Proton Magic & Co. is proud to present the winner of this photo competition:
MIA BREEZE!@!! BIG CONGRATS! And great thanks to your contribution: "Mullis never invented anything in any lab, that's the only secret." Mia's full reply is right below.
I've put the supporting info and references in the next post here:
Mullis never invented anything in any lab, thats the only secret. That's why there is only one photo in that collage of him in a lab and it's a fake "lab" set up for the photo shoot. Mullis was an imposter who pushed viruses and other narratives for his handlers.
He was celebrated by the establishment, and had an appealing, relaxed, down to earth, guy-next-door quality.
I've sometimes pondered parallels between Kary and the Joker in Batman. He had such a distinctive mouth/lips/smile, which is what first got me thinking about it. Themes: the "mastermind", bats, threat to humanity (imaginary viruses, the Joker's schemes), green (fluorescence in PCR, the Joker's hair), falsehoods.
Mullis was certainly wrong about viruses. Did he know he was speaking untruth? I'm holding out for him being a key figure on the health freedom side, what with all he said about the PCR test being not for diagnosis and able to detect anything you're looking for. Perhaps he was part of the psy-op, a counterpoint to Fauci, sheep-dogging people to focus on the PCR and not on the reality of viruses. I didn't feel that push, but maybe others did. If he hadn't died rather conveniently just before the whole plandemic thing got started, he might have seen the light re: viruses (if he were not actually playing that sheep-dog role). Many of the voices most authentically speaking about that were not at all, or not wholly, no-virus in March 2020, and have evolved greatly in their thinking since then, Sam Bailey being one example that comes to mind. Perhaps Mullis would have been joining that chorus were he still around.
It's always a dialectic but it IS possible to disrupt their created Synthesis by dogged attention to what is Good, True and Beautiful.
Here's what I mean:
TPTB Thesis = Fauci
TPTB Antithesis = Mullis
TPTB Synthesis = their intent is to flush truthers (for want of a better term) into the controlled Antithesis. Then months or years down the line they detonate the controlled (though allegedly dead) Antithesis "hero". Result - a crisis of confidence among truthers, many lose hope and may fall back into the arms of "transmissible pathogens" and are again vulnerable to the next iteration of contagion psyop.
Our (not so) secret weapon is that we are in the Proton Magic typological camp, therefore agile in our skepticism, flexible and fearless in our pursuit of Truth, alert to deep cover fake heroes and taking personal responsibility to craft and evolve our own Truth-Synthesis.
Short-hand - we learn to take what is good (in this case PCR cycles) and leave the rest. And never commit to a hero, not even Proton Magic 😉.
"2nd smartest in the world" just banned me for 100 years for stating there is no such thing as pathogenic, transmissible, replication-competent organism called 'virus'.
My own feeling about mullis was that he was a kookie but innovative scientist both to his credit, but that he was used by fauci and big pharma and they gave him the Nobel prize for this very reason, so that PCR could eventually be exploited. By him saying that anything could be found in anyone is another outmoded way of saying that anything you find with PCR is ultimately irrelevant when trying to determine the cause of an illness.
1. I read your comments to Greg Reese in the article. Actually I thought you were being relatively respectful ,and he was the one triggered. I will use my own subtle techniques to prod Reese to look at the non existence of viruses.
2. I had an old friend from university visit me in England a few days ago. He is a professor in organic chemistry at Vanderbilt and was doing a talk at the imperial college of London of all places. I mentioned claims of kary mullis that hiv didn’t cause aids and he got a little hot around the collar. Also told him that growing something in a cell culture, and publishing an in-silico genome was by definition the opposite of ‘purification’. He didn’t know what to say and we left it at that. Anyway I’m going to visit him in June and he said we can put something through the 5 million dollar electron microscope he has access to at Vanderbilt. I’m asking around: What would you look at?
3. Do you have any info on DNA sampling(non virus related). I thought you’d mentioned it at some point but I went back to look and I couldn’t find anything I. Your feed.
At the bottom is how to find a virus and the 3 frauds. You cant use and EM to find a virus in mixed sample, first you must separate by ultra centrifuge then prove purity on EM, THEN characterize-these steps have never found any virus. He won't be able to do that by himself even if he gets it which he probably wont.
