In a court, “Experts” are given deferential treatment, and their words and testimony are taken above others because of a belief that “Expertise” makes them more “truthful” and “accurate” on matters of fact.
“Experts” will often parade their credentials as proof that their knowledge and comprehension is greater than that of a non-expert; and generally speaking, people will give more credence to words coming from an “Expert”.
But how does an “Expert” like myself view other “Experts”?
Shouldn’t we all look at “Experts” with scrutiny?
Here’s an “Expert” medical doctor at the University of British Columbia.
He is an Arts Major who got into medical school, then got a Masters of Health Science in Health Care and Epidemiology, and then did “Specialty” training in “Public Health and Preventative Medicine.
Next: In his resume:
It looks like he took a lot of Executive “Business” courses at UBC’s Sauder school of Business.
From his Curriculum Vitae, it looks like he’s an expert in Public Health, Epidemiology and “Business” leadership. (Or at least he should be) Let’s look at his report.
How do I judge an “Expert”?
Well I judge an Expert based on whether or not they think like an expert. I rely upon demonstration of expertise, not declaration of expertise.
For me the the level of thought and knowledge should match the credentials. If a scientific paper is analyzed and understood at an elementary school level, there would be a discrepancy if the “Expert” had a Masters degree or was a “Specialist” MD.
The “Expert” for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC writes on page 15 of his report:
“Harms of COVID-19 relative to Influenza disease. COVID-19 is associated with a higher burden of serious illness and death than seasonal influenza.”
He writes an entire page with references to try and support his claim, ultimately relying upon a graph from a paper published in “BMJ Open Respiratory Research” to “prove” his point.
However, if you subject the research paper he references to “Expert” analysis, the paper actually shows the opposite. See my previous article.
Later, on page 18, this same College “Expert” says:
“COVID-19 vaccination is effective in preventing serious illness and death from COVID-19.”
This is his graph that he “thinks” supports his claim:
But if you compare it to the first graph he references…
The total hospitalization rate for COVID-19 positive patients is statistically unchanged after the vaccine!
Is that “Expert” analysis?
Not realizing that the vaccine that he claims is “effective” can’t even reduce the population of people who test Covid positive in hospital?
But Wait! He actually says: “COVID-19 vaccination is effective in preventing serious illness and death from COVID-19". He never said anything about preventing transmission or reducing the number of people who test positive!
Touché! Now you’re reading my article like an Expert! AS YOU SHOULD!!!
This college “expert” has a Masters of Health Care and Epidemiology. So he should be know some basics about statistics right? He claims:
Harms associated with COVID-19 disease. As of January 14, 2023, COVID-19 has caused over 245,000 hospitalizations and 50,000 deaths in Canada to date, approximately 5% more deaths than would have been expected in the absence of a pandemic. Seniors over age 65, particularly with comorbidities, are among the most impacted, with over 85% of excess deaths in this age group attributed to COVID-19.
For those 2 sentences he has THREE references! OMG! (Except none of those references are scientific papers.) All 3 are statements from the government for the public. Repeating press releases doesn’t seem like “expert” level thinking does it?
How about we do something this “Public Health and Epidemiology” expert failed to do? (Something over and above acting like a parrot.)
Lets look at the ACTUAL mortality data (like an expert).
There you go. High school level expertise with downloading data from statistics Canada and putting it into a spreadsheet to make a bar graph.
Is COVID-19 Worse than the flu?
If so, how come overall mortality rates are unchanged?
(Careful, you might need “Expert” eyes to interpret this graph!)
So! Good things come in threes and good things come from trees! What’s the third claim we’ll examine with expertise? (On page 30 of the College “Expert’s report on Dr. Nagase)
“Analysis. There is no evidence of harm related to spike proteins produced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and in particular harm to DNA in persons who receive these vaccines. There is no causal association with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and de novo cancer.”
Well if we look through the copious non-expert “references” that this “Expert” uses, we do find one scientific paper that was “retracted”. And this seems to be his basis for claiming I was wrong. (Did he even read this “retracted” paper before deciding I was wrong because of the “retraction”?)
Experts should read what they reference to see whether it really supports their allegation or not. But since he didn’t seem to expertly analyze the first paper I mentioned, nor did he validate his claim of excess mortality with the most basic epidemiology, then is it likely he would use “expertise” to back his claim of “no evidence of harm related to spike proteins”? I don’t think so.
But let’s not pre judge. Lets look at an expert analysis and then compare with what he wrote.
(I have to apologize to everyone for the detailed and technical nature of the expert analysis that follows. Please read if you are interested in cell biology. This is what real genetics and cellular research looks like in the trenches. Much thought and analysis goes into forming a real “Expert” opinion on matters of cell physiology and genetics.)
