate as others are! So don't count yourself short as there's always space to continue learning!
And honestly, I'm not sure where Dr. Ruby's background resides. I tried looking up information and it says she used to work as a nurse but then went to school and began working in pharmaceuticals (I believe on the economics side?) so I don't think her specialty is anywhere in the sciences. Now, I'm certainly someone who is moving away from the concept of credentialism but I would hope that she would appear to be more knowledgeable about the science but she seems to fall for the same fallacies as Stew and just takes Ardis' word on everything. There certainly is a lot of animosity brewing, and I think part of it stems from Ardis' hubris of believing that this theory, which he came up with on his own, is the correct one and these people are trying to discredit him are destroying all of his work.
Yes the emotional aspect is interesting, although I will also argue that he's not doing a good job of really reading many of the articles he sites. In this post and Friday's I actually linked some of the articles he mentions and they aren't quite what he is making them out to be. It certainly does seem like he knows that this theory, if exposed to the light, will not hold up to scrutiny which is why he is likely drawing hard lines to bring people over to his cause.
And thanks about the humor remark! Even after writing for a few months I think my writing can be a little still over being self-conscious but I think people may enjoy a more casual approach to the writings so I may try that more!
Yes, I remember you saying that from the last post, that doctor Ardis doesn't seem to deeply understand the studies he's citing. To me that holds an importance beyond this particular snake venom theory. So many studies are misinterpreted, or are taken as settled science, in the government pharmaceutical covid narrative. A majority of the public can't seem to assess individual studies or a field of evidence, enabling the government to pass harmful covid policies and divide the public.
Yes, and I will be honest and state that I am very likely to misinterpret studies as well, mainly because I tend to gloss over the statistical analyses. Other people dive into those topics more such as Brian Mowrey, Jooni Kim, or Alesandros and so they may be likely to pick up when it looks like a bit of trickery is occurring where I may a bit more naïve to these trickeries. But in such circumstances is more appropriate to be a little hesitant to state that these studies are absolute. I think it's a big issue when he mentions that Italy toxin study as being absolute. When told that these toxins are typically found in diseased individuals Ardis does not have a proper argument- he just cites the Arizona study and the Italy study at their word. So there's a big difference between maybe not noticing some things in studies- people who make good-faith arguments but maybe missing a few more nuanced takes, and those who take studies as being the end all, be all of the argument.
I agree with your sentiments on credentialism, and in this case, I wonder if a lot of people who really don't deserve the title slap "Doctor" in front of their name without truly earning it, which gives them a free pass of sorts to spout of nonsense.
Oh, I am absolutely wondering where "Dr. Ruby" received her PhD in. I tried looking up information on her but can't find anything that really elucidates what her degree was in. This wouldn't be a big deal if Stew didn't lean on her credentials as a voice of authority on a lot of these scientific matters. She is also presented with a stethoscope in the thumbnail images which I would assume believe is intended to create that persona of someone with a scientific/medical background.
I believe part of her background is in nursing and I would like evidence to the contrary of my position, but until I see more I'm wary of how knowledgeable she actually is.
There's one thing I find disturbing that the left always does. If your going to use facts then stick to facts. If your going to try and discredit then still stick to facts. Opinions when arguing facts and also slander about the person you are discrediting is really a poor and lazy way to prove your point. Another issue I have is when the first presenter comes across an article or review that goes against their point they again try to discredit rather than find validity in the article. I would love to believe Ardis is wrong and higher powers in the world aren't trying to kill us off, but in the end the opinions and slander don't help me think think that you all are on the right track. I appreciate the time and energy that the presenter put into their discrediting piece but in the end opinions don't mix with facts, so I can't take the info with sincerity.
Excellent analysis. First, when I ask the pro-Ardis people what a peptide is, they will usually deflect or scatter. In short, a peptide is a short protein. An enzyme is a protein that acts like a catalyst in the body. Enzymes are typically proteins, not short peptides. Not all proteins are enzymes. Science has only recently discovered how to make a peptide act as an enzyme.
