The lab / bat argument is a ruse to keep everyone distracted.
Its oddly reminiscent of the Democrat and Republican parties. Two sides of the same bullshit. No matter which we choose, the Deep State wins.
The way we win is to stop playing their game, and start thinking three steps ahead. Hence, we need to ask ourselves what the Deep State stands to gain from these apparent intel drops. Distraction is the clear answer. They are laying out a trail for us to sniff our way down while they quietly cover up the fact that this whole thing has been a scam from the start.
"There is no COVID-19 virus."
What is the basis for this theory?
From time to time, I witness the claim that "SEARS-Cov-2 does not meet Koch's principle. So this virus does not exist".
However, Koch's principle should be applied to the "identification of bacteria".
Unlike bacteria, viruses do not have cell membranes and cannot multiply without borrowing the host's cell division ability.
This means that pure culture is not possible.
So, Koch's principle cannot be applied to viruses as if it were an ironclad rule.
Do you have any other arguments, other than Koch's principle?
Cite one single study that proves through peer reviewed research that the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 has been isolated.
Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus. As you should be well aware, the PCR test, which has been the predominant method for detecting C19 has recently undergone a recall due to it's high false positive feedback, and inability to distinguish one coronavirus from another.
Find me the peer reviewed study, and the effective testing methodology.
Until I see such research I shall continue in my assertion that COVID-19 does not exist.
I am also very doubtful that it is really a pandemic, but at least I can recognize that the virus exists in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute.
In any case, since it was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that first discovered SARS-Cov-2 and registered its genetic information in GenBank, there is no inconvenience whether the virus exists or not.
"Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus."
Talking about the reliability of detection tests is not the same thing as talking about proving the existence of viruses. Please do not confuse the two.
Very few people believe in the reliability of PCR tests. Did I mention the 94% false positive rate?
Therefore, the following is my current conclusion.
SARS-Cov-2 is present in at least one test tube in the Wuhan laboratory.
The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel.
It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled.
Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it.
We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see.
Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution.
"They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see.
Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations.
The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them.
As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it.
I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed.
Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.
I do not consider all thesis things to be absolute truths, without exception.
Since humans can only perceive material phenomena, maybe the truth is that everything we perceive with our senses is a lie. Just like the Matrix.
Human beings (matter) will never know the truth.
So, in an effort to get as close to the truth as possible...
In order to analyze evidence and facts, it is natural to remove the twists and turns caused by preconceptions and desires that are caused by emotions.
The content of this paper is true at this point in time because there is no updated evidence to contradict it.
The correct attitude would be to keep updating the conclusions based on new evidence as it becomes available.
proof is proof. emotion is emotion. people are people. things are things.
And think about it from a political point of view.
If WIV fabricated the paper, then pandemic fraud is their crime.
If WIV did not fabricate the paper, then the allegations against them and Fauci, who may have created the virus, should be pursued.
Politically, whichever way it goes, it's in our favor.
I don't know if I've interpreted your question correctly, but here are my thoughts anyway.
In the first place, mRNA vaccines are unapproved and distributed on an emergency basis, so anything can happen.
The only thing that is safe to use are the drugs that have been used up.
because we all know what side effects they have.
On top of that, people who have been vaccinated are aware that they are developing the disease, as if they had been given a virus.
You can imagine it, can't you?
There is also a possibility that the disease has spread to the point where it is not a pandemic.
Add to that the figures of statistical fraud, and you can deliberately create data for a pandemic.
This is why it is more important to keep checking and monitoring the statistical standards than the data itself.
People who are not aware of the possibility of statistical fraud will act nervously.
Information on the existence of effective formulations is not disseminated by the media.
People who are passive to information have been imprinted with the idea that vaccines are the only solution.
As a result, they get vaccinated. And then you get sick.
They took every symptoms known to man and said it was a covid symptom. Add a fake test and viola yku have a victim willing to swear the covid almost killed them. Why. Because the WHO said so... it's lame as fuck. Jeezy I think people want to be fooled and are fearful of telling it like it is so they hedge that the covid is real to keep the peace. DONT FEED THE FEAR OR THE LIE.
It did not leak it was released as a bioweapon to facilitate voter fraud and damage President Trump. Anyone with 2 brain cells can see it. There are no coincidences.
There was covid research as a weapon according to faucis leaked emails. It may not be as dangerous as he hoped but his emails make it clear he paid to design a fatal weapon to be used on humans and it got out. Imo this is why he initially denied it.