I agree that viruses are a hoax (used mostly to protect industry, doctors and pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits). I agree that during the Covid scam PCR was misused in ways we have not yet begun to unravel. As I wrote in 2020, "The PCR test is the virus." Others have gone to far extremes claiming that the PCR process itself is a hoax and that there is no DNA that can be compared. I might be lured down that path except that in my life I have seen two arm's length examples of its efficacy when used for its true purpose, to compare real samples of DNA to see if they are alike or different. In 1987 a man broke into our home and raped my 8-year old daughter as the rest of us slept. It was a horrible crime that needed resolution, and police came up with no solid leads. Doing what they do best, confirmation bias, they settled on a troubled young man, Jim Bromgard, as the culprit, and nailed him by giving him a drunken lawyer and corrupt evidence to convict him. He spent 14 years in prison until DNA evidence using PCR technology set him free and landed him a $3.5 million malicious prosecution settlement. The crime went unsolved until a man living in a trailer in White Sulphur Springs Montana plea bargained on meth charges, agreeing to submit to DNA testing, not for any particular crime, but just general practice at that time, maybe 2014 or so. Bingo. PCR said James Tipton was the guy. Sure enough he lived but two blocks from us in 1987, and possibly frequented a bar that my then-wife did, possibly crossing paths. She had a nasty habit of announcing to strangers that she was the mother of five young children, something of note to a pedophile. They attempted to prosecute him, but the US Supreme Court ruled that the statute had run its course and he was set free. Maybe he still lives in that same trailer today, and if there is any justice alone and shunned, his only punishment.
None of this evidence was manufactured or a hoax. I am first hand witness to it all. PCR is useful when used correctly.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. Yes, PM, they had full strands, preserved evidence from my daughter from the 1987 rape kit, and from RONALD Tipton, the perp. He lived in the shadows of the meth culture and hundreds of miles away at the time he was ID'd with no possible motive on the part of law enforcement to nail him. PCR did its job. I asked a friend in Billings (I now live in Colorado) to go to the library and look at phone books from that time to,seemif there was a Tipton family and where they lived. Two blocks away.
"The PCR test is the virus." By that I meant that there was no virus, and that the PCR test was being used to simulate a virus that was spreading. I've done tons of work on my blog, Pieceofmindful.com, on this subject, as I knew in March of 2020 that the pandemic was a hoax. It was declared a worldwide pandemic on March 11 (11x3=33). I have not read much of your work here, but will. I knew instantly when the pandemic was declared on on that day that it was a hoax.
I recently allowed my blog to go mostly dark after 18 years, as I was out of new ideas. Reading your work here is giving me some of that old spark again. Like you, I always enjoyed great commenters.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing your personal story. On "The PCR test is the virus.", I don't disagree but that needs clarification. If you mean positive tests are making people believe in a virus, or that PCR can give you respiratory symptoms you are correct, but some people will think that statement alone means the test has a real virus in it or makes a real virus in you-and those would not be correct. Then again, pls allow me to correct another point, "PCR being misused" is not applicable in the case of virus testing because no C-19 or any other prior Corona virus has ever been found (and no virus infecting humans has ever been found) so there is no using PCR in a correct way for virology. This is one of KM's propaganda techniques (I assume he was directed to use it), because it leaves the thought in the listener that there could be a correct way to use it which is untrue, because there is a virus to find, which is also untrue. This is a typical "leading the cattle to slaughter" deception.
About the PCR on the criminal, assuming you have a whole strand of the criminal and a whole strand from a sample from the victim that would be a matching test (depending on the ct), not just a PCR primer test (small pieces). If they just use primers, well it's not really as robust as you may think. Then again, this guy smelled like the culprit even without the test? You would need to to control by testing a bunch of decoy suspects along with decoy victims with testing staff, I don't know if they do this, anyway no test is 100% rock solid in the murky realm of genetics. Regards.
Hi can you provide us with a paper showing purified isolated and characterized mumps virus taken from a sick person and not mixed with other genetic material?
Likely You all three were exposed to a toxin that such symptoms are the way the body eliminates it. Then one of You started the detox at a good time, and You electromagnetically signaled that it was a good time and the rest "got sick" too.
