The reader can decide if she is credible. I am reasonably confident that she is a doctor who genuinely feels that the government mandates were immoral... but I suspect she simply doesn't have the experience to write such a paper.
Then she is groomed by people like Mihalcea and Broudy who tell her brave and wonderful she is. But Broudy's group reads like a who's who of spooks (not all of them)...
For a "professor of linguistics" Broudy's speech is very laboured.
The actual paper is full of inconsistencies, with some photoshopping and images borrowed from the earlier Jeon paper. It's not possible to incubate aqueous solutions for 2 years - it's a ridiculous concept. There are many other red flags as discussed in some of the tweets in response to the well poisoning accounts promoting this paper.
If you look very carefully at the video, you'll notice that her background is set to wallpaper mode. It is a fabrication (go to 8:28; it's quite evident if you analyse her hair; the sharp cut contours a dead giveaway).
The problem I have with the 'South Korean Youngmi Lee' (whose spelling varies between Young Mi Lee and Youngmi Lee, which is oddly inconsistent) is the clinic in question does not exist at the address or phone number specified, and she goes by the title of "MD", but MD is nearly exclusively an *American term*.
Remember, the gmail account does not meet any privacy law standards. Even the tech illiterate NHS would have an absolute fit over the idea of personalised email being used to handle patient confidential data. I know you might be thinking Lee is perhaps some shady backalley, but even she would be obliged to information handling laws (on account her licence could be revoked in this hypothetical).
So my suspicion is Broudy has created a fictitious entity via something like AI generation (the AI's data is typically based on web scrapings; the same of which we can find from a handful of locations), and simply has an Asian lady play the role. The wallpaper background mode with the exact same lab photograph as evidence. She doesn't exist.
The retroactively updated ORCID (since this article got published) now suggest she somehow studied in Chicago. But only once. All other qualifications are South Korean. Except for the one American association (which... wouldn't make sense for a South Korean operator). The verification is basically non-existent, and what is posted is contradictory.
Excellent analysis! 'Dr' John was all over this to get the view counter up that's all that matters to him. ££$£$!! Sh!t like this get's more views than Scottish COVID inquiry testimonies. What a world!
My assessments were made, initially, independently, then I queried with a few peers for their thoughts and opinions, and I was pointed to Jikkyleaks' commentary. I had debated the value on whether or not a rebuttal was warranted given 'how obviously flawed a paper it is', and after assessment I believed a rebuttal was required given there was endorsement by high profile figures, which creates an artificial trust, which the public may not question initially.
Essentially, John Campbell is 'credibility laundering' on behalf of the paper; his prior hard work lends credibility to the paper that is unwarranted, however viewers may trust his interpretation on face value based on his prior good work. As a result, The Daily Beagle has to interdict and publish a rebuttal so folks aren't taken in on face value.
He's actually done a relatively decent job of raising awareness of the flaws with the shots. He's interviewed vaccine injured people, read papers (more credible ones!) that highlighted harms, has documented excess deaths, increases in cancer; he has also appeared on other people's channels as part of interviews along the same lines. He brought attention to the Midazolam murders (mainly the suspicion of the spike in Midazolam prescribing). He's also been attacked by hardcore vaccine shills, such as Susan Oliver. He easily gets tens of thousands of views; one of his videos dwarfs The Daily Beagle's audience many hundreds of times over.
Essentially, he's managed to bridge the gap to a "more normie" audience on a topic usually more seen as outskirts. He has put a lot of work in. This is like building a house and then setting fire to it. The last time I made a rebuttal to Campbell was 2021 when he was shilling the Pfizer shots, and he did seem to take the criticism on board because he U-turned shortly afterwards.
I'm incredibly baffled he's talking about an obviously horribly flawed paper. It is hard to conceive of a scenario where he's talking about it but without reading the paper "properly". Even if I assume someone else read it "for him" and then gave him a script to read, that raises some serious questions. My only other 'benefit of the doubt' is maybe he did not understand any of the jargon, but given he's a nurse (the title of 'Dr' is a bit misleading) he should have had a basic understanding.