None of us have facts we gave unverified (by us) information. We choose to believe it or not. It's borne itself out as a lie. Fake test, fake test, fake test.
Pcr test, not designed to find covid. Guess what, it never can find covid. So the test is actually 100 percent wrong. A lie... it finds the common cold or FLU.
So every legitimate positive was one of those two. Also, the false positives Re due to running 40 cycles. 85 percent false for cold and flu. 100 percent for covid because it doesn't exist.
The media and public sector that joined in with them HYPED this to the heavens those who fear, believe it,, many of us know its a lie.
Just say it, admit it for once Nd commit to it. ITS A LIE...now let's get on to the AUDITS.
There is no COVID-19 virus.
The lab / bat argument is a ruse to keep everyone distracted.
Its oddly reminiscent of the Democrat and Republican parties. Two sides of the same bullshit. No matter which we choose, the Deep State wins.
The way we win is to stop playing their game, and start thinking three steps ahead. Hence, we need to ask ourselves what the Deep State stands to gain from these apparent intel drops. Distraction is the clear answer. They are laying out a trail for us to sniff our way down while they quietly cover up the fact that this whole thing has been a scam from the start.
"There is no COVID-19 virus." What is the basis for this theory?
From time to time, I witness the claim that "SEARS-Cov-2 does not meet Koch's principle. So this virus does not exist". However, Koch's principle should be applied to the "identification of bacteria".
Unlike bacteria, viruses do not have cell membranes and cannot multiply without borrowing the host's cell division ability. This means that pure culture is not possible.
So, Koch's principle cannot be applied to viruses as if it were an ironclad rule.
Do you have any other arguments, other than Koch's principle?
Cite one single study that proves through peer reviewed research that the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 has been isolated.
Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus. As you should be well aware, the PCR test, which has been the predominant method for detecting C19 has recently undergone a recall due to it's high false positive feedback, and inability to distinguish one coronavirus from another.
Find me the peer reviewed study, and the effective testing methodology.
Until I see such research I shall continue in my assertion that COVID-19 does not exist.
The Wuhan Institute for Virus Research has published a paper and uploaded the genetic information to GenBank.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7/figures/9 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329
I am also very doubtful that it is really a pandemic, but at least I can recognize that the virus exists in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute.
In any case, since it was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that first discovered SARS-Cov-2 and registered its genetic information in GenBank, there is no inconvenience whether the virus exists or not.
"Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus."
Talking about the reliability of detection tests is not the same thing as talking about proving the existence of viruses. Please do not confuse the two. Very few people believe in the reliability of PCR tests. Did I mention the 94% false positive rate?
Therefore, the following is my current conclusion.
Did you just cite the Wuhan Institute as a trustworthy source? And then cite Nature as a reliable source backing up the Wuhan Institute?
I wrote the same message to another person, and I don't want to write it if I can help it, but since you asked, I'll respond.
"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.
Here's a question for you:
If the virus was, indeed, isolated, then why can't the very test that is supposed to detect it actually able to detect it?
Seems like air tight logic, yes?
I've already written that too.
2.The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
If we really spread the virus, how will those bad guys be able to keep themselves safe? It's a statistical scam to solve that problem.
Scammers tell the truth 99% of the time, and lie 1% of the time.
It's an overused phrase.
I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel. It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.
But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled. Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.
Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it. We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?
The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.
That’s not how this works. “Proof” from an untrustworthy source isn’t proof at all—it’s just fake news. Show us proof from someone who is not in the pockets of the deep state.
Your inability to trust it is a matter of your mind. It's your problem. You are just following your heart's urge to not trust.
It does not do the work of extracting facts and proofs from information.
I understand how you feel, but then you have to allow for the same "I don't want to believe you" and not being listened to by you.
Is the soup a mixture of known and unknown RNAs?
If it's just the unknown stuff, that's a reasonable approach. If the virus exists, then it must be in there, right?
Either way, it's something I'm interested in.
Can I have the URL? I'm not very good at listening, so preferably with subtitles if possible.
A computer composed genome is not the virus. It is a compositions assembled from sampled RNA fragments and pulled from genome databases pieced together by bioinformatic algorithms and heuristics. It does not exist in reality.
I see. Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.
"bioinformatic","heuristics"
These two are not for getting a "precise" solution. "They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.
This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see. Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.
However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations. The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them. As a result, you've been forced into your current position.