I need to do more research but based on those definitions alone, the "toxin-like peptides" may not even be full-blown enzymes.
Yes, I was using proteins more as a heuristic for proteins but there is quite a lot more to it than just spewing peptides. There are more nuances to it but I find it odd that he continues to reiterate the phrase "snake venom peptide" (well, now he's incorporating "cone snail peptides" as well). He is not coming up with a coherent theory that contextualizes all of the receptor binding proteins or the enzymes such as the phosphodiesterases he keeps mentioning. He states they are there but not what they are doing and how they are incorporated. I think he's trying to get other people to do the leg work with their critiques so he can react to those and act as if they were always part of his theoretical repertoire.
Fun times. In a sense, the FLCCC backlash is predictable, because there's a lot of unresolved tension in the anti-Covid-vaccine crowd's blind embrace of any authority that offers the "different easy answer" in contrast to the "mainstream easy answer" of the vax, whether it's wonder-drugs, or the flawed "leaky vaccine = bad" rubric, etc. On the way, suddenly ("repurposed") drugs and ("non-leaky") vaccines (not really a thing) are again elevated to magic secular saviors that deliver humanity from death, setting the mainstream-medicine-doubters up for fresh disillusionment. The backlash is natural, because the process of learning to think critically and get back in touch with nature wasn't finished the first time. And the FLCCC put too much bank on studies to begin with.
Yes, I definitely agree. I think there is an issue with the FLCCC almost becoming a replacement vector for those who are going against the COVID narrative. I'll be honest and say that the Defeat the Mandates rally in DC from early January caught me off guard with the approach that was taken. I actually felt rather uncomfortable because it felt like there was a large incorporation of religion and really other ideas that just didn't seem to suit the idea of saying that there's no ethical or scientific reason for these mandates.
I don't mind the examination of studies, but I guess it does put them in a precarious position where they may be blamed for picking and choosing what suits their narrative to the same extent as the mainstream narrative pushers are doing.
Yes, for all intents and purposes the study was rather straighforward, which is why it seemed strange that its results were flawed to such a degree. I made note of one comment, although I didn't expand on it further, that the control group was free of disease. I would bet that if they were diabetic or had cardiovascular disease many of these "toxins" would be present. Ardis actually alludes to that in his second Stew Peters interview where he claims the most vulnerable groups are being targeted with snake venom as a new form of eugenics. I think he alludes to the fact that these markers are seen in diabetics and those with heart disease but like I said Stew isn't equipped to pick up on those little bits and investigate them further.
Right, and as far as the pro-coagulation elements of the spike / S1, Resia Pretorius et al. have already laid a lot of the groundwork for why preexisting inflammation primes people for a vicious cycle effect upon circulation of the S1, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel as far as "targeting" (though again these are probably more common features of viral infection than we realize, but with the difference that we usually gain antibodies in childhood).
Some vax opponents routinely list the excipients of jabs, and deem them as harmful because they can be also be found in higher concentration or quantity in industrial mixtures which are toxic when taken internally. This reveals complete ignorance of dose dependent therapeutic value vs toxicity. Part of the snake venom word salad displays the same problem.
Yes the whole idea of dosing has to be overlooked in order for Ardis' theory to work. There's so many flaws in his thinking but he is still insisting that it is correct and is incorporating ideas as they come in. Like I said, if the cone snail venom is far more lethal than certain snake venoms, how does he add this idea into his framework without correcting for his "sublethal" comments? Surely a more deadly toxin would at least call into question his comments on sublethal dosing?
I’d guess that Ardis is riding a dopamine rush from all the attention he is getting, and is not concerned with accuracy and self checking. In order to keep up quality and accuracy, it’s important not to care about fame. There was a time, long ago, when I was getting attention for my point of view, but I did my best to stay accurate and self consistent, which probably bored people to death :-D It takes great skill to market the truth.
Yes, which makes me wonder- why now? The sudden urgency is quite strange. He apparently is liking the attention he is getting but I wonder if it may disappear in a few weeks and he may end up with egg on his face.
