What a bullshit response. I knew you were full of shit. You're just pulling more copypasta off of whatever your source article is even though it's about cancer drug delivery by ultrasonic propulsion and thermal release by use of near-IR light. There is no light emission from the nanowires, the cancer drug or the anionic coatings applied to the nanowires to allow the drug payload to attach. It's unrelated to the video and you doubled down on it.
The video is so poor in quality that nothing solid can be surmised from it. We don't know that the solvent used was truly isopropanol/isopropyl alcohol and we also don't know that the plate on which the "experiment" was conducted was clean, sterile and unadulterated. We know nothing of the controls used to ensure this was not manipulated and we don't know the source of the materials. All we see is some poor quality video of orange glow coming from an unknown source at an unknown scale.
I said "green light" because people like you are all about the luciferase in your theories. The white balance on the camera is off, but it does not shift green light into orange light. The camera image sensors don't work that way whether they are CMOS or CCD. Again you are grasping at anything to support your conspiratorial straw man. I'm not defending the jewflu shit or the terrible things TPTB are doing with it, but we don't need to be making shit up to scare people if we have real things to be concerned about.
I don't trust videos like this because they are themselves propaganda disguised as the common person discovering something "real". One only has to look at the "burning snow" videos that were common recently (but have been floating around a long time) to know that they were made to manipulate the minds of people. Same goes for 5G streetlamp tear down videos and other emotionally manipulative fear videos that make people into raving lunatics without understanding that they are being lied to on both sides. Find me a real life chemist who does a controlled experiment on these swabs and shows the results and then I will start to take it more seriously. This video isn't going to sway me.
Weak.
Whatever I pasted from has a link so your argument about copypasta is moot. If it wasn't isopropanol, then it must be something else, hence, an assumption. Was it water? Gasoline? Too many assumptions lead to inductive reasoning. Remember Occam's Razor.
>The video is so poor in quality
Yet, you claimed you couldn't see "green light" qualifying the quality.
>The white balance on the camera is off, but it does not shift green light into orange light.
I thought you just said the quality was bad? Now you trust it.
>. Again you are grasping at anything to support your conspiratorial straw man
You don't understand the meaning of straw man.
> One only has to look at the "burning snow" videos that were common recently
This, is a straw man.
Weak. A lot of words to say nothing. You rebutted nothing. Believe whatever you want but just know that truth is not based on what you believe.
Yet you expect me to believe you. You have offered nothing but an opinion. "I didn't see green light, therefore, it's not luciferase" This was your ONLY rebuttal. I SHOWED you this https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153112.htm which blows your whole premise out of the water.
You lost here. Just own it and move on.
(post is archived)