To make a claim “There is no evidence of harm related to spike proteins produced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines,” in the absence of any Cell biology credentials, the expert must demonstrate expert knowledge and thought over and above repeating other “Experts”. By showing expert level thought and analysis, credible opinion can be made regardless of held degrees. In fact a demonstration of expertise is the only way to verify an expert with qualifications is in fact behaving as an expert.
I present to you what an “Expert” cell biologist’s knowledge and analysis looks like and leave it to you the reader to decide if the Medical College Expert showed enough knowledge to make the claims he does about the “safety” of mRNA, spike proteins and COVID vaccines.
I remember when this paper first came out and the controversy generated from its results. It was the first cellular evidence of harms from spike proteins alone. About 7 months after being published it was retracted, and the reason given I’ve highlighted above. I think the authors knew how controversial their results would be, because they performed 9 different experiments all to show the same thing – DNA repair was impaired by spike proteins AND that more DNA went unrepaired when spike proteins were present. Each one of these experiments could have been a separate paper and a separate publication. (The fact they bundled all the experiments into one paper indicates the immense pressure they were under. In academic circles there is always a push to publish as many papers as possible as a show of the productivity of one’s laboratory. So when a series of experiments could result in multiple papers most authors choose to publish many papers, not just 1 immense paper.)
The other reason to bundle 9 separate experiments that could have been 9 separate publications into ONE paper is because the authors knew this paper would rock the world, and they wanted to be beyond reproach. If 9 different methods all had the same result of DNA damage when spike proteins were present, then it would be difficult to claim that it was an “accident” – a statistical anomaly that they found that Spike proteins impaired DNA repair.
Let’s look more closely at their reason for retraction.
“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations.”
What does this mean? It means that the tag (6xHis) they attached to all the proteins made from viral genes and the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) they used to measure the effectiveness of the DNA repair enzymes could have interfered with DNA repair measurements.
Lets look at their results to see if this is a valid reason to retract a paper with 9 different experiments on 2 different DNA repair enzymes, 1 recombination enzyme and two cancer pathways.
This shows the efficiency of the DNA repair enzyme NHEJ (Non-Homologous End Junction).
When there’s an E.V (Empty Vector – a loop of vector DNA that’s blank – has no experimental gene insertions), NHEJ looks to be about 90% effective. (This is perhaps an indication that the GFP tag causes a 10% interference in measurement.)
On the upside, NSP 9, NSP 16, and Nucleocapsid genes with the 6xHis tag AND GFP do not significantly impair NHEJ DNA repair compared to an Empty Vector.
All of the NSP1, NSP5, NSP13, and NSP 14 proteins which have the 6xHis tag AND GFP do cause a statistically reduce NHEJ efficiency from the control of 90% down to about 25% to 60% of normal.
For the Spike protein, the NHEJ efficiency of the control group (E.V) is reduced from 90% down to about 10%! A far greater drop than any of the other viral proteins!
If we are to believe their explanation for retraction, it would mean that the protein tag 6xHis and Green Fluorescent Protein interrupt NHEJ DNA repair when connected to the Spike protein, but not when connected to NSP 9, NSP 16, and Nucleocapsid genes! (Where there’s no significant change compared with the E.V control)
Huh? The 6xHis and GFP make some proteins inhibit DNA repair but not others? (Maybe)
If 6xHis and GFP made some proteins toxic to DNA, it is far more likely that they’d make all proteins DNA toxic (if it was only the 6xHis and GFP tags to blame).
Let’s look at the next graph.
On a completely different DNA repair enzyme, HR (Homologous Recombination) NSP 5, NSP 9, NSP 16, and Nucleocapsid proteins don’t cause any significant impairment of HR DNA repair, even though those proteins are also tagged with 6xHis and reporter assayed with Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP).
The Spike protein, however, reduces the HR repair enzyme efficiency from the control group’s 95% down to about 15%! (An 80% drop!)
So there’s a catastrophic 80% (or more) reduction in DNA repair for two completely separate DNA repair proteins when spike proteins, GFP and 6xHis are together. But this doesn’t happen when GFP and 6xHis tag are together with other Sars-Cov 2 proteins like NSP 5, NSP 9, NSP16, and Nucleocapsid.
It looks like the spike protein is the problem, No? The 6xHis and GFP seem to be fine with all the other viral proteins.
In the second graph, just like with the NHEJ repair enzyme, for us to accept their explanation for retraction, we would have to believe that the NSP 5, NSP 9, NSP 16, and Nucleocapsid genes do not impair DNA repair by the HR enzyme when in the presence of Green Fluorescent Protein and 6xHis; but suddenly in the presence of Spike Protein those two otherwise benign molecules become malignant.
It seems like the authors anticipated this and performed 8 more experiments.
Here’s a pair of nice graphs (B and C). They show that the more S-FL (Spike Full Length) there is, the more the impairment in the DNA repair enzymes.