It is difficult to conceive of a scenario where the error wasn't intentional. Perhaps I'm wrong, but... it doesn't look good.
Yes, he did all that after the cat was well and truly out of the bag. How could he do those things and still keep his YouTube channel? I don’t buy it. He makes my flesh crawl.
Have you seen his monkey pox video? Alistair Williams does a great video on it:
I dropped this guy years ago, but in bits I've seen of him since, I have never seen caution, just slanted/wrong information spun through a British/Mr. Rogers(ish)/PhD type persona. If he was telling any truths of the plandemic, youtube would have booted him years ago. Yet, he's been allowed to gather millions of followers (making a nice income), doing pharma's and the cabal's dirty work. No one knows how many thousands and thousands took the vaxx and were maimed or killed, falling for his personality, presentation style, and "credentials" while suspending their personal due diligence. Ultimately that's their fault, but it doesn't excuse him.
Separating what he said for years from his "change of heart" is giving him a pass he doesn't deserve. So what that he's changed his position? From his very first video, he had all the information we had, maybe more, and much better skills to evaluate it. With our limited scientific/medical knowledge, we sensed something was very wrong, chose logic and compassion for others, and tried to warn/help them. He chose the nefarious path. Nuremberg 2.0 for him.
I respect the distrust of John Campbell, and also the criticism he was pro-mRNA in the opening, however the reason he cannot be vocally critical, as you suggest, is because of YouTube censorship. The fact his videos are even visible is an achievement, although I imagine every single one is demonitised.
The censorship is worse than it appears (back in 2016 I got demonitised for suggesting a petition of peace, and I abandoned the platform). The reason he's walking on eggshells is precisely because of YouTube, and before you say 'just use another platform' - the public do not visit other platforms, not in the same quantities or numbers. His half a million views easily outdwarfs The Daily Beagle in terms of reach, and it is 10x times more views than his Rumble channel.
Even his relatively soft contrary views are an improvement to the deep-throated, rabid vaccine shilling seen by numerous others on YouTube. He also helps bridge the gap between mainstream and stronger viewpoints like The Daily Beagle advocates.
I recognise people are angry at him, but I'd suggest Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla deserves your angry wrath infinitely more. There's a gulf between believing the BS Pfizer put out, and mass distributing their mRNA toxins to the entire planet to kill people with.
Perhaps, but I've seen a lot of vaccine pushers who still haven't U-turned, even in the face of *overwhelming* evidence of the harms. In terms of willingness to adjust his viewpoint, he's surprisingly flexible: I've encountered far too many vaccine shills (and even non-shills) who will absolutely commit to the failed cause - even at the cost of their own family members.
Should he have done it from the start? Absolutely, yes. But there are far more, still active, still pushing shot shills out there. Peter Hotez and Susan Oliver come to mind.
Thanks… Mr beagle!! Some people on twtr try to point out the red flags as you mention. Dr Kevin and Charles did a whole video explaining the so called study.
It was brought to my attention by Geoff Pain PhD. Some of the images from this decades old paper, mirror exactly what you see in this study by Dr. Lee.
Open source journal nobody has ever heard of. 2 authors, one of whom isn’t a scientist. John C posts a super secret hush hush video where he spends most of it worrying the video will be taken down. The comments section on his YT video flooded with comments that all sound the same. God, I hate these people. What kind of a psychopath does this kind of work and sleeps well at night? The intelligence agencies and their occult masters need to be taken behind the woodshed.
In reading the discussion and conclusion of this paper by Dr. Lee, they used terms and phases such as,... 'Appears to be', 'infer' and 'speculate'. They also make a huge supposition. This is not a guessing game. I don't see how this paper got published with the wording as is. And with your investigative work, and that of the paper decades old, brought to my attention by Geoff Pain PhD, it's now clear what the truth is...
The contradictory statements within the paper are major red flags, and I've withheld a number of other observations as I want to see who comes crawling out of the woodwork to defend it.
Would it surprise you if I told you the images had been re-used from another paper?
Some of the images from the 1992 paper look identical to Dr. Lee's work, so no, it wouldn't surprise me.
I commented this on another substack....
