So, yeah. Luciferase is also called Graphene Quantum Dots or Fullerene or C60 or buckyballs... I am not even kidding with that - Fullerene. So much terminology to hide what it really is...
Anyway, that's what the "messenger" in mRNA stands for. Funny thing... Angel also means messenger.
I said most of these names are used to hide it. If you want to turn my words around to fit your delusion, so your tiny insertion be of any value - then please do whatever you want. Just remember that what I've said and what you've understood are two different things.
So you're saying I'm wrong because scientists use computer renderings to show a protein structure?
Ok, if you are sure these things are the same, explain to me the chemical composition of graphene (what elements are present in graphene) then do the same for Luciferase.
But luciferase, according to the wiki article, "unlike fluorescent proteins, luciferases do not require an external light source, but do require addition of luciferin, the consumable substrate."
Really? Your source is a cartoon? Sorry, but I work with proven material, not a picture that you judge to be whatever you want. But be free to watch w/e cartoons you want. Not my problem.
You were proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt in multiple ways and your counter argument is that the image of the protein's structure is a computer rendering?
Did you think someone could snap a photo of a single protein molecule using a camera?
Either take the L or admit you're a disinfo shill.
Where does this paper even say luciferase? The 'find' function on my PDF reader isn't finding it.
Luciferase is an enzyme (protien). It is bioluminescence (aka gives of light from a chemical reaction). It is not fluorescent (aka gives off light when exposed to UV light).
what do they mean by "near ballistic transport"? the "ballistic" part doesn't make sense in context. unless they meant "ball sak", which makes way more sense in relation to the vaccine mRNA gene therapy.
Those videos of people's veins lighting up under UV light were not fake after all
They were completely fake, afaiaa. UV light can’t penetrate into the veins, and even if it somehow could and caused the (luminescent graphene/luciferase) in the blood to luminesce - it couldn’t get back out again for the same reason - too much opaque stuff in the way.
luminescent graphene wouldn’t be an “oxidative enzyme” in any case, and wouldn’t fit the current definition of luciferase anyway. not everything that luminesces is automatically luciferase, although it does seem to have a somewhat loose definition.
No one said it wasn’t! I just said that the videos showing glowing veins were faked. Do you have any evidence/observations which contradict that?
#Facts
Exactly! There is no agenda - i’m talking about semantics/definitions/facts.
It is incorrect to say that luminescent graphene is luciferase, unless the graphene is converted into an oxidative enzyme (meaning it isn’t graphene anymore).
I saw all your posts and comment. Your main focus is to make people look the other way. I just add you in my shill folder and never bother to reply again.
If you don't like it, you have every right to keep it to yourself. Or just continue to spam, it makes no difference to me. You are blocked.
Your main focus is to make people look the other way. I just add you in my shill folder and never bother to reply again.
always make sure to block anyone who ever has a different view! then you’ll be safe in your echo chamber, and are sure to learn nothing!
If you don't like it, you have every right to keep it to yourself.
don’t like what? i made two statements :
the glowing vein videos were fake.
luminescent graphene isn’t luciferase by definition, and shouldn’t be mistaken for it.
i didn’t comment because i “didn’t like” what you said. i commented to try and help you correct your mistakes! alternatively, i commented so that you could clarify and edify my views. we are not adversaries, and this is not an argument nor a flimsy pretext to get people to ignore your post.
earnestly, if you have any evidence/reasoning that supports that i am wrong - i would very much like to know it and i wouldn’t be offended or rush to block you for providing it!
Source. PDF.
Shining carbon experiment - here.
Graphene is a Carbon derivative. "Carbon-12 is composed of 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons." - source. "Let him that has understanding..."
Well, technically graphene cannot be liquid but it can easily be in most liquids - https://youtu.be/8Y9K2z-ji4Q?t=29
So, yeah. Luciferase is also called Graphene Quantum Dots or Fullerene or C60 or buckyballs... I am not even kidding with that - Fullerene. So much terminology to hide what it really is...
Anyway, that's what the "messenger" in mRNA stands for. Funny thing... Angel also means messenger.
to be fair, the term Fullerene comes from Buckminster Fuller, who first conceptualized the C60 (iirc). Same way they got the name "Buckyball"
Who says otherwise?
