PB: Makia, My Polish friend in Germany, a prominent dissident, activist, blogger and publicist, debunker of jew bankster and hasbara BS, Andrzej Szubert comments:
Under the banner of freedom there is no shortage of naive, useful idiots. How can one do mindlessly take any rubbish for thruth?
From now on, I will look at your articles very closely, as you bring much damage to our movements (ant-5G and anti-plandemic). Are you proud of praises under your article? Pharmafia makes so goofs like yourself into the agents of influence for the evil. Congrats!
Get well under your skull.
Cheers — Piotr Bein
Young writes in his article:
We have conducted the scientific testing on each vaccine and have identified several ingredients or adjuvants that have not been disclosed which are contained in these four SARS-CoV – 2 -19 vaccines
Who are “we”? Which are Young’s contributions to the collection of different study findings, photographs and charts? If he did contribute, where are his methods, discussion, conclusions to be found, re. his own contribution to the analysis of covid “vax”contents? In the list of references, there are no items dated 2020 or later bearing his name and pertaining to the subject and scope of his article,unless I missed somethig buried in the very depths of arcane science secrets.
Take Fig. 1 in Young’s article. Where the heck does it come from, what does it show, photographed with what method and for which vax? I found nothing of this sort in , not even the picture itself!
Fig.5, in turn, is not found in !
Fig. 11 purportedly of a nano-particle in the “vax”, can’t possibly come from , as they all have been published before 2020.
Fig. 13, of an alleged parasite found in a Pfizer vax… in which vial? — Madrid’s? Perhaps it’s a parasite from behind Youngs nails?
Right under Fig. 13 is an unnumbered picture from a catalogue , but to Freeman’s wishful thinking it’s “A parasite found in the Pfizer vaccine. Image credit: Dr. Robert Young“! How fanatic can one get to further distort overly distorted article…
And so on. See for yoursef if you can figure out what is what from which “vax” vial and which study. I wonder which science publication would admit such rubbish for review.
Although Young’s article appears to be based on a joint effort of a “team” of at least some of the authors listed in the references, why aren’t there any co-autors beside Young’s name? Yet, Freeman writes with straight face “science team led by Dr. Robert O. Young” and “Young and his team have used advanced microscopy and other analytical techniques“. An advanced con job, indeed! So advanced that this civil engineer saw thru it immediately LOL
Let’s look at ref. . It sounds like a study by two authors: Delgado Martin and Campra Madrid within some LaQuintaColumna (LQC) project. In fact it is Prof. Madrid’s report commissioned by Delgado Martin of two-person LQC. The other chap of this iffy science outfit is dr. Sevillano. Neither of them contributed (other than money) to Madrid’s work. But they did a marvel of a job at distorting Madrid’s conclusions. as if hired by Pharmafia itself, to discredit anything real and solid coming out of similar studies. An advanced con job, indeed.
I have de-bunked LQC’s snake oil salesmanship, starting from Whitney Webb’s findings on the scam. Young copies from Madrid’s report, except its conclusion: results are inconclusive, mass and other spectrroscopy is needed. He is silent over the shortcomings identified by Madrid, does not mnetion a crucial point: the study concerns only one Pfizer vial from unknown source, custody chain and upkeep like required refrigeration.
What info-mess ensued as a result of LQC deception and outright science fraud, the reader can glean from my analysis. Esteemed authorities of our anti-plandemic movement — Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch, Mike Adams of NaturalNews, Stew Peters and many others — allowed to be fooled, pulling millions in their audiences into the hoax.
Young’s article format is telling, too. A science article does not contain propaganda nor the author’s adverts. But in this case, between the end of “Discussion” ending somewhere at “ Remember …” and the list of references, we find assorted propaganda, author’s commercial adverts and other material off the article’s topic.
Fine job for a science article! Standards decline not only at Pharmafia’s outlets and banksters’ merdia and polit-servants.
After this second round of misrepresenting Prof. Madrid’s results, Dr. Ruby becomes Pharmafia’s suspected agent provocateur. It’s hard to believe that a PhD, supposedly an expert on the subject, can be fooled twice. Yet Ruby appears all over the blogosphere beside Stew Peters, tainting him a useful idiot, too.
Freeman rejoices: Young writes that he utilized “instrumentation includ[ing] Optical Microscopy, Bright–Field […]. Here follows an aggregate list of general names of methods used by the cited studies. Hopefully, the authors properly name the methods, makes, models and production years of the equipment, limiting parameters of the instruments and lab procedures, vial contents handling and processing before tests. calibrations and such… Young does not do it in his “Methods” section, a rather off-the cuff-writeup that would turn off a seasoned scientist or even a beginner technician.
I found it peculiar that for all the horn-blowing on how many bio-weapon “vax” brands the “we” study analysed, there’s not even a summary table, no photos of the supposedly numerous vials of each make, no batch numbers, no account of origin, custody and storage,
I will stop now, as solid AmazingPolly says. Enough tiime wasted on another piece of pseudo-science claptrap, strangely plastered all over as a bombshell amidst a deafening lack of analyses from thousands of labs around the world of spectroscopy and the equipment enumerated by Young, robot-like.