Omfg! Mit dem Vortrag wachse ich wieder mal über mich selbst hinaus: Ich kann es jetzt streng physikochemisch plausibel argumentieren! Die PIPs sind sowas von im Arsch! Vermutlich wird durch integrative Lipid-Events die gesamte Sequestrierung (Anziehung von PIPs, wodurch sie die Fluidität verlieren und reversibel versteifen um Ionenkanäle und Rezeptoren zu regulieren.) gestört.
❤3😁1
Forwarded from Freiheit der Finanzen
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
⚠️ BRANDENBURG-URTEIL: JETZT wird’s ernst!
Die Corona-Verordnungen waren illegal – sagt jetzt das Landesverfassungsgericht Brandenburg. Und das ist genau das Urteil, auf das viele von uns jahrelang gewartet haben.
Was das praktisch heißt:
Wenn deine Strafe/Bußgeld auf diesen Verordnungen aufgebaut hat, dann gilt:
➡️ Bescheid nichtig = als wäre er nie da gewesen.
➡️ Geld kassiert ohne wirksame Rechtsgrundlage.
➡️ Du kannst Rückzahlung verlangen.
Betroffen sind vor allem die harten Eingriffe:
✅ Kontaktbeschränkungen
✅ Ausgangssperren
✅ 2G / Zutrittskontrollen
✅ Schule (Kontrollen, Maßnahmen, Regeln)
Und jetzt kommt der wichtigste Punkt:
Das passiert nicht automatisch.
Du musst aktiv werden – mit einem sauberen, fundierten Schreiben an deine Kommune.
✅ Du bekommst dein individuelles Rückforderungs-Schreiben – inklusive Begründung, Belegen und Quellen, auf die der Experte aus dem Interview (Markus Bönig) selbst verweist; du kannst es einfach ausdrucken und an deine Kommune schicken.
Und falls die Behörde rumzickt: Du bekommst passende Folge-Schreiben für die typischen Standard-Ausreden.
Wir sind viele – und wir handeln koordiniert.
Wenn tausende Kommunen gleichzeitig geflutet werden, steigt der Druck massiv.
👉 Jetzt starten & Bußgeld zurückfordern: [corona-wiedergutmachung.de]
(Kein Anwaltstermin. Keine Telefonate. Du brauchst nur die Daten aus deinem Bescheid.)
Die Corona-Verordnungen waren illegal – sagt jetzt das Landesverfassungsgericht Brandenburg. Und das ist genau das Urteil, auf das viele von uns jahrelang gewartet haben.
Was das praktisch heißt:
Wenn deine Strafe/Bußgeld auf diesen Verordnungen aufgebaut hat, dann gilt:
➡️ Bescheid nichtig = als wäre er nie da gewesen.
➡️ Geld kassiert ohne wirksame Rechtsgrundlage.
➡️ Du kannst Rückzahlung verlangen.
Betroffen sind vor allem die harten Eingriffe:
✅ Kontaktbeschränkungen
✅ Ausgangssperren
✅ 2G / Zutrittskontrollen
✅ Schule (Kontrollen, Maßnahmen, Regeln)
Und jetzt kommt der wichtigste Punkt:
Das passiert nicht automatisch.
Du musst aktiv werden – mit einem sauberen, fundierten Schreiben an deine Kommune.
✅ Du bekommst dein individuelles Rückforderungs-Schreiben – inklusive Begründung, Belegen und Quellen, auf die der Experte aus dem Interview (Markus Bönig) selbst verweist; du kannst es einfach ausdrucken und an deine Kommune schicken.
Und falls die Behörde rumzickt: Du bekommst passende Folge-Schreiben für die typischen Standard-Ausreden.
Wir sind viele – und wir handeln koordiniert.
Wenn tausende Kommunen gleichzeitig geflutet werden, steigt der Druck massiv.
👉 Jetzt starten & Bußgeld zurückfordern: [corona-wiedergutmachung.de]
(Kein Anwaltstermin. Keine Telefonate. Du brauchst nur die Daten aus deinem Bescheid.)
🥴2🤣1
Ich denke, wir werden die gesamte Einleitung noch mal umstrukturieren und wesentlich tiefer in die Physikochemie einsteigen. Da dies unser evidenter Beweis sein wird, dass unsere Hypothese plausibel ist und faktisch unvermeidbar.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/07391102.2024.2329307?