In the conclusions and discussions they write...
"...closer examinations and our own experimental studies show that there must also be unannounced nanomaterials that are 'invisible' to standard microscopic examination."
They do elaborate on all the toxic ingredients I mentioned earlier in the vaccines, and the harms they can cause. But add,.... that there is also this nanotech stuff which they can't see. That is a huge supposition there.
They also go on to say....
"We 'speculate' that the materials in the injectable products produce not only the publicly reported spike-protein induced presumably by the modified mRNA, but also there 'appears to be' various abnormal toxic protein secretions, 'likely' from either the presence of the nanostructures themselves...."
But in the next paragraph they recognize, this could be due to aberrant proteins being created by truncated/fragmented RNA...
"Mistranslations of modified mRNA could produce abnormal protein synthesis...."
They also go on to say this....
"Having concluded various experiments and careful observational studies, we 'infer' that the materials and their observed stages of development are not natural. They are synthetic, and elemental seeming to govern a well-programmed process of structural self-assembly."
Appears to be, inference, speculation, and suppositions, do not confer convincing evidence to say the least. This is not a guessing game.
I don't see how this paper got published with the wording as is. I'll bet there is a big push by Big Pharma interest to get this retracted. But I will read it in its entirety.
Thanks to you and Geoff Pain I won't have to read the 66 pages. LOL!
Have you ever seen a study that long in your life? I haven't. And I've read thousands. Guess they wanted to be thoroughly convincing with this slop. LOL!
Big Pharma are desperately trying to get those critical of the shots to "onboard" this hot garbage paper so they can destroy entire reputations and careers. I've never seen so many collective swarms come out of the woodwork desperately *screeching* that people must believe the paper.
I asked the Publisher to review the concerns of ethics violations and possible fraud, and their response was to try to DOX me! Thankfully they won't be taking my job on sleuthing any time soon.
I couldn't agree more with the collective swarms. Not only with this, but what is up with this no virus crap? At least John Campbell hasn't taken that leap. LOL!
I was really surprised he covered that paper. But I guess he believes the journals and the peer review process are still intact.
Although,.. I am a bit surprised that this journal published this garbage. Because I really love this paper by Dr. Gabriele Segalla...
The 'no virus' crap is another one of their discredit-by-association attempts. The government thinks people who don't buy into their vaccine indoctrination crap are bottom-of-the-barrel dumb, and so they think they will just readily accept any idea that is randomly thrown out.
By pumping 'no virus' non-stop they're hoping to onboard gullible folks, and once they do that, the average member of the public is going to see they're advocating a crazy theory, and not listen to anything else they have to say.
I'm sure there are some decent papers on the publisher's site. The sad part is the lack of actual peer review damages the net credibility of all of the papers. Maybe that's the intention.
So Broudy is published on Pandata with regards to "Patterns of Deception and Deviance in the Post-Truth Period: What's next for the global reset agenda? How do we recognize the major patterns of deception?"
So, how do we recognize the major patterns of deception? Is Broudy real or a recursion? Is this a test?
The Daily Beagle published an article on how to spot Controlled Opposition. They're not hard-and-fast rules, but they are very good and extensive guides on how to identify them within your community:
If you are *really* stuck, for example, say you've got three 'genuine sounding people' with 'good intentions' *potentially misleading you*, the safest method is to:
1) Trust nothing until it satisfies *your* burden of proof (do not let anyone bully you into adopting or rejecting anything).
2) Demand (firmly but politely) as much evidence from the other people as possible, and then examine that evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Do not take it at face value.
3) Good faith debaters will typically try to accommodate such requests. Sometimes you will find there are good faith debaters who are, unfortunately, spreading lies without realising it.
4) The majority of Controlled Opposition (ConOps) are 'bad faith debaters', and they will use abuse, gaslighting, 'Appeal to the Haystack' fallacies (A.K.A. 'just look it up yourself online' type responses), or they will either produce substandard, flawed evidence, or refuse to even discuss the matter.