You implied the name was a term to hide what it is. The reality is like most things- it’s named after its originator
I said most of these names are used to hide it. If you want to turn my words around to fit your delusion, so your tiny insertion be of any value - then please do whatever you want. Just remember that what I've said and what you've understood are two different things.
Holy shit dude re-read your own post.
Do you come to the internet just to pick fights for no reason? How’s that working for you?
As mentioned in my previous comment. Luciferase looks like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg/330px-PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg which is clearly not graphene. It is a complicated folded protein structure.
Where you put a cartoon for a source, nice.
So you're saying I'm wrong because scientists use computer renderings to show a protein structure?
Ok, if you are sure these things are the same, explain to me the chemical composition of graphene (what elements are present in graphene) then do the same for Luciferase.
Luciferase looks like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg/330px-PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg which is clearly not graphene. It is a complicated folded protein structure.
Your paper shows that graphene can be made photoluminescent. According to this website photoluminescence is light emission after photo stimulation of a material. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/photoluminescence
But luciferase, according to the wiki article, "unlike fluorescent proteins, luciferases do not require an external light source, but do require addition of luciferin, the consumable substrate."
See this video for more help -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxlMFsw1OfY
Really? Your source is a cartoon? Sorry, but I work with proven material, not a picture that you judge to be whatever you want. But be free to watch w/e cartoons you want. Not my problem.
You were proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt in multiple ways and your counter argument is that the image of the protein's structure is a computer rendering?
Did you think someone could snap a photo of a single protein molecule using a camera?
Either take the L or admit you're a disinfo shill.
Wrong.
Where does this paper even say luciferase? The 'find' function on my PDF reader isn't finding it.
Luciferase is an enzyme (protien). It is bioluminescence (aka gives of light from a chemical reaction). It is not fluorescent (aka gives off light when exposed to UV light).
Well, if you expect them to use all the terminology, so your little brain can connect the dots, then please keep waiting.
Are you saying that since luciferase is luminescent, all things that are florescent are luciferase?
Ad hominem is not productive.
This guy posts a lot of disinfo.
Where does this paper even say luciferase?
What did I get wrong?
The guy is a disinfo shill. You are right about luciferase.
what do they mean by "near ballistic transport"? the "ballistic" part doesn't make sense in context. unless they meant "ball sak", which makes way more sense in relation to the
vaccinemRNA gene therapy.The vaccine isn't injected into your veins
This is beyond retarded
You are the captain of beyond retarded.
They were completely fake, afaiaa. UV light can’t penetrate into the veins, and even if it somehow could and caused the (luminescent graphene/luciferase) in the blood to luminesce - it couldn’t get back out again for the same reason - too much opaque stuff in the way.
luminescent graphene wouldn’t be an “oxidative enzyme” in any case, and wouldn’t fit the current definition of luciferase anyway. not everything that luminesces is automatically luciferase, although it does seem to have a somewhat loose definition.
Found the shill!
#Facts. Luminescence is already used in medicine. Don't try to push your agenda here.
No one said it wasn’t! I just said that the videos showing glowing veins were faked. Do you have any evidence/observations which contradict that?
Exactly! There is no agenda - i’m talking about semantics/definitions/facts.
It is incorrect to say that luminescent graphene is luciferase, unless the graphene is converted into an oxidative enzyme (meaning it isn’t graphene anymore).
I saw all your posts and comment. Your main focus is to make people look the other way. I just add you in my shill folder and never bother to reply again.
If you don't like it, you have every right to keep it to yourself. Or just continue to spam, it makes no difference to me. You are blocked.
always make sure to block anyone who ever has a different view! then you’ll be safe in your echo chamber, and are sure to learn nothing!
don’t like what? i made two statements :
the glowing vein videos were fake.
luminescent graphene isn’t luciferase by definition, and shouldn’t be mistaken for it.
i didn’t comment because i “didn’t like” what you said. i commented to try and help you correct your mistakes! alternatively, i commented so that you could clarify and edify my views. we are not adversaries, and this is not an argument nor a flimsy pretext to get people to ignore your post.
earnestly, if you have any evidence/reasoning that supports that i am wrong - i would very much like to know it and i wouldn’t be offended or rush to block you for providing it!
:(
That would be fluorescent not luminescence.
Don't confuse these morons with facts. They don't want facts. They want their opinions validated.