No, it's not likely all three were exposed to a toxin.
It requires a deeper dive for me, but all signs are pointing to the conclusion that childhood "diseases" such as mumps, measles and chickenpox are natural childhood developmental "diseases" extremely similar to adolescent pimples, boils and acne. Not all kids experience those childhood "diseases" just as not all teenagers experience pimples or acne.
The deeper diving I need to do requires looking through ancient medical books to see if these modern day childhood "diseases" were common a thousand or more years ago. The problem is, as we all know, the definitions & descriptions of "diseases" change over time...So the names we use today are not likely to have been used 1,000 years ago....So it's a matter of wading through swamps of definitions & descriptions of symptoms...
I only experienced chickenpox as a child and it was not the result of any chickenpox party. Still have my adenoids. Still have my appendix and tonsils. Literally ran away from the 1st measles vax offered in 1970 at my Montessori school, but got the booster in 1973 and had an adverse reaction. That was my last vax ever.
Sam Bailey has some posts on CP and Measles. Anyway nice to hear from you and your famous words, was it "reconciliation is a mother fucker"? still rings true to me. Regards.
Not sure why You're laughing. That is exactly what the flu, colds, and other things are, and how/why "contagion" happens... But hey. See it as You wish.
What is a 'virus' - do you mean 'virus' or said 'pathogenic virus' that can be shown to cause said disease - reliably across population - we should think more deeply about what is being said - what is 'known' or not before saying something or something was wrong or not factual.
What about exosomes? What about the messaging that our cells do between each other and beyond? Outright dismissal is a disservice as much as outright acceptance. Language is dangerous and must be used precisely.
The dictionary definition of the object (not a disease) virus /vī′rəs/
Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell.
-Either there is or has been scientific proof because particles can be found and characterized, or there hasn't so it's not a dismissal or acceptance. Proof is the onus of the claimer. No one can deny existence somewhere, but until proven we can say unproven as yet.
-Exosomes have been proven but dont fit this definition, if one did, it would be a virus so we would need to prove that as a virus.
-But this post isn't about viruses, it's about the Kary Mullis Lab.
He IE, if you are a Nobelist you certainly will have photos of yourself in a lab your staff, many research papers with substance etc. Did Kary? I'll post the follow up in a few minutes and you can read my sources etc. and you will see something closer to this🌠
I had read the original PCR and debunk stuff. Yes, maybe a stooge, alcoholic, whatever. Is PCR a glorified Zoom function on a photocopier? Hmm, maybe? Regardless it is a contentious subject. Germ v Terrain rages. More division and destruction. THEY are killing us. We know why, and that their psyops are working.
Proton Magic & Co. is proud to present the winner of this photo competition:
MIA BREEZE!@!! BIG CONGRATS! And great thanks to your contribution: "Mullis never invented anything in any lab, that's the only secret." Mia's full reply is right below.
I've put the supporting info and references in the next post here:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star
Christine? If so, I liked her comment and think it's a good one.
EDIT: It's Mia who got it.
The images conjure the image of a solo unconventional genius scientist? Like Einstein?
Mullis never invented anything in any lab, thats the only secret. That's why there is only one photo in that collage of him in a lab and it's a fake "lab" set up for the photo shoot. Mullis was an imposter who pushed viruses and other narratives for his handlers.
🤫
Hmm... Mullis looked pretty authentic, but then, he is a Noble prize winner
Nobel Prize
He may not have been as “Noble” as he would have wished to have portrayed himself
He was celebrated by the establishment, and had an appealing, relaxed, down to earth, guy-next-door quality.
I've sometimes pondered parallels between Kary and the Joker in Batman. He had such a distinctive mouth/lips/smile, which is what first got me thinking about it. Themes: the "mastermind", bats, threat to humanity (imaginary viruses, the Joker's schemes), green (fluorescence in PCR, the Joker's hair), falsehoods.