Broudy from cursory online research is a real person, but his credentials may not be real (he claims to be a former "image analyst" for the U.S. army, but also claims his credentials are that of just an English teacher). It is very likely he is part of the U.S. army's PsyOps division (covered in the Ian Copeland article: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/exposed-us-military-fuel-vaccine), pretending to be former U.S. army, in order to infiltrate the anti-military movement in Okinawa and the wider anti-vaccine and anti-US government movements in general.
The fact his paper is rife with numerous writing issues as an "English teacher" should be the very first red flag he isn't who he claims to be.
Whoa, _stereo_microscopic! That must be because mono just won't do justice to the complex 3D structures.
"it isn’t clear if he intentionally glossed over the flaws (he did, after all, previously shill for the Pfizer shot), or is somehow so bad at basic proofreading"
I've seen it before. Quite frequently, actually. Someone who believed and trusted everything to be proper in "our institutions" for most of his life and discounting everything not in line with that as woo, then discovered the depth of corruption, and then, nothing seems too crazy anymore and skepticism towards anything counter the official side is lowered. One gets in a habit of feeling "oh, so that conpiracy theory was true, too", and intuitively assigns a higher likelihood of further things in the direction to be true, too.
I don't see it on his channel anymore, has he taken it down? After numerous hints he likely got.
It appears he has very sensibly taken the video down. If he's genuine, I suspect he's feeling a great deal of embarrassment right about now.
"One gets in a habit of feeling "oh, so that conpiracy theory was true, too", and intuitively assigns a higher likelihood of further things in the direction to be true, too."
Typically I only see those behaviours in a specific subset of the so-called "conspiracy minded", and even then, those sorts of views are nearly always driven by some sort of government tied individual (in this case, U.S. army tied Broudy).
Normies I've flipped, on the other hand, tend to be extremely reluctant to accept new worldviews. Many are eager to paint the situation as a mistake, or a one-off, because psychologically they have to destroy their own worldview in order to proceed.
Campbell also isn't your average 'conspiracy minded' individual. I'm not saying he's superman, but when one publishes in media, if one makes a mistake they will get burned for it, and up until this point he's done a relatively decent job of veto'ing his content. As a nurse he should not have struggled with the jargon of the paper.
Whilst I don't think he'd recognise 'abstract mathematical concepts' or the ethics requirements of a paper, there were enough 'readable' red flags (such as the addition of gold/silver/Vitamin C/mica/sillica and the bold claim the lab was spontaneously closed down with no evidence) he should have at least suspected something. A dig into the authorship and prior writing history would have revealed big tells!
I've said much about "nanobots" and the flaws in the theory, but I'll keep this short.
If the "researchers" can identify these anomalies as bots, why can't they extract them from the blood and disassemble the elements and show what they are? If they can be made and given "intelligence" to self-assemble and function and utilize AI and transmit, the technology that exists to make them is the same technology that exists to dissect them or demonstrate them on a bench.
John Campbell has publicly corrected the error https://x.com/jesslovesmjk/status/1832780420246626754?s=46
Nice work. Young-Mi Lee (The Jeju one, not the New York one) appears in the this video
https://rumble.com/v5byv09-millions-of-self-assembly-nanoparticles-in-covid-19-injections-ep-33.html
The reader can decide if she is credible. I am reasonably confident that she is a doctor who genuinely feels that the government mandates were immoral... but I suspect she simply doesn't have the experience to write such a paper.
Then she is groomed by people like Mihalcea and Broudy who tell her brave and wonderful she is. But Broudy's group reads like a who's who of spooks (not all of them)...
https://propagandainfocus.com/our-team/
For a "professor of linguistics" Broudy's speech is very laboured.
The actual paper is full of inconsistencies, with some photoshopping and images borrowed from the earlier Jeon paper. It's not possible to incubate aqueous solutions for 2 years - it's a ridiculous concept. There are many other red flags as discussed in some of the tweets in response to the well poisoning accounts promoting this paper.
If you look very carefully at the video, you'll notice that her background is set to wallpaper mode. It is a fabrication (go to 8:28; it's quite evident if you analyse her hair; the sharp cut contours a dead giveaway).