(D and E) These graphs show that when GFP and 6xHis are attached to S1 or S2 the impairment is not nearly as bad as when the Full spike protein is attached to the GFP/6xHis combo. (Again, what’s impairing the DNA repair? GFP/6xHis or the Full Length spike protein)
(FYI: The Full length spike protein is 1273 amino acids in length. So adding 6 histidine would make it 0.47% longer.)
Red dots? Is it Christmas? What’s this? Red Fluorescent protein? Yes, it is RFP! The more DNA damage, the brighter the RFP. They don’t explain exactly where they put the RFP tag, but an RFP experiment when the criticism is about GFP, that’s hardly a reason for retraction. (More like an email for clarification and a paragraph or two in “supplemental materials”.) What you can tell however, is that radiation, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and doxorubicin all cause DNA damage. (More red dots) When there’s full length spike protein, the damage (size of red dots) is way larger than when it is just fragments of Spike protein (S1 and S2).
So looks like we can’t blame the GFP for “making” the spike protein harm DNA repair. Spike protein (with RFP) causes DNA damage too. (The authors don’t say whether the 6xHis tag was on the RFP slides. But if it was there, is it likely that a 0.47% addition could somehow make full length Spike (S-FL) damage DNA repair? Or is it more likely it’s the Spike protein itself that is damaging?
For reference, the 6xHis tag on Spike segment 1 (S1) or Spike segment 2 (S2), does not appear to damage DNA to the same extent as full spike protein. (the small bar charts D and E) . Graph G tells the same story, but with “Comet Tails”. Read more about the rest of their experiments and “Comet Tails” in the button below.
So it appears that it is the 6xHis tag which is being blamed for retraction. However, if we look at another study where they attached the same 6xHis tag to another part of the spike protein, we still get cellular mayhem.
(In this paper it’s described in their materials and methods)
But the evidence of spike protein harm does not end there. If we look at the whole mRNA COVID injection, post mortem studies (where presumably the victims didn’t have their mRNA generated spike proteins tagged with HIS) at least 3 cancer genetic switches were activated. (The big caveat here is that we are assuming that neither Pfizer nor Moderna tagged their spike proteins with 6xHIS. The only reason I can see why they might even want to do that would be if the manufacturers wanted to do protein tag molecular experiments post vaccination.)
But there’s more! Similar results came from this study. DNA maintenance gene activity was REDUCED post Covid-19 mRNA injection. (Figure 3)
So here we have 2 HUMAN IN VIVO studies with evidence of genetic damage (cancer gene activation). We have a similar In Vitro (test tube) study on heart cells showing molecular disruption. None of these papers are retracted.
But THIS PAPER IS RETRACTED despite having passed initial reviews?
All because of 6xHis?
Never before 2020 would research that was done this well be retracted. Usually if there’s criticism, a note or and addendum saying something like, “We recognize that the 6xHis tag, although it is a mainstay of cell biology research, may have altered the spike protein in such a way that it was made more toxic. However, other research attaching the same 6xHis tag to other parts of the spike protein have shown similar damaging effects. In Vivo studies are needed to confirm.”
This should have NEVER BEEN A RETRACTION because it is cell biology evidence that needs to remain published to be correlated with other non-retracted Cell biology studies. Most importantly, cell biology studies even when they are not 100% perfect become the justification for In Vivo studies.
(Well, now that so many women, men, and children have already subjected themselves to this experiment, animal studies may no longer be needed.)
Back to Parrots and Professionals…
Now that we’ve had a taste of how detailed an “Expert” interpretation must be to be called “Expert”, lets look back at what Dr. Corneil wrote.
He writes a lot. But nothing approaching what I’ve written above, which is an analysis of one scientific paper.
So based on what Dr. Corneil wrote and his references, is he justified in making this statement below?
A subsequent expert analysis noted that, if vaccination does in fact affect DNA repair to some extent, it is unproven and likely to be of short duration, with no evidence of ongoing effects. (page 29)
It looks like he’s just repeating other experts. Do you see any display of understanding cell biology and genetics? Even in the studies he references?
Do parrots repeat?
Actually, if you look at his report, glaringly noticeable is the repetitive language. Some phrases he repeats 25 times. Careful observation reveals a repetitive template of text with slight changes to the ends but identical beginnings. (This “template” is repeated more than 5 times.)
Do parrots repeat repetitively?
If you see a discrepancy between the professional Dr. Corneil claims to be versus the “Parrot” he appears to be, (at least in his report), lets proceed to the next step in “discrepancy analysis” and search for a reason.
Could 2 Million in Covid-19 grants in 2 years turn a professional into a parrot?
Thank you for taking the time to analyze the “expert opinion” :)
I did not take the jab. I worked in cancer lab when I was in college, so I decided to wait & see what any side effects the jab would produce. Glad I did, however, all 4 of my adult children were forced to get jab to keep their job & stay in college. All 4 “children” had natural case of Covid, but still forced to get jab. I am interested in reading anything that researches outcomes for this cohort. So far, only menstral problems with 2 daughters…ugh