Mullis was certainly wrong about viruses. Did he know he was speaking untruth? I'm holding out for him being a key figure on the health freedom side, what with all he said about the PCR test being not for diagnosis and able to detect anything you're looking for. Perhaps he was part of the psy-op, a counterpoint to Fauci, sheep-dogging people to focus on the PCR and not on the reality of viruses. I didn't feel that push, but maybe others did. If he hadn't died rather conveniently just before the whole plandemic thing got started, he might have seen the light re: viruses (if he were not actually playing that sheep-dog role). Many of the voices most authentically speaking about that were not at all, or not wholly, no-virus in March 2020, and have evolved greatly in their thinking since then, Sam Bailey being one example that comes to mind. Perhaps Mullis would have been joining that chorus were he still around.
It's always a dialectic but it IS possible to disrupt their created Synthesis by dogged attention to what is Good, True and Beautiful.
Here's what I mean:
TPTB Thesis = Fauci
TPTB Antithesis = Mullis
TPTB Synthesis = their intent is to flush truthers (for want of a better term) into the controlled Antithesis. Then months or years down the line they detonate the controlled (though allegedly dead) Antithesis "hero". Result - a crisis of confidence among truthers, many lose hope and may fall back into the arms of "transmissible pathogens" and are again vulnerable to the next iteration of contagion psyop.
Our (not so) secret weapon is that we are in the Proton Magic typological camp, therefore agile in our skepticism, flexible and fearless in our pursuit of Truth, alert to deep cover fake heroes and taking personal responsibility to craft and evolve our own Truth-Synthesis.
Short-hand - we learn to take what is good (in this case PCR cycles) and leave the rest. And never commit to a hero, not even Proton Magic 😉.
Speaking about controlled opposition..
"2nd smartest in the world" just banned me for 100 years for stating there is no such thing as pathogenic, transmissible, replication-competent organism called 'virus'.
I wear this as a badge of honour :)
Welcome Brother in Arms
Marius - I refuse to place any trust in that 2nd Smartest Guy in the World - quit reading his substacks quite awhile ago.
Anybody know who he is anyway? SMH!
Seems to have canned replies ready and is over prolific, at least a group of 2 maybe more. Cant say it's a he.
My own feeling about mullis was that he was a kookie but innovative scientist both to his credit, but that he was used by fauci and big pharma and they gave him the Nobel prize for this very reason, so that PCR could eventually be exploited. By him saying that anything could be found in anyone is another outmoded way of saying that anything you find with PCR is ultimately irrelevant when trying to determine the cause of an illness.
Yes but still finding anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means PCR is not so good. You see the twist. Anyway I've got got do other stuff!
And he published almost no science. He was an innovative actor thats it.
1. I read your comments to Greg Reese in the article. Actually I thought you were being relatively respectful ,and he was the one triggered. I will use my own subtle techniques to prod Reese to look at the non existence of viruses.
2. I had an old friend from university visit me in England a few days ago. He is a professor in organic chemistry at Vanderbilt and was doing a talk at the imperial college of London of all places. I mentioned claims of kary mullis that hiv didn’t cause aids and he got a little hot around the collar. Also told him that growing something in a cell culture, and publishing an in-silico genome was by definition the opposite of ‘purification’. He didn’t know what to say and we left it at that. Anyway I’m going to visit him in June and he said we can put something through the 5 million dollar electron microscope he has access to at Vanderbilt. I’m asking around: What would you look at?
3. Do you have any info on DNA sampling(non virus related). I thought you’d mentioned it at some point but I went back to look and I couldn’t find anything I. Your feed.
See these and the links and comments before you start talking about Mullis
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-kary-mullis-lab-secret
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star
You need to be quite verse in topics you want to discuss because the indoctrinated will not budge and you will lose most every argument with them.
You can print this out or sent it to the Prof
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-virus-rouse-going-going-gonzo
At the bottom is how to find a virus and the 3 frauds. You cant use and EM to find a virus in mixed sample, first you must separate by ultra centrifuge then prove purity on EM, THEN characterize-these steps have never found any virus. He won't be able to do that by himself even if he gets it which he probably wont.