The problem I have with the 'South Korean Youngmi Lee' (whose spelling varies between Young Mi Lee and Youngmi Lee, which is oddly inconsistent) is the clinic in question does not exist at the address or phone number specified, and she goes by the title of "MD", but MD is nearly exclusively an *American term*.
Remember, the gmail account does not meet any privacy law standards. Even the tech illiterate NHS would have an absolute fit over the idea of personalised email being used to handle patient confidential data. I know you might be thinking Lee is perhaps some shady backalley, but even she would be obliged to information handling laws (on account her licence could be revoked in this hypothetical).
So my suspicion is Broudy has created a fictitious entity via something like AI generation (the AI's data is typically based on web scrapings; the same of which we can find from a handful of locations), and simply has an Asian lady play the role. The wallpaper background mode with the exact same lab photograph as evidence. She doesn't exist.
I did find a "review" (positive) of her online (as a gynaecologist) but it is quite possible that this was fabricated. Otherwise she is a ghost.
The retroactively updated ORCID (since this article got published) now suggest she somehow studied in Chicago. But only once. All other qualifications are South Korean. Except for the one American association (which... wouldn't make sense for a South Korean operator). The verification is basically non-existent, and what is posted is contradictory.
crispin is on the list you linked to. He is a total hypocrite about propaganda (he's a big propagandist) so for me, yup, that's a red flag.
Excellent analysis! 'Dr' John was all over this to get the view counter up that's all that matters to him. ££$£$!! Sh!t like this get's more views than Scottish COVID inquiry testimonies. What a world!
I seem to have spent half the day trying to tell people this paper is fake, garbage. It’s obviously succeeding magnificently.
My assessments were made, initially, independently, then I queried with a few peers for their thoughts and opinions, and I was pointed to Jikkyleaks' commentary. I had debated the value on whether or not a rebuttal was warranted given 'how obviously flawed a paper it is', and after assessment I believed a rebuttal was required given there was endorsement by high profile figures, which creates an artificial trust, which the public may not question initially.
Essentially, John Campbell is 'credibility laundering' on behalf of the paper; his prior hard work lends credibility to the paper that is unwarranted, however viewers may trust his interpretation on face value based on his prior good work. As a result, The Daily Beagle has to interdict and publish a rebuttal so folks aren't taken in on face value.
What good work has John Campbell done? I’m wondering what I missed.
He's actually done a relatively decent job of raising awareness of the flaws with the shots. He's interviewed vaccine injured people, read papers (more credible ones!) that highlighted harms, has documented excess deaths, increases in cancer; he has also appeared on other people's channels as part of interviews along the same lines. He brought attention to the Midazolam murders (mainly the suspicion of the spike in Midazolam prescribing). He's also been attacked by hardcore vaccine shills, such as Susan Oliver. He easily gets tens of thousands of views; one of his videos dwarfs The Daily Beagle's audience many hundreds of times over.
Essentially, he's managed to bridge the gap to a "more normie" audience on a topic usually more seen as outskirts. He has put a lot of work in. This is like building a house and then setting fire to it. The last time I made a rebuttal to Campbell was 2021 when he was shilling the Pfizer shots, and he did seem to take the criticism on board because he U-turned shortly afterwards.
I'm incredibly baffled he's talking about an obviously horribly flawed paper. It is hard to conceive of a scenario where he's talking about it but without reading the paper "properly". Even if I assume someone else read it "for him" and then gave him a script to read, that raises some serious questions. My only other 'benefit of the doubt' is maybe he did not understand any of the jargon, but given he's a nurse (the title of 'Dr' is a bit misleading) he should have had a basic understanding.
It is difficult to conceive of a scenario where the error wasn't intentional. Perhaps I'm wrong, but... it doesn't look good.
Yes, he did all that after the cat was well and truly out of the bag. How could he do those things and still keep his YouTube channel? I don’t buy it. He makes my flesh crawl.
Have you seen his monkey pox video? Alistair Williams does a great video on it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DlNKraIPvZo
Susan you are absolutely right.
