Jess (the real one not the robo-one) - thank you for summing this up so perfectly! The issue for me is that these AWBs (which are not Western blots but are essentially interpreted electropherograms displayed in a nice even plot) are just so easy to falsify. You can't use these as proof of anything. They are internal screening devices to look for stuff which, when you publish, you'd better have the real Western otherwise your reviewers are (should be) asking questions.
I so love you! Your humour! Your computer mind! Your ability to be a human and humane whilst disseminating tough stuff that few can even comprehend! Cheers Bella! Muchas Gracias from your home country of Canada!
Even if the blots were fraudulent nothing would have happened. All the media does is ignore it and the story never comes out except on substack. Its a winning strategy that for sure.
"Not to defend Pfizer, but simply the computer generated nature of the Western blots cannot be used to prove fraud."
I dissent. Unless it stated that those blotches - or whatever they are - were computer generated, it was fraud upon fraud. It is like claiming an animal is a real bat when it was not even a natural animal!
Having done more than my share of western blots, I'm all in favor of machine automation. It's been done for DNA, so why not protein also? I don't get why you distrust the idea of this kind of machine.
MAYBE... robo-Jess is good for the middle steps (or what a programmer might call "rapid prototyping") to take the tedium out, while a real human-Jess does the endpoint Western blots as not only a verification of the data/blots, but a verification of the results themselves.
I’ve read that giving robots human names (like Jess or Alexa or Sophia) humanize them for us, makes us think of them on some level as being like us. They might be made to look/act human but they are NOT human, they are machines.
I’m curious to know why some Western blots would be automated and others done by hand. If as mentioned in the Midwestern substack comment (amazing substack btw) they have 20 why wouldn’t all be automated?
Robo-Jess fills in our western blots, like how Dominion fills in our voting blots.
Jess (the real one not the robo-one) - thank you for summing this up so perfectly! The issue for me is that these AWBs (which are not Western blots but are essentially interpreted electropherograms displayed in a nice even plot) are just so easy to falsify. You can't use these as proof of anything. They are internal screening devices to look for stuff which, when you publish, you'd better have the real Western otherwise your reviewers are (should be) asking questions.
Which is exactly what the FDA didn't do.
I was just reading A Midwestern Doctor's Substack and then checked my email to find this. Yes to human hand made Westerns Blots.
I so love you! Your humour! Your computer mind! Your ability to be a human and humane whilst disseminating tough stuff that few can even comprehend! Cheers Bella! Muchas Gracias from your home country of Canada!
The whole thing reads like a western plot! Bad guys, good guys, you name it! 😜
Even if the blots were fraudulent nothing would have happened. All the media does is ignore it and the story never comes out except on substack. Its a winning strategy that for sure.
"Not to defend Pfizer, but simply the computer generated nature of the Western blots cannot be used to prove fraud."
I dissent. Unless it stated that those blotches - or whatever they are - were computer generated, it was fraud upon fraud. It is like claiming an animal is a real bat when it was not even a natural animal!
It is trite to say pfizer has blotted its already much tarnished reputation even further!
It’s the same as the PCR debacle.
Convert complex molecular biochemistry from an expert task into an automated process and you have an unreliable and corruptible platform.
So we have a ‘novel’ genomic sequence provided in-silico, a computer modelled pandemic outcome and target proteins identified by Jess.
There has to be a link in there.............
Having done more than my share of western blots, I'm all in favor of machine automation. It's been done for DNA, so why not protein also? I don't get why you distrust the idea of this kind of machine.
MAYBE... robo-Jess is good for the middle steps (or what a programmer might call "rapid prototyping") to take the tedium out, while a real human-Jess does the endpoint Western blots as not only a verification of the data/blots, but a verification of the results themselves.
My personal theory is that Pfizer used their Automated Western Blot machines to do their redactions in their clinical trial results.
I’ve read that giving robots human names (like Jess or Alexa or Sophia) humanize them for us, makes us think of them on some level as being like us. They might be made to look/act human but they are NOT human, they are machines.
I’m curious to know why some Western blots would be automated and others done by hand. If as mentioned in the Midwestern substack comment (amazing substack btw) they have 20 why wouldn’t all be automated?
What time is tea and biscuits round your place, then? I'm looking forward to homemade goodness!