Thanks for providing some background. That's actually an interesting perspective. And yes, I am always concerned my writing is so bland even Gordon Ramsay may come to criticize it! It's hard to post a lot of information and try to make it sound very exciting.
Amino acids = molecules that have NH2 and COOH functional groups (allowing chains of them to form). Each kind of amino acid a variable side chain. Peptides are short chains of amino acids. Proteins are long, folded chains of amino acids. Enzymes are an example of proteins. Endorphins are an example of peptides.
Dr Ardis’s snake venom stuff pegged my BS meter instantaneously. It’s freeking word salad. Stew is really killing his Art Bell-like entertainment value with this mess.
Yes, I was using a more heuristic approach in my argument, although I will admit that it has been quite a while since I was in school so I may have also forgot the more exact term. But regardless he is definitely using his words with the intent that they sound fancy or scientific to the lay audience and thus they will just repeat them without understanding what they actually are. We can see that a lot with even things such as antibodies, which is why I thought it was quite obnoxious to see Monoclonals being portrayed as some weird abstract, novel therapeutic. I would think that people would see antibodies and think "hey, are these related to the antibodies we produce in our own bodies?"
I credit you for doing a lot of research for your writing, and transparency about your process and content. (A personal motto is that if I avoid pretending to know more than I do, it can save lives.)
You are correct. Monoclonals and especially the whole idea of introducing exogenous antibodies into patients is not at all new or novel. Unfortunately there are some negatives to the therapy that sometimes go beyond the basic benefit vs risk.
I appreciate the comments. I am trying to present information with a bit of my perspective but I also want people to know where I get my information so I try to cite everything I look at for that transparency. I'm certain I have gotten many things wrong and I always encourage people to do their own research or criticize me when I get things wrong.
I wrote a bit about Aducanumab and apparently there are concerns with brain swelling and bleeding with its use. It certainly is related to the type of Monoclonals and where they target. From what I remember there's a general concern of autoimmunity or ADE occurring with Monoclonals as well I believe.
I also want to add that your analysis of Dr. Ardis' mental state is spot on. When I watched the first part of that one video you shared on my comments - where Ardis writes off all criticism as "egos" - I was really repulsed by his obvious projection. I have more to say on the potential spiritual issues the man has, but his claiming that he spent 16 hours a day on this, which is obsessive, is a huge red flag.
Yes, I haven't watched the full podcast since it's two hours long but I was really fixated on that beginning portion. He's making himself out to be a martyr who was told by God to help all of these people. I hope my prior post didn't seem like I was denigrating those who are religious, but from an outsider's perspective I can't help but see what's going on as someone preying on people religious sensibilities, and I think a lot of people may be blindly trusting Ardis because of their religion.
I'd like to add that I was feeling a bit bad for my heavy criticism of him at first, but since he's taking any criticism as proof that he's right and a martyr, oddly, I feel less bad about it!
I think it's certainly warranted as long as it's well-cited and I think even the argument about wastewater treatment (or really any aspect of his theory) should be considered enough to discredit his claims. If his theories don't hold up well under scrutiny could we even consider them to be theories worth investigating?
On today’s Dr. Jane Ruby Show, while some of the frontline experts are breathlessly trying to dismiss the snake venom warnings of Dr. Bryan Ardis before they have seen all the evidence, other experts from around the world are now stepping up to tie the pieces together and Dr. Jane shows you their incredible photos and videos and Dr. Eli English, Homeopathic doctor, is back to show everyone how to counteract the effects of envenomation with natural antidote approaches.
I actually link the second video above and mentioned it briefly. Honestly unless they provide the actual experiment parameters instead of "put blood on slide, add vaccine, claim a conclusion" then I don't find this to be anything substantial. I also don't believe Stew Peters or "Dr. Jane Ruby" to know what they are looking at with discerning eyes. My opinion is that they are really just fed what they are supposed to be looking at and then reporting on it as if there's any merit to what they were told. Again, Stew Peters is not one to be able to properly rebut his guests or their ideas.
