Looking up this person, Dr. Derek Knauss (or Derick Knauss) gives me absolutely nothing except links to websites posting this story in one form or another. Looking up Dereck/Derick Knauss on a people finder produced zero results in CA (he said he works in Southern CA). Looking him up on scholar.google.com also provides nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, which is basically impossible if he is in fact a Ph.D.
There is NO evidence that this person exists or does the job he says he does, therefore this person is not a source of credible information.
The virus existing has substantial credible evidence however. That does not mean it does exist. It most certainly does not mean it is as deadly as reported. It does not mean anything other than that in doing research on it, I find credible evidence of its existence.
Here is a link to a database where sars-cov-2 variants from all over the world were submitted from independent tests that can be compared and studied.
Here is an early analysis of the virus that suggests it was designed in a lab.
Here is another analysis that suggests the reason it is so contagious is because its cell surface binding proteins were modeled after the same proteins used by the HIV virus. Something that is almost impossible to have happened naturally. This particular paper was forced to be retracted by the PTB, almost certainly to force people to not look deeper into this line of reasoning.
There is much, much more evidence that it has been isolated and tested. Please note I am not saying that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are accurate (or even close, or even any at all). I am not saying anything about this scamdemic (in this post) OTHER than that the sars-cov-2 has been isolated and is a real virus.
If anyone can provide evidence that these are untrue assertions I will be more than happy to look into it.
Sir you have only one source of info that we Know is fact, the HIV transmission sourse which we have known for a solid year now...ALL your sources arefrom organizations that we also KNow have been lying to us for a year now. Not sure your motives, but to use sources from known liars seems a bit disingenuous to try to disprove another. You seem to be part of the problem.
Yes. I agree. What Slyver mentioned, concerning this patented virus, was everything that we were told from the beginning. We were told that it had HIV, came from WUHAN, was extremely virulent, and de novo. The only thing is, the researchers that had "supposedly" isolated the COV-2 novel virus, were all disingenuous with a motive to keep America locked down and in fear. Many virologists/scientists have been killed and silenced, that had evidence otherwise.
What would constitute proof? Pictures? They exist, but could be made up, or from a different coronavirus. DNA? I've provided several sources for that (if you took the time to look instead of dismissing out of hand). Tests on the virus itself? I provided links to that as well and can provide hundreds more.
Even if the virus were to be isolated, what does it mean? What constitutes a case? People have been tested when not even being sick. Why? Is it even contagious? Does it mean it's virulent enough to lock down the world, wear cloth masks, use excessive sanitization techniques, socially distance, and cause extreme psychological fear and long term damage? I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm just thinking...We are surrounded by so many microorganisms all day, constantly... What is the point of terrorizing people, spending tons of money on studying, testing, etc. It's a virus that isn't even deadly. There are so many other viruses and diseases that are way more deadly. Anyway, just my thoughts.
If you looked you would see that I have three independent sources. The first two sources are the CDC (which is what I think you are referring to) and if you were to actually look at them (and you had sufficient knowledge to understand the information (which is non-trivial)) you would know that these CDC sources, when you really dig in, destroy their own narrative.
The third link I provided happens to link to a site that is related to the CDC, but that is only because pubmed links to pretty much every peer reviewed paper. You can find the paper on many sites that have nothing to do with the CDC.
The 4th and 5th links go to researchgate. This means they have not yet passed peer review. Researchgate has nothing to do with the CDC. In fact, it is the place to most likely find real science that refutes the CDC.
I DID look at your sources...all have been caught in a lie.
I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned....?
If not isolated, cant create vaccine...
Say and link whatever you want. This is Planned-demic...not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore.
My point is that using links from lying organizations with that are profiting from lying...seems odd and disingenuous...but feel free..im moving on.
The CDC links (at least the second one) prove that the whole virus narrative is false (if you know how to look at the information). If nothing else, this proves that not everything at the CDC promotes the "covid-19" narrative. On the contrary, most of the data does the opposite. They expect people to not look, and those that do look they expect to be too afraid to say anything, or be discredited by those of their peers who are.
As for the peer reviewed paper I linked, it is a peer reviewed paper. You can find it on literally every single publisher of peer reviewed papers. Here are a few non-CDC links:
I can list a hundred more if you want. Its a peer reviewed paper. This is just how it works. It goes to all peer reviewed journals.