DNA: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13k2Pl848yUW-VAB5c0WLTe69WAu6CDtZ2bC1gsUr2jk/edit
I agree that viruses are a hoax (used mostly to protect industry, doctors and pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits). I agree that during the Covid scam PCR was misused in ways we have not yet begun to unravel. As I wrote in 2020, "The PCR test is the virus." Others have gone to far extremes claiming that the PCR process itself is a hoax and that there is no DNA that can be compared. I might be lured down that path except that in my life I have seen two arm's length examples of its efficacy when used for its true purpose, to compare real samples of DNA to see if they are alike or different. In 1987 a man broke into our home and raped my 8-year old daughter as the rest of us slept. It was a horrible crime that needed resolution, and police came up with no solid leads. Doing what they do best, confirmation bias, they settled on a troubled young man, Jim Bromgard, as the culprit, and nailed him by giving him a drunken lawyer and corrupt evidence to convict him. He spent 14 years in prison until DNA evidence using PCR technology set him free and landed him a $3.5 million malicious prosecution settlement. The crime went unsolved until a man living in a trailer in White Sulphur Springs Montana plea bargained on meth charges, agreeing to submit to DNA testing, not for any particular crime, but just general practice at that time, maybe 2014 or so. Bingo. PCR said James Tipton was the guy. Sure enough he lived but two blocks from us in 1987, and possibly frequented a bar that my then-wife did, possibly crossing paths. She had a nasty habit of announcing to strangers that she was the mother of five young children, something of note to a pedophile. They attempted to prosecute him, but the US Supreme Court ruled that the statute had run its course and he was set free. Maybe he still lives in that same trailer today, and if there is any justice alone and shunned, his only punishment.
None of this evidence was manufactured or a hoax. I am first hand witness to it all. PCR is useful when used correctly.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. Yes, PM, they had full strands, preserved evidence from my daughter from the 1987 rape kit, and from RONALD Tipton, the perp. He lived in the shadows of the meth culture and hundreds of miles away at the time he was ID'd with no possible motive on the part of law enforcement to nail him. PCR did its job. I asked a friend in Billings (I now live in Colorado) to go to the library and look at phone books from that time to,seemif there was a Tipton family and where they lived. Two blocks away.
"The PCR test is the virus." By that I meant that there was no virus, and that the PCR test was being used to simulate a virus that was spreading. I've done tons of work on my blog, Pieceofmindful.com, on this subject, as I knew in March of 2020 that the pandemic was a hoax. It was declared a worldwide pandemic on March 11 (11x3=33). I have not read much of your work here, but will. I knew instantly when the pandemic was declared on on that day that it was a hoax.
I recently allowed my blog to go mostly dark after 18 years, as I was out of new ideas. Reading your work here is giving me some of that old spark again. Like you, I always enjoyed great commenters.
Great info, hope to speak again!
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing your personal story. On "The PCR test is the virus.", I don't disagree but that needs clarification. If you mean positive tests are making people believe in a virus, or that PCR can give you respiratory symptoms you are correct, but some people will think that statement alone means the test has a real virus in it or makes a real virus in you-and those would not be correct. Then again, pls allow me to correct another point, "PCR being misused" is not applicable in the case of virus testing because no C-19 or any other prior Corona virus has ever been found (and no virus infecting humans has ever been found) so there is no using PCR in a correct way for virology. This is one of KM's propaganda techniques (I assume he was directed to use it), because it leaves the thought in the listener that there could be a correct way to use it which is untrue, because there is a virus to find, which is also untrue. This is a typical "leading the cattle to slaughter" deception.
About the PCR on the criminal, assuming you have a whole strand of the criminal and a whole strand from a sample from the victim that would be a matching test (depending on the ct), not just a PCR primer test (small pieces). If they just use primers, well it's not really as robust as you may think. Then again, this guy smelled like the culprit even without the test? You would need to to control by testing a bunch of decoy suspects along with decoy victims with testing staff, I don't know if they do this, anyway no test is 100% rock solid in the murky realm of genetics. Regards.
I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for all the lab secrets that were born out of the Kary Mullis lab. 😬
Wait - what are we doing? I like Kary, anyone who doesn't like Fraudci is a friend of mine..
Think very carefully if you like Rand Paul. What is he really saying and what did he do to Fauci？Sit on it for a day if you need to.
Interesting discussion on Peter Halligan's website yesterday on same subject - https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/the-brilliant-dr-david-martin-lays
See the "You need to read this.." link near the top of this post
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-black-hole-you-can-never-wipe
I actually watched that interview. Alec did a great job.
brilliant!
Rand disappointed Me long ago and i saw His part in the play.