I am totally in agreement with your analysis of Dr. Ardis' snake oil sales pitch. The only thing that mildly intrigued me was the text from the "would you take anti-venom if you got bit by a snake" (talk about adding suspense and drama kind of like the "to be continued" at the end of tv show). It turns out that was Dr. Tau Braun (who is a psychologist specializing in counter terrorism). So I'll admit, not what I was expecting, and not an area of much knowledge for me, so I thought I'd give it a go. Well again I was met with word salad. I should have taken notes, but there was definitely some major scientific faux-pas committed in his explanation. One thing I remember is he said "kinases are like knives - they chop things up." Hmm, even just a google search of kinase will let you know that is wrong. In general anything ending in the suffix -ase denotes it's an enzyme (a protein with a job). So there are many things in our cells that chop up stuff (DNase chops up DNA, RNase chops us RNA, protease chops up protein - it's their job, but you can imagine there are lots of jobs to be done in within our cellular framework, hey, maybe somethings put things together). The video is on Dr. Ardis' website: https://vokalnow.com/video/4850
One final note on "peptides" which Dr. Ardis used extensively in his presentation: I can only think of peptide binding groove of MHC Class I and Class II molecules. They select peptides from inside our cells and display them on the outside to let surveillance cells know what's going on inside the cell (it's a super complex system). But check out the cartoons from this paper, they are fabulous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5159193/
Overall it does seem like they are preying on the ignorance of people concerning scientific things. His theory is sensational, but not for the reasons he espouses.
I don't have any knowledge of his credentials so a cursory glance does not provide much. That is interesting with the Dr. Braun discussion, as it maybe appears they were discussing things outside of their realm of knowledge with certainty as well?
I appreciate the comment in regards to MHC molecules, although even such a description is likely to be above Ardis' descriptive knowledge. I think he's been using peptides because of your last point; it sounds fancy and it preys on the ignorance of those who are listening.
Thanks - I’ll check that out & hope for less word salad!! They really need a written argument so it can be discerned by others - that is what science is all about (although I am doubtful of their true intentions). 🤷🏼♀️
Again, plenty more to add here such as snake venom being used as a therapeutic agent which actually would counter the rampant fear mongering that we're all being poisoned.
If anyone has any more of Ardis' articles please feel free to comment with a link. I'm rather interested in seeing how much analysis he has actually done with respect to the studies he cites. Something tells me he may be one of those "didn't get past the abstract" type of people...
It's also interesting seeing a possible schism forming within the FLCCC, which may not be a good thing in the long run, but I suppose this is one of those things to watch out for in the near future.
Ardis himself doesn't appear to have written much - he doesn't have a blog on his website but a shop and a podcast. He also has a big section devoted to booking media engagements with him.
Do you know if there are any podcasts or meetings where he cites any of the articles he looks at? I'm really curious since he appears to both want transparency while also not being direct about the studies he is referring to. I wonder if he is trying to lie by omission when he makes references to some of the studies that he does.
If I remember correctly I think they were showing some of the headlines/studies in screenshares/screenshots in both the Watch the Water and Mike Adams interviews. That doesn't mean he reviewed them closely. He seems to do science by headline.
Yes and that is likely to have come from Stew's editors, which makes me wonder how well-versed are they to know what videos to show. Like I mentioned they used a video of Melatonin binding to Melatonin receptors when talking about how Melatonin acts as an anti-venom. I think what's happening is that Ardis is telling them what to look for and they try to find it and unscrupulously add it to the interviews.
That's the thing too. Ardis is wrong about the melatonin. It doesn't act as an anti-venom at all. It is simply an antioxidant that can potentially minimize the damage from a snake bite, but that's not the same thing as as having properties that neutralize the venom itself.
Yes I mentioned it when discussing the children somehow having fewer symptoms. I cited a study that combined melatonin with anti-venom. It's obvious it is being used for its ability to reduce oxidative damage and I'm not sure why Ardis doesn't understand it. I'm trying to watch the 2 hour podcast I sent you to get a better perspective. I will say that the interviewer is at least asking questions, although it's still not to the level I would expect.
