Tricky? How about downright fake, corrupt and useless. How can a rock test positive using PCR for covid or any of the other fake viruses? Perhaps the human genome is a fake-out also...which I happen to believe.
Possible. The "human genome" is certainly just a model of all the collected human sequences. If it truly represents the "code of life" for a human organism is unknown.
This doesn't make any sense Ben. Primers are designed in pairs for reasons: If the nested forward primer perfectly matches chromosome 1, then it can bind a specific site there. For the paired reverse primer to produce a DEFINED AMPLICON (as intended in nested PCR), it must bind to the complementary strand at an appropriate distance on the same contiguous sequence - which, in the human genome, means the same chromosome.
Primers binding to different chromosomes would not produce a consistent, amplifiable product in standard PCR conditions, as the template strands are not physically linked in that way during amplification. THM: No PCR product for PCR or nested PCR would occur from the primers you've listed/referenced.
So your hypothesis is wrong based on this claim, and if vaccine mRNA as indeed found in 50% of unvaccinated people then we need to find out why. But so far, it doesn't seem to be because the "vaccine-specific" primers were amplifying human DNA. I would think more toward "shedding" hypothesis.
As to speculating on why the paper disappeared, the authors will likely resubmit to a new journal. Stay tuned.
Kevin McKernan, who blocks me here on Substack and on X replied to my direct email in which I said:
"IMHO anyone who shared the now deleted paper by Lital Mordechay, Gideon Baum, Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Hila Weinberger & Milana Frenkel Morgenstern has an obligation to delete and inform all US Senators who might have been conned."
Kevin replied:
"I would explicitly argue against this until you hear from the authors on why it was censored or deleted otherwise you’re no better than Elizabeth Bik cheering on the rampant censorship.
Mainly because Ben arguments you posted without question are incoherent.
1)The primers don’t match on the 3’ end and all hit different chromosomes making human PCR impossible (he’s never performed PCR so it’s clear he’s not aware of these primer design constraints).
2)they Sanger sequenced the amplicons confirming they were spike not human nullifying Bens hypothesis. They should make these reads public to address these concerns.
3)they used pre2020 negative controls which were negative. They should use more if available.
4)their positivity shows 100% correlation between blood and placenta. Contamination would be more random.
Yes… they need to dig into their unvaxxed positivity with more NTCs but that may be a second paper if they properly disclose this limitation.
The proper call is to wait for more data as opposed to your polarizing pre-judgement.
The sign of intelligence is to be able to contemplate multiple hypothesis in parallel without demanding a preliminary judgement."
I have not looked at X yet to see whether he has entered the debate with you Ben.
Thanks for updating. Nicholas Hulscher needs to correct the record.
Yep, the same is true for his claims about "human genome integration" which was first peddled by McKernan. https://x.com/USMortality/status/1967689120018473091
Another rabbit hole to go down lol.
Tricky? How about downright fake, corrupt and useless. How can a rock test positive using PCR for covid or any of the other fake viruses? Perhaps the human genome is a fake-out also...which I happen to believe.
Possible. The "human genome" is certainly just a model of all the collected human sequences. If it truly represents the "code of life" for a human organism is unknown.
Thank you, thank you… for what only you can do.
This doesn't make any sense Ben. Primers are designed in pairs for reasons: If the nested forward primer perfectly matches chromosome 1, then it can bind a specific site there. For the paired reverse primer to produce a DEFINED AMPLICON (as intended in nested PCR), it must bind to the complementary strand at an appropriate distance on the same contiguous sequence - which, in the human genome, means the same chromosome.
Primers binding to different chromosomes would not produce a consistent, amplifiable product in standard PCR conditions, as the template strands are not physically linked in that way during amplification. THM: No PCR product for PCR or nested PCR would occur from the primers you've listed/referenced.
So your hypothesis is wrong based on this claim, and if vaccine mRNA as indeed found in 50% of unvaccinated people then we need to find out why. But so far, it doesn't seem to be because the "vaccine-specific" primers were amplifying human DNA. I would think more toward "shedding" hypothesis.
As to speculating on why the paper disappeared, the authors will likely resubmit to a new journal. Stay tuned.
Kevin McKernan, who blocks me here on Substack and on X replied to my direct email in which I said:
"IMHO anyone who shared the now deleted paper by Lital Mordechay, Gideon Baum, Rinat Gabbay-Benziv, Hila Weinberger & Milana Frenkel Morgenstern has an obligation to delete and inform all US Senators who might have been conned."
Kevin replied:
"I would explicitly argue against this until you hear from the authors on why it was censored or deleted otherwise you’re no better than Elizabeth Bik cheering on the rampant censorship.
Mainly because Ben arguments you posted without question are incoherent.
1)The primers don’t match on the 3’ end and all hit different chromosomes making human PCR impossible (he’s never performed PCR so it’s clear he’s not aware of these primer design constraints).
2)they Sanger sequenced the amplicons confirming they were spike not human nullifying Bens hypothesis. They should make these reads public to address these concerns.
3)they used pre2020 negative controls which were negative. They should use more if available.
4)their positivity shows 100% correlation between blood and placenta. Contamination would be more random.
Yes… they need to dig into their unvaxxed positivity with more NTCs but that may be a second paper if they properly disclose this limitation.
The proper call is to wait for more data as opposed to your polarizing pre-judgement.
The sign of intelligence is to be able to contemplate multiple hypothesis in parallel without demanding a preliminary judgement."
I have not looked at X yet to see whether he has entered the debate with you Ben.