I dropped this guy years ago, but in bits I've seen of him since, I have never seen caution, just slanted/wrong information spun through a British/Mr. Rogers(ish)/PhD type persona. If he was telling any truths of the plandemic, youtube would have booted him years ago. Yet, he's been allowed to gather millions of followers (making a nice income), doing pharma's and the cabal's dirty work. No one knows how many thousands and thousands took the vaxx and were maimed or killed, falling for his personality, presentation style, and "credentials" while suspending their personal due diligence. Ultimately that's their fault, but it doesn't excuse him.
Separating what he said for years from his "change of heart" is giving him a pass he doesn't deserve. So what that he's changed his position? From his very first video, he had all the information we had, maybe more, and much better skills to evaluate it. With our limited scientific/medical knowledge, we sensed something was very wrong, chose logic and compassion for others, and tried to warn/help them. He chose the nefarious path. Nuremberg 2.0 for him.
I respect the distrust of John Campbell, and also the criticism he was pro-mRNA in the opening, however the reason he cannot be vocally critical, as you suggest, is because of YouTube censorship. The fact his videos are even visible is an achievement, although I imagine every single one is demonitised.
The censorship is worse than it appears (back in 2016 I got demonitised for suggesting a petition of peace, and I abandoned the platform). The reason he's walking on eggshells is precisely because of YouTube, and before you say 'just use another platform' - the public do not visit other platforms, not in the same quantities or numbers. His half a million views easily outdwarfs The Daily Beagle in terms of reach, and it is 10x times more views than his Rumble channel.
Even his relatively soft contrary views are an improvement to the deep-throated, rabid vaccine shilling seen by numerous others on YouTube. He also helps bridge the gap between mainstream and stronger viewpoints like The Daily Beagle advocates.
I recognise people are angry at him, but I'd suggest Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla deserves your angry wrath infinitely more. There's a gulf between believing the BS Pfizer put out, and mass distributing their mRNA toxins to the entire planet to kill people with.
Perhaps, but I've seen a lot of vaccine pushers who still haven't U-turned, even in the face of *overwhelming* evidence of the harms. In terms of willingness to adjust his viewpoint, he's surprisingly flexible: I've encountered far too many vaccine shills (and even non-shills) who will absolutely commit to the failed cause - even at the cost of their own family members.
Should he have done it from the start? Absolutely, yes. But there are far more, still active, still pushing shot shills out there. Peter Hotez and Susan Oliver come to mind.
If you watch the monkey pox video, you will see that the leopard has not changed his spots.
Oh dear. It looks like Dr John will have to retract his video. He was expecting YT to take it down.
It's more than likely why YouTube allowed it to stand.
He already has:
https://x.com/Johnincarlisle/status/1832729975667011843
Thanks… Mr beagle!! Some people on twtr try to point out the red flags as you mention. Dr Kevin and Charles did a whole video explaining the so called study.
While it is great to point out all the flaws of this very sloppy study. What really puts this whole nanobot biz to bed, is this study back in 1992...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21633946_Filamentous_helical_and_tubular_microstructures_during_cholesterol_crystallization_from_bile_Evidence_that_cholesterol_does_not_nucleate_classic_monohydrate_plates
It was brought to my attention by Geoff Pain PhD. Some of the images from this decades old paper, mirror exactly what you see in this study by Dr. Lee.
Desperate times call for desperate measures
Yes... I saw that. Utter nonsense.
He doesn’t sound like a very good English teacher to me. I hope he’s not still “teaching” anywhere.
Open source journal nobody has ever heard of. 2 authors, one of whom isn’t a scientist. John C posts a super secret hush hush video where he spends most of it worrying the video will be taken down. The comments section on his YT video flooded with comments that all sound the same. God, I hate these people. What kind of a psychopath does this kind of work and sleeps well at night? The intelligence agencies and their occult masters need to be taken behind the woodshed.
Thankfully this article has had the desired effect of closing up a paradora's box.