Another very informative article and thanks for the links.
I was sad to see Dr Jane Ruby be more divisive against the flccc at Dr Kory. Instead of just relaying that these doctors have different opinions, they dismiss them "because of their arrogance". They may also dismiss them on some scientific grounds, I don't know enough to deeply understand the science like you do, but they're bringing in a divisive tone which is a shame. We need to be able to disagree without being divisive, and we should know that from experience over the past 2 years. I know we all slip up in this area from time to time, it does take maturity.
And I agree that doctor Ardis seems to have some grandiosity, although I feel a little different flavor. He's done all this research alone, and he said he's been very emotional in the process. I think the emotionality makes it harder to take in information that would prove the theory wrong. It's like the emotionality is a tenuous glue holding the parts of the theory together. To take in other information makes the glue even more tenuous, bringing anxiety and insecurity. The grandiosity covers for the tenuous, anxious, insecure nature involved in the theory.
I love your humor, "I mean, just look at the little guys. Of course the would be perfect for producing antibodies". 😅 It's peptides all the way down baby! 😍
Well I'll admit that I'm learning at the same rate as others are! So don't count yourself short as there's always space to continue learning!
And honestly, I'm not sure where Dr. Ruby's background resides. I tried looking up information and it says she used to work as a nurse but then went to school and began working in pharmaceuticals (I believe on the economics side?) so I don't think her specialty is anywhere in the sciences. Now, I'm certainly someone who is moving away from the concept of credentialism but I would hope that she would appear to be more knowledgeable about the science but she seems to fall for the same fallacies as Stew and just takes Ardis' word on everything. There certainly is a lot of animosity brewing, and I think part of it stems from Ardis' hubris of believing that this theory, which he came up with on his own, is the correct one and these people are trying to discredit him are destroying all of his work.
Yes the emotional aspect is interesting, although I will also argue that he's not doing a good job of really reading many of the articles he sites. In this post and Friday's I actually linked some of the articles he mentions and they aren't quite what he is making them out to be. It certainly does seem like he knows that this theory, if exposed to the light, will not hold up to scrutiny which is why he is likely drawing hard lines to bring people over to his cause.
And thanks about the humor remark! Even after writing for a few months I think my writing can be a little still over being self-conscious but I think people may enjoy a more casual approach to the writings so I may try that more!
Yes, I remember you saying that from the last post, that doctor Ardis doesn't seem to deeply understand the studies he's citing. To me that holds an importance beyond this particular snake venom theory. So many studies are misinterpreted, or are taken as settled science, in the government pharmaceutical covid narrative. A majority of the public can't seem to assess individual studies or a field of evidence, enabling the government to pass harmful covid policies and divide the public.
Yes, and I will be honest and state that I am very likely to misinterpret studies as well, mainly because I tend to gloss over the statistical analyses. Other people dive into those topics more such as Brian Mowrey, Jooni Kim, or Alesandros and so they may be likely to pick up when it looks like a bit of trickery is occurring where I may a bit more naïve to these trickeries. But in such circumstances is more appropriate to be a little hesitant to state that these studies are absolute. I think it's a big issue when he mentions that Italy toxin study as being absolute. When told that these toxins are typically found in diseased individuals Ardis does not have a proper argument- he just cites the Arizona study and the Italy study at their word. So there's a big difference between maybe not noticing some things in studies- people who make good-faith arguments but maybe missing a few more nuanced takes, and those who take studies as being the end all, be all of the argument.
I agree with your sentiments on credentialism, and in this case, I wonder if a lot of people who really don't deserve the title slap "Doctor" in front of their name without truly earning it, which gives them a free pass of sorts to spout of nonsense.
Oh, I am absolutely wondering where "Dr. Ruby" received her PhD in. I tried looking up information on her but can't find anything that really elucidates what her degree was in. This wouldn't be a big deal if Stew didn't lean on her credentials as a voice of authority on a lot of these scientific matters. She is also presented with a stethoscope in the thumbnail images which I would assume believe is intended to create that persona of someone with a scientific/medical background.