If you want to talk about how all peer reviewed science is suspect, that's another topic. It would be one that every scientist in the world agrees with, and has through all of time. In fact, that is how science works.
What it is however, is credible evidence. To refute scientific evidence requires refuting the arguments and analyses within the work. It never works to just say "your source is not credible because I don't like them." That is the opposite of debate.
That is called an ad hominem attack. It is a weak tactic by those that have no actual counter arguments. You can only provide a counter argument in a scientific debate by understanding and cogitating on the original arguments.
Your attacks on the researchgate papers are completely not credible, and you obviously have NO IDEA what researchgate is. It is literally the best place to find real science in a world trying to hide evidence.
I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned
How many more would you like? I can do this all day (although I won't).
I am not saying these are all credible sources. I have not vetted them. I looked at the first one, and as someone who has performed similar experiments it looks completely legit at first glance.
But if I were to say these specific labs stating explicitly that they have isolated the virus are lying I would have to read each one in detail and find evidence of the lies. If I were to just make the claim they are lying because I don't like them I would become a non-credible source of information myself.
Well first...not one comment have i stated support or trust for anyone, either side..
I get your point, and the other person's comments..but the guy in video is stating exactly the same points we all know and agree on..but many calling him wrong because a few cannot "source" him? Is he not factually correct in the context of his statements? Some here shooting the messenger, even though we agree with his info..thats fine..you guys are missing the point...
the CDC and NIH or anyone or organization the reference, are the enemies..but suddenly here their info is being defended..
makes no sense..
I mostly only trust God and myself..but thanks for suggesting whom i Should trust
I'm a researcher in biology and nanotechnology. I neither "know" nor "agree" with anything this man said. Not because I don't want to, but because I looked quite hard and found no credible sources to corroborate. In addition, when checking out THIS person, I found zero credibility in his testimony or even evidence of his existence at all.
Is he not factually correct in the context of his statements
He was not factually correct in ANY of his statements that I could find, and I looked very, very hard. He didn't even say everything correctly about the biology. This makes me very suspect, although cell biology is very complicated. Even those with knowledge make mistakes in the details sometimes.
the CDC and NIH or anyone or organization the reference, are the enemies
The people at the top of these organizations are almost certainly our enemies, but the vast majority of people that work at, for, or with these organizations are not. Some are brainwashed, some are not. A very good friend of mine works for the FDA and she is based as fuck. But that is not how science is done. It doesn't matter what a person says, it matters what the SCIENCE says.
Anyone with sufficient knowledge can go into their data and see the problems with it. A scientist can lie, and they can try to use science to do it, but science cannot lie. Anyone with knowledge can see the problems with any published science because the problems are there, usually in plain sight, for anyone to see.
I have used the data from the CDC to red-pill other scientists. To think we can't use their data or experiments published on their site is idiotic, or more specifically, ignorant.
I do not recommend you trust the CDC. I don't trust them one iota. But I know what I read in the experiments and papers, the source is irrelevant. If it smells like bullshit, its bullshit, no matter the source. This guy smells like bullshit. Its just the truth of it from someone with experience in this specific field.
I welcome any other evidence to support the claims this person makes. My mind is never made up, but on this guy, without anything else to corroborate, and with what I know (biology), I am giving this a very high probability of being purposeful disinformation to make people with real knowledge, stating real problems with the vaccine and the scamdemic look like "conspiracy theorists."
From what I know, the DNA sequences were never taken from isolated virus samples , but rather were made using an algorithmic method, where the dna sample is compared against a computer database of other sequences and then the computer statistically interpolates the missing genetic material. The problem that there was never a fully sequenced isolate, the ‘Covid’ sequence is basically a fancy computer model
From what I know, the DNA sequences were never taken from isolated virus samples
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
The problem that there was never a fully sequenced isolate, the ‘Covid’ sequence is basically a fancy computer model
And this. Every piece of evidence I have looked into has proven to not be credible and/or the evidence does not pass the sniff test.
As someone who works in the field, I can smell fear-mongering bullshit or even just plain ignorance on a very complicated topic (cell and molecular biology and/or genetics) a mile away. Everything I have seen on this (so far) falls into one of those two categories. It is my current belief that statements of the sort you are citing have been purposeful disinformation (not from you, but from the original sources).