Glaubt ihr an Zufälle? Ich habe dieses Paper erst vor 4 Tagen gefunden und wusste sofort, was ich lesen muss:
"Due to the different abilities of the IL and CHL to flip-flop, the effect of the LND lipids on the membrane itself was leaflet-dependent. In the deprotonated systems, where the entire LND dissolved in the membrane, the upper leaflet took up (almost) all the CHL molecules (Figure 5). This increased the deuterium order parameters of the membrane palmitoyl tails (Table S2) to the level of a corresponding POPX:CHL (65:35%) membrane (Table S3). Correspondingly, the area per lipid of the upper leaflet decreased by 15–20% (Tables S2 and S3). In contrast, the order parameters of the lower leaflet corresponded to a pure POPX membrane. The area per lipid of the lower leaflet was not significantly different from that of the pure membrane in the POPC system and was slightly higher in the other systems. Other leaflet properties, such as membrane thickness were not significantly affected by the presence of ILs (Table S2).
Mixing of deprotonated ILs with cell membrane phospholipids resulted in a bilayer that was consistent with current knowledge of IL behaviour. Previously, IL phase separation between membrane leaflets was observed for two-chained ILs DLin-KC2-DMA (Ramezanpour et al., Citation2019) and DLin-MC3-DMA (Ermilova & Swenson, Citation2020)). However, our systems contained branched ILs with only ∼16 mol% of IL in the final mixture, more akin to the very recent findings of Dehghani-Ghahnaviyeh et al. (Dehghani-Ghahnaviyeh et al., Citation2023). Under low concentrations (<20% of the IL), Lipid-5 (with one tail less than ALC-0315) was found to be localised both on the membrane surface and deeper in the tail and formed a separated phase only at high IL concentrations."
Damit ist die Membrankrümmungsalteration, Verschiebung und Durchlässigkeitsalteration EViDENT unterfüttert (wenn auch nur simuliert)!
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/07391102.2024.2329307?
Glaubt ihr an Zufälle? Ich habe dieses Paper erst vor 4 Tagen gefunden und wusste sofort, was ich lesen muss:
"Due to the different abilities of the IL and CHL to flip-flop, the effect of the LND lipids on the membrane itself was leaflet-dependent. In the deprotonated systems, where the entire LND dissolved in the membrane, the upper leaflet took up (almost) all the CHL molecules (Figure 5). This increased the deuterium order parameters of the membrane palmitoyl tails (Table S2) to the level of a corresponding POPX:CHL (65:35%) membrane (Table S3). Correspondingly, the area per lipid of the upper leaflet decreased by 15–20% (Tables S2 and S3). In contrast, the order parameters of the lower leaflet corresponded to a pure POPX membrane. The area per lipid of the lower leaflet was not significantly different from that of the pure membrane in the POPC system and was slightly higher in the other systems. Other leaflet properties, such as membrane thickness were not significantly affected by the presence of ILs (Table S2).
Mixing of deprotonated ILs with cell membrane phospholipids resulted in a bilayer that was consistent with current knowledge of IL behaviour. Previously, IL phase separation between membrane leaflets was observed for two-chained ILs DLin-KC2-DMA (Ramezanpour et al., Citation2019) and DLin-MC3-DMA (Ermilova & Swenson, Citation2020)). However, our systems contained branched ILs with only ∼16 mol% of IL in the final mixture, more akin to the very recent findings of Dehghani-Ghahnaviyeh et al. (Dehghani-Ghahnaviyeh et al., Citation2023). Under low concentrations (<20% of the IL), Lipid-5 (with one tail less than ALC-0315) was found to be localised both on the membrane surface and deeper in the tail and formed a separated phase only at high IL concentrations."
Damit ist die Membrankrümmungsalteration, Verschiebung und Durchlässigkeitsalteration EViDENT unterfüttert (wenn auch nur simuliert)!
👏5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMC6gp7W-ec
Wenn man mal die Nase voll von Membranstatik und Kaskadenlogik hat. 😊
Wenn man mal die Nase voll von Membranstatik und Kaskadenlogik hat. 😊
Forwarded from Andrew Bridgen
These are the words of more scientists that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due to the corruption and pseudo science they were asked to endorse.
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
https://t.me/ABridgen
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.
Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
https://t.me/ABridgen
Telegram
Andrew Bridgen
Independent minded. abridgen.uk
❤1
Workflow-Tabelle ist schon mal erstellt und Maria und ich ackern schon wie wild an der ersten Sektion. Die müssen wir komplett neu ausarbeiten. Wir fokussieren uns erstmal ausschließlich auf die physikochemischen Interaktionen und elektrostatischen Membran-PIP2-Wechselwirkungen. Damit haben wir ein gutes Fundament.
👍10
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2025.2604465
Der Retractionzorn kennt keine Grenzen. Es ist nicht, was nicht sein darf. Orwell grüßt aus dem Grab.