I believe part of her background is in nursing and I would like evidence to the contrary of my position, but until I see more I'm wary of how knowledgeable she actually is.
There's one thing I find disturbing that the left always does. If your going to use facts then stick to facts. If your going to try and discredit then still stick to facts. Opinions when arguing facts and also slander about the person you are discrediting is really a poor and lazy way to prove your point. Another issue I have is when the first presenter comes across an article or review that goes against their point they again try to discredit rather than find validity in the article. I would love to believe Ardis is wrong and higher powers in the world aren't trying to kill us off, but in the end the opinions and slander don't help me think think that you all are on the right track. I appreciate the time and energy that the presenter put into their discrediting piece but in the end opinions don't mix with facts, so I can't take the info with sincerity.
Excellent analysis. First, when I ask the pro-Ardis people what a peptide is, they will usually deflect or scatter. In short, a peptide is a short protein. An enzyme is a protein that acts like a catalyst in the body. Enzymes are typically proteins, not short peptides. Not all proteins are enzymes. Science has only recently discovered how to make a peptide act as an enzyme.
I need to do more research but based on those definitions alone, the "toxin-like peptides" may not even be full-blown enzymes.
Yes, I was using proteins more as a heuristic for proteins but there is quite a lot more to it than just spewing peptides. There are more nuances to it but I find it odd that he continues to reiterate the phrase "snake venom peptide" (well, now he's incorporating "cone snail peptides" as well). He is not coming up with a coherent theory that contextualizes all of the receptor binding proteins or the enzymes such as the phosphodiesterases he keeps mentioning. He states they are there but not what they are doing and how they are incorporated. I think he's trying to get other people to do the leg work with their critiques so he can react to those and act as if they were always part of his theoretical repertoire.
Fun times. In a sense, the FLCCC backlash is predictable, because there's a lot of unresolved tension in the anti-Covid-vaccine crowd's blind embrace of any authority that offers the "different easy answer" in contrast to the "mainstream easy answer" of the vax, whether it's wonder-drugs, or the flawed "leaky vaccine = bad" rubric, etc. On the way, suddenly ("repurposed") drugs and ("non-leaky") vaccines (not really a thing) are again elevated to magic secular saviors that deliver humanity from death, setting the mainstream-medicine-doubters up for fresh disillusionment. The backlash is natural, because the process of learning to think critically and get back in touch with nature wasn't finished the first time. And the FLCCC put too much bank on studies to begin with.
I also speculated that the Italy authors were a bit out of their depth as far as ruling out normal artifacts of cellular destruction, in a reply to Stephanie (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/jumping-the-snake/comment/6052187?s=w)
Yes, I definitely agree. I think there is an issue with the FLCCC almost becoming a replacement vector for those who are going against the COVID narrative. I'll be honest and say that the Defeat the Mandates rally in DC from early January caught me off guard with the approach that was taken. I actually felt rather uncomfortable because it felt like there was a large incorporation of religion and really other ideas that just didn't seem to suit the idea of saying that there's no ethical or scientific reason for these mandates.
I don't mind the examination of studies, but I guess it does put them in a precarious position where they may be blamed for picking and choosing what suits their narrative to the same extent as the mainstream narrative pushers are doing.
Yes, for all intents and purposes the study was rather straighforward, which is why it seemed strange that its results were flawed to such a degree. I made note of one comment, although I didn't expand on it further, that the control group was free of disease. I would bet that if they were diabetic or had cardiovascular disease many of these "toxins" would be present. Ardis actually alludes to that in his second Stew Peters interview where he claims the most vulnerable groups are being targeted with snake venom as a new form of eugenics. I think he alludes to the fact that these markers are seen in diabetics and those with heart disease but like I said Stew isn't equipped to pick up on those little bits and investigate them further.
Right, and as far as the pro-coagulation elements of the spike / S1, Resia Pretorius et al. have already laid a lot of the groundwork for why preexisting inflammation primes people for a vicious cycle effect upon circulation of the S1, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel as far as "targeting" (though again these are probably more common features of viral infection than we realize, but with the difference that we usually gain antibodies in childhood).