And the crow house.com put this video out. The only Derek Knauss I could find was at prepare for change.net, who writes about the intergalactic federation
Looking up this person, Dr. Derek Knauss (or Derick Knauss) gives me absolutely nothing except links to websites posting this story in one form or another. Looking up Dereck/Derick Knauss on a people finder produced zero results in CA (he said he works in Southern CA). Looking him up on scholar.google.com also provides nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, which is basically impossible if he is in fact a Ph.D.
There is NO evidence that this person exists or does the job he says he does, therefore this person is not a source of credible information.
The virus existing has substantial credible evidence however. That does not mean it does exist. It most certainly does not mean it is as deadly as reported. It does not mean anything other than that in doing research on it, I find credible evidence of its existence.
For example:
There is much, much more evidence that it has been isolated and tested. Please note I am not saying that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are accurate (or even close, or even any at all). I am not saying anything about this scamdemic (in this post) OTHER than that the sars-cov-2 has been isolated and is a real virus.
If anyone can provide evidence that these are untrue assertions I will be more than happy to look into it.
Sir you have only one source of info that we Know is fact, the HIV transmission sourse which we have known for a solid year now...ALL your sources arefrom organizations that we also KNow have been lying to us for a year now. Not sure your motives, but to use sources from known liars seems a bit disingenuous to try to disprove another. You seem to be part of the problem.
....And find me the lab, in the entire world, that will Show they actually have a covid-19 virus isolated within that lab....Ill wait...
Yes. I agree. What Slyver mentioned, concerning this patented virus, was everything that we were told from the beginning. We were told that it had HIV, came from WUHAN, was extremely virulent, and de novo. The only thing is, the researchers that had "supposedly" isolated the COV-2 novel virus, were all disingenuous with a motive to keep America locked down and in fear. Many virologists/scientists have been killed and silenced, that had evidence otherwise.
What would constitute proof? Pictures? They exist, but could be made up, or from a different coronavirus. DNA? I've provided several sources for that (if you took the time to look instead of dismissing out of hand). Tests on the virus itself? I provided links to that as well and can provide hundreds more.
What exactly would you like to see?
Even if the virus were to be isolated, what does it mean? What constitutes a case? People have been tested when not even being sick. Why? Is it even contagious? Does it mean it's virulent enough to lock down the world, wear cloth masks, use excessive sanitization techniques, socially distance, and cause extreme psychological fear and long term damage? I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm just thinking...We are surrounded by so many microorganisms all day, constantly... What is the point of terrorizing people, spending tons of money on studying, testing, etc. It's a virus that isn't even deadly. There are so many other viruses and diseases that are way more deadly. Anyway, just my thoughts.
A quote from someone who agrees with me. He doesn't have to exist.
If you looked you would see that I have three independent sources. The first two sources are the CDC (which is what I think you are referring to) and if you were to actually look at them (and you had sufficient knowledge to understand the information (which is non-trivial)) you would know that these CDC sources, when you really dig in, destroy their own narrative.
The third link I provided happens to link to a site that is related to the CDC, but that is only because pubmed links to pretty much every peer reviewed paper. You can find the paper on many sites that have nothing to do with the CDC.
The 4th and 5th links go to researchgate. This means they have not yet passed peer review. Researchgate has nothing to do with the CDC. In fact, it is the place to most likely find real science that refutes the CDC.
Check your statements before making accusations.
NIH=Fauci CDC=Fauci
I DID look at your sources...all have been caught in a lie. I failed to see the lab that Has the Virus Isolated be mentioned....? If not isolated, cant create vaccine... Say and link whatever you want. This is Planned-demic...not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore. My point is that using links from lying organizations with that are profiting from lying...seems odd and disingenuous...but feel free..im moving on.
But apparently did not listen to what I said.
The CDC links (at least the second one) prove that the whole virus narrative is false (if you know how to look at the information). If nothing else, this proves that not everything at the CDC promotes the "covid-19" narrative. On the contrary, most of the data does the opposite. They expect people to not look, and those that do look they expect to be too afraid to say anything, or be discredited by those of their peers who are.
As for the peer reviewed paper I linked, it is a peer reviewed paper. You can find it on literally every single publisher of peer reviewed papers. Here are a few non-CDC links:
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/49/D1/D706/5921286
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33585048
https://covid19.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/gess-a-database-of-global-evaluation-of-sars-cov-2hcov-19-sequenc
I can list a hundred more if you want. Its a peer reviewed paper. This is just how it works. It goes to all peer reviewed journals.