Pass on 'thinking' but I'll grab some popcorn and watch fraudci V paul on youtube for an endtimes comedy belly laugh!
BTW there's another one: https://substack.com/profile/131826617-sir-sway/note/c-42933411?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=26hi2h
Fauci vs Mullis == Kayfabe.
hahaha
& some are probably beneficial like gut bacteria…
having the mumps viral illness is associated with a decreased risk for ovarian cancer:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
Hi can you provide us with a paper showing purified isolated and characterized mumps virus taken from a sick person and not mixed with other genetic material?
uh-oh, that will teach me😹
all 3 of us kids did get the mumps and have photos of us looking like chipmunks
You mean you had symptoms that are commonly diagnosed as "mumps", although glands and nodes swelling is nothing new nor specific to any "disease".
Likely You all three were exposed to a toxin that such symptoms are the way the body eliminates it. Then one of You started the detox at a good time, and You electromagnetically signaled that it was a good time and the rest "got sick" too.
No, it's not likely all three were exposed to a toxin.
It requires a deeper dive for me, but all signs are pointing to the conclusion that childhood "diseases" such as mumps, measles and chickenpox are natural childhood developmental "diseases" extremely similar to adolescent pimples, boils and acne. Not all kids experience those childhood "diseases" just as not all teenagers experience pimples or acne.
The deeper diving I need to do requires looking through ancient medical books to see if these modern day childhood "diseases" were common a thousand or more years ago. The problem is, as we all know, the definitions & descriptions of "diseases" change over time...So the names we use today are not likely to have been used 1,000 years ago....So it's a matter of wading through swamps of definitions & descriptions of symptoms...
I only experienced chickenpox as a child and it was not the result of any chickenpox party. Still have my adenoids. Still have my appendix and tonsils. Literally ran away from the 1st measles vax offered in 1970 at my Montessori school, but got the booster in 1973 and had an adverse reaction. That was my last vax ever.
Sam Bailey has some posts on CP and Measles. Anyway nice to hear from you and your famous words, was it "reconciliation is a mother fucker"? still rings true to me. Regards.
I will not discount anything You have said. In fact, I have adjusted My probabilities based on this, as it explains what I see.
I have all the listed stuff still, too, at 66.
😹😹😹
Not sure why You're laughing. That is exactly what the flu, colds, and other things are, and how/why "contagion" happens... But hey. See it as You wish.
If You would like to learn a bit, I offer this:
A Post to Be Viral (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/a-post-to-be-viral
laughter is the best Rx!
What is a 'virus' - do you mean 'virus' or said 'pathogenic virus' that can be shown to cause said disease - reliably across population - we should think more deeply about what is being said - what is 'known' or not before saying something or something was wrong or not factual.
What about exosomes? What about the messaging that our cells do between each other and beyond? Outright dismissal is a disservice as much as outright acceptance. Language is dangerous and must be used precisely.
The dictionary definition of the object (not a disease) virus /vī′rəs/
Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell.
-Either there is or has been scientific proof because particles can be found and characterized, or there hasn't so it's not a dismissal or acceptance. Proof is the onus of the claimer. No one can deny existence somewhere, but until proven we can say unproven as yet.
-Exosomes have been proven but dont fit this definition, if one did, it would be a virus so we would need to prove that as a virus.
-But this post isn't about viruses, it's about the Kary Mullis Lab.
Thank you. Pls send a link of Kary in a lab photo, thanks.
He IE, if you are a Nobelist you certainly will have photos of yourself in a lab your staff, many research papers with substance etc. Did Kary? I'll post the follow up in a few minutes and you can read my sources etc. and you will see something closer to this🌠
I had read the original PCR and debunk stuff. Yes, maybe a stooge, alcoholic, whatever. Is PCR a glorified Zoom function on a photocopier? Hmm, maybe? Regardless it is a contentious subject. Germ v Terrain rages. More division and destruction. THEY are killing us. We know why, and that their psyops are working.
Not sure what He was doing in the lab. But I am disappointed that He thought viruses are real...
There is no such thing as pathogenic, transmissible replication-competent organism called 'virus'.
I think Larry Mullis realised it later in his life, at least in regards to the AIDS 'virus'..