Some vax opponents routinely list the excipients of jabs, and deem them as harmful because they can be also be found in higher concentration or quantity in industrial mixtures which are toxic when taken internally. This reveals complete ignorance of dose dependent therapeutic value vs toxicity. Part of the snake venom word salad displays the same problem.
Yes the whole idea of dosing has to be overlooked in order for Ardis' theory to work. There's so many flaws in his thinking but he is still insisting that it is correct and is incorporating ideas as they come in. Like I said, if the cone snail venom is far more lethal than certain snake venoms, how does he add this idea into his framework without correcting for his "sublethal" comments? Surely a more deadly toxin would at least call into question his comments on sublethal dosing?
I’d guess that Ardis is riding a dopamine rush from all the attention he is getting, and is not concerned with accuracy and self checking. In order to keep up quality and accuracy, it’s important not to care about fame. There was a time, long ago, when I was getting attention for my point of view, but I did my best to stay accurate and self consistent, which probably bored people to death :-D It takes great skill to market the truth.
Yes, which makes me wonder- why now? The sudden urgency is quite strange. He apparently is liking the attention he is getting but I wonder if it may disappear in a few weeks and he may end up with egg on his face.
Thanks for providing some background. That's actually an interesting perspective. And yes, I am always concerned my writing is so bland even Gordon Ramsay may come to criticize it! It's hard to post a lot of information and try to make it sound very exciting.
Amino acids = molecules that have NH2 and COOH functional groups (allowing chains of them to form). Each kind of amino acid a variable side chain. Peptides are short chains of amino acids. Proteins are long, folded chains of amino acids. Enzymes are an example of proteins. Endorphins are an example of peptides.
Dr Ardis’s snake venom stuff pegged my BS meter instantaneously. It’s freeking word salad. Stew is really killing his Art Bell-like entertainment value with this mess.
Yes, I was using a more heuristic approach in my argument, although I will admit that it has been quite a while since I was in school so I may have also forgot the more exact term. But regardless he is definitely using his words with the intent that they sound fancy or scientific to the lay audience and thus they will just repeat them without understanding what they actually are. We can see that a lot with even things such as antibodies, which is why I thought it was quite obnoxious to see Monoclonals being portrayed as some weird abstract, novel therapeutic. I would think that people would see antibodies and think "hey, are these related to the antibodies we produce in our own bodies?"
I credit you for doing a lot of research for your writing, and transparency about your process and content. (A personal motto is that if I avoid pretending to know more than I do, it can save lives.)
You are correct. Monoclonals and especially the whole idea of introducing exogenous antibodies into patients is not at all new or novel. Unfortunately there are some negatives to the therapy that sometimes go beyond the basic benefit vs risk.
I appreciate the comments. I am trying to present information with a bit of my perspective but I also want people to know where I get my information so I try to cite everything I look at for that transparency. I'm certain I have gotten many things wrong and I always encourage people to do their own research or criticize me when I get things wrong.
I wrote a bit about Aducanumab and apparently there are concerns with brain swelling and bleeding with its use. It certainly is related to the type of Monoclonals and where they target. From what I remember there's a general concern of autoimmunity or ADE occurring with Monoclonals as well I believe.
I also want to add that your analysis of Dr. Ardis' mental state is spot on. When I watched the first part of that one video you shared on my comments - where Ardis writes off all criticism as "egos" - I was really repulsed by his obvious projection. I have more to say on the potential spiritual issues the man has, but his claiming that he spent 16 hours a day on this, which is obsessive, is a huge red flag.
Yes, I haven't watched the full podcast since it's two hours long but I was really fixated on that beginning portion. He's making himself out to be a martyr who was told by God to help all of these people. I hope my prior post didn't seem like I was denigrating those who are religious, but from an outsider's perspective I can't help but see what's going on as someone preying on people religious sensibilities, and I think a lot of people may be blindly trusting Ardis because of their religion.
I'd like to add that I was feeling a bit bad for my heavy criticism of him at first, but since he's taking any criticism as proof that he's right and a martyr, oddly, I feel less bad about it!