If you want to talk about how all peer reviewed science is suspect, that's another topic. It would be one that every scientist in the world agrees with, and has through all of time. In fact, that is how science works.
What it is however, is credible evidence. To refute scientific evidence requires refuting the arguments and analyses within the work. It never works to just say "your source is not credible because I don't like them." That is the opposite of debate.
That is called an ad hominem attack. It is a weak tactic by those that have no actual counter arguments. You can only provide a counter argument in a scientific debate by understanding and cogitating on the original arguments.
Your attacks on the researchgate papers are completely not credible, and you obviously have NO IDEA what researchgate is. It is literally the best place to find real science in a world trying to hide evidence.
Is that all you want?
Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida
NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories
University of the Western Cape (UWC) and Stellenbosch University (SU) (South Africa)
McMaster’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research
How many more would you like? I can do this all day (although I won't).
I am not saying these are all credible sources. I have not vetted them. I looked at the first one, and as someone who has performed similar experiments it looks completely legit at first glance.
But if I were to say these specific labs stating explicitly that they have isolated the virus are lying I would have to read each one in detail and find evidence of the lies. If I were to just make the claim they are lying because I don't like them I would become a non-credible source of information myself.
Well first...not one comment have i stated support or trust for anyone, either side.. I get your point, and the other person's comments..but the guy in video is stating exactly the same points we all know and agree on..but many calling him wrong because a few cannot "source" him? Is he not factually correct in the context of his statements? Some here shooting the messenger, even though we agree with his info..thats fine..you guys are missing the point...
the CDC and NIH or anyone or organization the reference, are the enemies..but suddenly here their info is being defended.. makes no sense.. I mostly only trust God and myself..but thanks for suggesting whom i Should trust
I'm a researcher in biology and nanotechnology. I neither "know" nor "agree" with anything this man said. Not because I don't want to, but because I looked quite hard and found no credible sources to corroborate. In addition, when checking out THIS person, I found zero credibility in his testimony or even evidence of his existence at all.
He was not factually correct in ANY of his statements that I could find, and I looked very, very hard. He didn't even say everything correctly about the biology. This makes me very suspect, although cell biology is very complicated. Even those with knowledge make mistakes in the details sometimes.
The people at the top of these organizations are almost certainly our enemies, but the vast majority of people that work at, for, or with these organizations are not. Some are brainwashed, some are not. A very good friend of mine works for the FDA and she is based as fuck. But that is not how science is done. It doesn't matter what a person says, it matters what the SCIENCE says.
Anyone with sufficient knowledge can go into their data and see the problems with it. A scientist can lie, and they can try to use science to do it, but science cannot lie. Anyone with knowledge can see the problems with any published science because the problems are there, usually in plain sight, for anyone to see.
I have used the data from the CDC to red-pill other scientists. To think we can't use their data or experiments published on their site is idiotic, or more specifically, ignorant.
I do not recommend you trust the CDC. I don't trust them one iota. But I know what I read in the experiments and papers, the source is irrelevant. If it smells like bullshit, its bullshit, no matter the source. This guy smells like bullshit. Its just the truth of it from someone with experience in this specific field.
I welcome any other evidence to support the claims this person makes. My mind is never made up, but on this guy, without anything else to corroborate, and with what I know (biology), I am giving this a very high probability of being purposeful disinformation to make people with real knowledge, stating real problems with the vaccine and the scamdemic look like "conspiracy theorists."
From what I know, the DNA sequences were never taken from isolated virus samples , but rather were made using an algorithmic method, where the dna sample is compared against a computer database of other sequences and then the computer statistically interpolates the missing genetic material. The problem that there was never a fully sequenced isolate, the ‘Covid’ sequence is basically a fancy computer model
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
And this. Every piece of evidence I have looked into has proven to not be credible and/or the evidence does not pass the sniff test.
As someone who works in the field, I can smell fear-mongering bullshit or even just plain ignorance on a very complicated topic (cell and molecular biology and/or genetics) a mile away. Everything I have seen on this (so far) falls into one of those two categories. It is my current belief that statements of the sort you are citing have been purposeful disinformation (not from you, but from the original sources).
And the crow house.com put this video out. The only Derek Knauss I could find was at prepare for change.net, who writes about the intergalactic federation