In reading the discussion and conclusion of this paper by Dr. Lee, they used terms and phases such as,... 'Appears to be', 'infer' and 'speculate'. They also make a huge supposition. This is not a guessing game. I don't see how this paper got published with the wording as is. And with your investigative work, and that of the paper decades old, brought to my attention by Geoff Pain PhD, it's now clear what the truth is...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21633946_Filamentous_helical_and_tubular_microstructures_during_cholesterol_crystallization_from_bile_Evidence_that_cholesterol_does_not_nucleate_classic_monohydrate_plates
The contradictory statements within the paper are major red flags, and I've withheld a number of other observations as I want to see who comes crawling out of the woodwork to defend it.
Would it surprise you if I told you the images had been re-used from another paper?
Some of the images from the 1992 paper look identical to Dr. Lee's work, so no, it wouldn't surprise me.
I commented this on another substack....
In the conclusions and discussions they write...
"...closer examinations and our own experimental studies show that there must also be unannounced nanomaterials that are 'invisible' to standard microscopic examination."
They do elaborate on all the toxic ingredients I mentioned earlier in the vaccines, and the harms they can cause. But add,.... that there is also this nanotech stuff which they can't see. That is a huge supposition there.
They also go on to say....
"We 'speculate' that the materials in the injectable products produce not only the publicly reported spike-protein induced presumably by the modified mRNA, but also there 'appears to be' various abnormal toxic protein secretions, 'likely' from either the presence of the nanostructures themselves...."
But in the next paragraph they recognize, this could be due to aberrant proteins being created by truncated/fragmented RNA...
"Mistranslations of modified mRNA could produce abnormal protein synthesis...."
They also go on to say this....
"Having concluded various experiments and careful observational studies, we 'infer' that the materials and their observed stages of development are not natural. They are synthetic, and elemental seeming to govern a well-programmed process of structural self-assembly."
Appears to be, inference, speculation, and suppositions, do not confer convincing evidence to say the least. This is not a guessing game.
I don't see how this paper got published with the wording as is. I'll bet there is a big push by Big Pharma interest to get this retracted. But I will read it in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to you and Geoff Pain I won't have to read the 66 pages. LOL!
Have you ever seen a study that long in your life? I haven't. And I've read thousands. Guess they wanted to be thoroughly convincing with this slop. LOL!
Big Pharma are desperately trying to get those critical of the shots to "onboard" this hot garbage paper so they can destroy entire reputations and careers. I've never seen so many collective swarms come out of the woodwork desperately *screeching* that people must believe the paper.
I asked the Publisher to review the concerns of ethics violations and possible fraud, and their response was to try to DOX me! Thankfully they won't be taking my job on sleuthing any time soon.
Wow, they tried to DOX you?
I couldn't agree more with the collective swarms. Not only with this, but what is up with this no virus crap? At least John Campbell hasn't taken that leap. LOL!
I was really surprised he covered that paper. But I guess he believes the journals and the peer review process are still intact.
Although,.. I am a bit surprised that this journal published this garbage. Because I really love this paper by Dr. Gabriele Segalla...
Apparent Cytotoxicity and Intrinsic Cytotoxicity of Lipid Nanomaterials Contained in a COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (Oct 2023) https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/87/237
This and other evidence has launched 3 legal proceedings in Italy against BioNTech/Pfizer and the EMA.
More on this story here...
BioNTech/Pfizer and the EMA Knew the Vaccines were Toxic https://ohbaby.substack.com/p/biontechpfizer-and-the-ema-knew-the
The 'no virus' crap is another one of their discredit-by-association attempts. The government thinks people who don't buy into their vaccine indoctrination crap are bottom-of-the-barrel dumb, and so they think they will just readily accept any idea that is randomly thrown out.
By pumping 'no virus' non-stop they're hoping to onboard gullible folks, and once they do that, the average member of the public is going to see they're advocating a crazy theory, and not listen to anything else they have to say.
I'm sure there are some decent papers on the publisher's site. The sad part is the lack of actual peer review damages the net credibility of all of the papers. Maybe that's the intention.
So Broudy is published on Pandata with regards to "Patterns of Deception and Deviance in the Post-Truth Period: What's next for the global reset agenda? How do we recognize the major patterns of deception?"
So, how do we recognize the major patterns of deception? Is Broudy real or a recursion? Is this a test?
