It is an interesting theory and worth thinking about.
But definitely not air tight logic from start to finish. I also always find there to be something off about Bryan Ardis, not sure what, but I'll ignore that for now.
In terms of logic, one of his first suspicions is that monoclonal antibodies are used for snake venom, then he asks "why would they be using snake anti-venom". What? That doesn't follow. They are only saying these are antibodies, and antibodies don't have to be for snake venom. He could say "it's interesting that this process can also be used for snake venom". But implying this process is purely for snake venom is just dishonest and makes him look full of shit to a casual observer.
He mentions Bing Liu the researcher who died (22:20) . I still don't know what point he was making about him. It looks like neither Ardis or Stew did any investigation to find out what mechanism Bing may have discovered. Did they so much as send an e-mail to one of Liu's co-workers or grad students or anyone in that department? It appears not.
Last is the claim that Remdesivir and snake venom increase "prothrombin time" or blood clotting time (27:20). Well that's fine, but the issue with the vaccine is that is creates clots, not that is makes them harder to form (in the vast majority of cases) so it sounds like Ardis (on the surface) is discrediting his own theory. What he should mention is the fact that some venom is shown to cause microclots just like the vaccine. I didn't see him mention that anywhere (let me know if I missed it). I know he mentions d-dimers but he doesn't mention clotting directly.
What happens to blood after snake bite? the blood) and/or the nervous system. Haemotoxic venom goes for the bloodstream. It can trigger lots of tiny blood clots and then when the venom punches holes in blood vessels causing them to leak, there is nothing left to stem the flow and the patient bleeds to death.
It is an interesting theory and worth thinking about.
But definitely not air tight logic from start to finish. I also always find there to be something off about Bryan Ardis, not sure what, but I'll ignore that for now.
In terms of logic, one of his first suspicions is that monoclonal antibodies are used for snake venom, then he asks "why would they be using snake anti-venom". What? That doesn't follow. They are only saying these are antibodies, and antibodies don't have to be for snake venom. He could say "it's interesting that this process can also be used for snake venom". But implying this process is purely for snake venom is just dishonest and makes him look full of shit to a casual observer.
He mentions Bing Liu the researcher who died (22:20) . I still don't know what point he was making about him. It looks like neither Ardis or Stew did any investigation to find out what mechanism Bing may have discovered. Did they so much as send an e-mail to one of Liu's co-workers or grad students or anyone in that department? It appears not.
Last is the claim that Remdesivir and snake venom increase "prothrombin time" or blood clotting time (27:20). Well that's fine, but the issue with the vaccine is that is creates clots, not that is makes them harder to form (in the vast majority of cases) so it sounds like Ardis (on the surface) is discrediting his own theory. What he should mention is the fact that some venom is shown to cause microclots just like the vaccine. I didn't see him mention that anywhere (let me know if I missed it). I know he mentions d-dimers but he doesn't mention clotting directly.
https://neeness.com/what-kidns-of-snakes-venom-causes-blood-clot/