I think it's certainly warranted as long as it's well-cited and I think even the argument about wastewater treatment (or really any aspect of his theory) should be considered enough to discredit his claims. If his theories don't hold up well under scrutiny could we even consider them to be theories worth investigating?
FWIW, I know of religious people who have done their "discernment" on Dr. Ardis and Stew Peters and don't get good feelings.
Any comments to these latest disclosures April 18?
https://rumble.com/v11gxry-undiluted-pfizer-vials-full-of-snake-venom-proteins-for-injection.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Stew+Peters+Network&ep=2
On today’s Dr. Jane Ruby Show, while some of the frontline experts are breathlessly trying to dismiss the snake venom warnings of Dr. Bryan Ardis before they have seen all the evidence, other experts from around the world are now stepping up to tie the pieces together and Dr. Jane shows you their incredible photos and videos and Dr. Eli English, Homeopathic doctor, is back to show everyone how to counteract the effects of envenomation with natural antidote approaches.
https://rumble.com/v11gwd4-scientist-finds-venom-in-vials-evidence-of-venom-in-undiluted-pfizer-vials-.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2
I actually link the second video above and mentioned it briefly. Honestly unless they provide the actual experiment parameters instead of "put blood on slide, add vaccine, claim a conclusion" then I don't find this to be anything substantial. I also don't believe Stew Peters or "Dr. Jane Ruby" to know what they are looking at with discerning eyes. My opinion is that they are really just fed what they are supposed to be looking at and then reporting on it as if there's any merit to what they were told. Again, Stew Peters is not one to be able to properly rebut his guests or their ideas.
In other words, Dr. Eli is selling a cure for the hysteria being whipped up. Shameful.
I am totally in agreement with your analysis of Dr. Ardis' snake oil sales pitch. The only thing that mildly intrigued me was the text from the "would you take anti-venom if you got bit by a snake" (talk about adding suspense and drama kind of like the "to be continued" at the end of tv show). It turns out that was Dr. Tau Braun (who is a psychologist specializing in counter terrorism). So I'll admit, not what I was expecting, and not an area of much knowledge for me, so I thought I'd give it a go. Well again I was met with word salad. I should have taken notes, but there was definitely some major scientific faux-pas committed in his explanation. One thing I remember is he said "kinases are like knives - they chop things up." Hmm, even just a google search of kinase will let you know that is wrong. In general anything ending in the suffix -ase denotes it's an enzyme (a protein with a job). So there are many things in our cells that chop up stuff (DNase chops up DNA, RNase chops us RNA, protease chops up protein - it's their job, but you can imagine there are lots of jobs to be done in within our cellular framework, hey, maybe somethings put things together). The video is on Dr. Ardis' website: https://vokalnow.com/video/4850
One final note on "peptides" which Dr. Ardis used extensively in his presentation: I can only think of peptide binding groove of MHC Class I and Class II molecules. They select peptides from inside our cells and display them on the outside to let surveillance cells know what's going on inside the cell (it's a super complex system). But check out the cartoons from this paper, they are fabulous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5159193/
Overall it does seem like they are preying on the ignorance of people concerning scientific things. His theory is sensational, but not for the reasons he espouses.
Hi Clarisse! Thanks for your comments! So it appears that the person Ardis is referencing is actually Dr. Richard Bartlett:
https://totalityofevidence.com/2022/03/08/dr-richard-bartlett/
I don't have any knowledge of his credentials so a cursory glance does not provide much. That is interesting with the Dr. Braun discussion, as it maybe appears they were discussing things outside of their realm of knowledge with certainty as well?
I appreciate the comment in regards to MHC molecules, although even such a description is likely to be above Ardis' descriptive knowledge. I think he's been using peptides because of your last point; it sounds fancy and it preys on the ignorance of those who are listening.
Thanks - I’ll check that out & hope for less word salad!! They really need a written argument so it can be discerned by others - that is what science is all about (although I am doubtful of their true intentions). 🤷🏼♀️