The Daily Beagle published an article on how to spot Controlled Opposition. They're not hard-and-fast rules, but they are very good and extensive guides on how to identify them within your community:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/controlled-opposition-what-is-it
If you are *really* stuck, for example, say you've got three 'genuine sounding people' with 'good intentions' *potentially misleading you*, the safest method is to:
1) Trust nothing until it satisfies *your* burden of proof (do not let anyone bully you into adopting or rejecting anything).
2) Demand (firmly but politely) as much evidence from the other people as possible, and then examine that evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Do not take it at face value.
3) Good faith debaters will typically try to accommodate such requests. Sometimes you will find there are good faith debaters who are, unfortunately, spreading lies without realising it.
4) The majority of Controlled Opposition (ConOps) are 'bad faith debaters', and they will use abuse, gaslighting, 'Appeal to the Haystack' fallacies (A.K.A. 'just look it up yourself online' type responses), or they will either produce substandard, flawed evidence, or refuse to even discuss the matter.
Broudy from cursory online research is a real person, but his credentials may not be real (he claims to be a former "image analyst" for the U.S. army, but also claims his credentials are that of just an English teacher). It is very likely he is part of the U.S. army's PsyOps division (covered in the Ian Copeland article: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/exposed-us-military-fuel-vaccine), pretending to be former U.S. army, in order to infiltrate the anti-military movement in Okinawa and the wider anti-vaccine and anti-US government movements in general.
The fact his paper is rife with numerous writing issues as an "English teacher" should be the very first red flag he isn't who he claims to be.
Fabulous write-up. You hit all the best points.
You still on twitter ? https://x.com/vejon_health/status/1832480316709298511
I have long since been suspended by Twitter after I exposed the fact they were the ones behind the bots!
Whoa, _stereo_microscopic! That must be because mono just won't do justice to the complex 3D structures.
"it isn’t clear if he intentionally glossed over the flaws (he did, after all, previously shill for the Pfizer shot), or is somehow so bad at basic proofreading"
I've seen it before. Quite frequently, actually. Someone who believed and trusted everything to be proper in "our institutions" for most of his life and discounting everything not in line with that as woo, then discovered the depth of corruption, and then, nothing seems too crazy anymore and skepticism towards anything counter the official side is lowered. One gets in a habit of feeling "oh, so that conpiracy theory was true, too", and intuitively assigns a higher likelihood of further things in the direction to be true, too.
I don't see it on his channel anymore, has he taken it down? After numerous hints he likely got.
It appears he has very sensibly taken the video down. If he's genuine, I suspect he's feeling a great deal of embarrassment right about now.
"One gets in a habit of feeling "oh, so that conpiracy theory was true, too", and intuitively assigns a higher likelihood of further things in the direction to be true, too."
Typically I only see those behaviours in a specific subset of the so-called "conspiracy minded", and even then, those sorts of views are nearly always driven by some sort of government tied individual (in this case, U.S. army tied Broudy).
Normies I've flipped, on the other hand, tend to be extremely reluctant to accept new worldviews. Many are eager to paint the situation as a mistake, or a one-off, because psychologically they have to destroy their own worldview in order to proceed.
Campbell also isn't your average 'conspiracy minded' individual. I'm not saying he's superman, but when one publishes in media, if one makes a mistake they will get burned for it, and up until this point he's done a relatively decent job of veto'ing his content. As a nurse he should not have struggled with the jargon of the paper.
Whilst I don't think he'd recognise 'abstract mathematical concepts' or the ethics requirements of a paper, there were enough 'readable' red flags (such as the addition of gold/silver/Vitamin C/mica/sillica and the bold claim the lab was spontaneously closed down with no evidence) he should have at least suspected something. A dig into the authorship and prior writing history would have revealed big tells!
I've said much about "nanobots" and the flaws in the theory, but I'll keep this short.
If the "researchers" can identify these anomalies as bots, why can't they extract them from the blood and disassemble the elements and show what they are? If they can be made and given "intelligence" to self-assemble and function and utilize AI and transmit, the technology that exists to make them is the same technology that exists to dissect them or demonstrate them on a bench.