Der Retractionzorn kennt keine Grenzen. Es ist nicht, was nicht sein darf. Orwell grüßt aus dem Grab.
👍1
Our world is transforming – big community trends for sustainable cities
There have been significant developments in last five to seven years on social, environment and technology fronts that could help realise “My Carbon” initiatives for shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities.
Specifically, to mention three developments in this context:
1. COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/my-carbon-an-approach-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-cities/
There have been significant developments in last five to seven years on social, environment and technology fronts that could help realise “My Carbon” initiatives for shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities.
Specifically, to mention three developments in this context:
1. COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/my-carbon-an-approach-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-cities/
World Economic Forum
‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive & sustainable cities
There have been developments in recent years that could help realise “My Carbon” initiatives for sustainable cities.
🔥1
"Dear all,
We appreciate the team's thoughtful discussion on balancing scientific rigor with impactful messaging.
The due date can be extended. We do not close the revised submission entrance. Please be informed that the revision received date will be automatically recorded as the revised manuscript received date if the due date is extended.
We look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript. Good luck!
Best,
Editorial Office
APSB"
We appreciate the team's thoughtful discussion on balancing scientific rigor with impactful messaging.
The due date can be extended. We do not close the revised submission entrance. Please be informed that the revision received date will be automatically recorded as the revised manuscript received date if the due date is extended.
We look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript. Good luck!
Best,
Editorial Office
APSB"
❤6🙏4🔥1
Mutflash - Medizinische Argumentationen und Studiensammlungen
Voice message
Phew... Das heißt, die WOLLEN unser paper! *_* Ich bin gerade so endlos glücklich. Wir sind in der Major Revision, unsere Reviewer sind großartig präzise und mehr als fair und wir haben einen Deadline-Aufschub auf unbestimmte Zeit bekommen.
🥰9🏆7👍2
US-Akademie für Kinderheilkunde angeklagt wegen Betrugs im Zusammenhang mit Impfstoffsicherheit
Der American Academy of Pediatrics wird vorgeworfen, jahrzehntelang ein kriminelles System betrieben zu haben, das die amerikanische Bevölkerung über die Sicherheit von Impfstoffen getäuscht hat, um maximale Gewinne für die Pharmaindustrie zu erzielen.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) und mehrere Kläger haben gerade eine Bundesklage eingereicht, in der sie behaupten, dass die AAP jahrzehntelang ein kriminelles System betrieben habe, um Eltern falsche Sicherheitsversprechen bezüglich des Impfplans für Kinder zu verkaufen. Seit Jahrzehnten wird die American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wie eine unantastbare Autorität in Sachen Kindergesundheit behandelt – als der Goldstandard, dem Eltern, Ärzte, Schulen und Gesetzgeber ohne Frage vertrauen sollten. Die Pendants bei uns dazu sind wohl die DGKJ und ÖGKJ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinder und Jugendmedizin bzw Österreichische Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendheilkunde).
https://tkp.at/2026/01/22/us-akademie-fuer-kinderheilkunde-angeklagt-wegen-betrugs-im-zusammenhang-mit-impfstoffsicherheit/
Der American Academy of Pediatrics wird vorgeworfen, jahrzehntelang ein kriminelles System betrieben zu haben, das die amerikanische Bevölkerung über die Sicherheit von Impfstoffen getäuscht hat, um maximale Gewinne für die Pharmaindustrie zu erzielen.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) und mehrere Kläger haben gerade eine Bundesklage eingereicht, in der sie behaupten, dass die AAP jahrzehntelang ein kriminelles System betrieben habe, um Eltern falsche Sicherheitsversprechen bezüglich des Impfplans für Kinder zu verkaufen. Seit Jahrzehnten wird die American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wie eine unantastbare Autorität in Sachen Kindergesundheit behandelt – als der Goldstandard, dem Eltern, Ärzte, Schulen und Gesetzgeber ohne Frage vertrauen sollten. Die Pendants bei uns dazu sind wohl die DGKJ und ÖGKJ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinder und Jugendmedizin bzw Österreichische Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendheilkunde).
https://tkp.at/2026/01/22/us-akademie-fuer-kinderheilkunde-angeklagt-wegen-betrugs-im-zusammenhang-mit-impfstoffsicherheit/
tkp.at
US-Akademie für Kinderheilkunde angeklagt wegen Betrugs im Zusammenhang mit Impfstoffsicherheit
Der American Academy of Pediatrics wird vorgeworfen, jahrzehntelang ein kriminelles System betrieben zu haben, das die amerikanische Bevölkerung über die Sicherheit von Impfstoffen getäuscht hat, um maximale Gewinne für die[…]
🤯3❤1