I spent a year of my comp sci PhD in bioinformatics. Learned a fair bit of molecular biology, and also that a lot of it is hand waving. The sequences you get to fill in the gaps in your composition of fragments depend on what queries you use to mine the genome databases. Of course exactly what construction you end up with depends on the heuristics choose.
The markers selected to identify this "virus" sequence are short fragments, not unique, and few. They can appear in many cornaviruses, exosomes, and even human chromosomes. This is why the PCR can't distinguish between CV and flu, there is too much overlap (not to mention that the CV sequence may not exist in reality).
With the PCR, the RNA fragments you start with may or may not be from a virus -- many assumptions have to be made. Plus, the fragments are taken from the exterior of your body (they are on the skin in the nasal passage) and say nothing about what is in your body, so the PCR cannot tell if you are actually infected.
I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it. I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."
The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.
WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.
I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.
Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.
Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?
There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed. Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.
I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".
"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.
I do not consider all thesis things to be absolute truths, without exception.
Since humans can only perceive material phenomena, maybe the truth is that everything we perceive with our senses is a lie. Just like the Matrix. Human beings (matter) will never know the truth.
So, in an effort to get as close to the truth as possible... In order to analyze evidence and facts, it is natural to remove the twists and turns caused by preconceptions and desires that are caused by emotions.
The content of this paper is true at this point in time because there is no updated evidence to contradict it. The correct attitude would be to keep updating the conclusions based on new evidence as it becomes available.
proof is proof. emotion is emotion. people are people. things are things.
And think about it from a political point of view.
If WIV fabricated the paper, then pandemic fraud is their crime.
If WIV did not fabricate the paper, then the allegations against them and Fauci, who may have created the virus, should be pursued.
Politically, whichever way it goes, it's in our favor.
"Understand that it is a mockery of scientific reasoning and the logical principles such reasoning is based on. "
Since you seem to be well versed in it, could you explain it to me?
Specifically, points like, "This sentence is wrong in this way. That's the kind of thing I'm open to.
I don't know if I've interpreted your question correctly, but here are my thoughts anyway.
In the first place, mRNA vaccines are unapproved and distributed on an emergency basis, so anything can happen.
The only thing that is safe to use are the drugs that have been used up. because we all know what side effects they have.
On top of that, people who have been vaccinated are aware that they are developing the disease, as if they had been given a virus. You can imagine it, can't you?
There is also a possibility that the disease has spread to the point where it is not a pandemic.
Add to that the figures of statistical fraud, and you can deliberately create data for a pandemic.
This is why it is more important to keep checking and monitoring the statistical standards than the data itself.
People who are not aware of the possibility of statistical fraud will act nervously.
Information on the existence of effective formulations is not disseminated by the media. People who are passive to information have been imprinted with the idea that vaccines are the only solution.
As a result, they get vaccinated. And then you get sick.
Oh, if you look closely, you can see that the question was not addressed to me. I replied to it.
They took every symptoms known to man and said it was a covid symptom. Add a fake test and viola yku have a victim willing to swear the covid almost killed them. Why. Because the WHO said so... it's lame as fuck. Jeezy I think people want to be fooled and are fearful of telling it like it is so they hedge that the covid is real to keep the peace. DONT FEED THE FEAR OR THE LIE.
Exact this. It's the reason there is no vaccine. The entire thing faked.
Absolutely!!!
It did not leak it was released as a bioweapon to facilitate voter fraud and damage President Trump. Anyone with 2 brain cells can see it. There are no coincidences.
The only thing that leaked covid was the MEDIA.
There was covid research as a weapon according to faucis leaked emails. It may not be as dangerous as he hoped but his emails make it clear he paid to design a fatal weapon to be used on humans and it got out. Imo this is why he initially denied it.
Wuhan was the first city to install 5g and its radio waves damages our cells and that’s the cause for dead cells (virus)
What covid19? No covid, no vax, no varient. What we have here is a big fucking lie and a wesponized fake vaccine.
Bullshit fake test 85 percent false positive. That means at least 85 percent of the stated cases are a LIE.
"Leaked" from level 4 biolab? Biggest LOL ever.
"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.
None of us have facts we gave unverified (by us) information. We choose to believe it or not. It's borne itself out as a lie. Fake test, fake test, fake test.
Pcr test, not designed to find covid. Guess what, it never can find covid. So the test is actually 100 percent wrong. A lie... it finds the common cold or FLU.
So every legitimate positive was one of those two. Also, the false positives Re due to running 40 cycles. 85 percent false for cold and flu. 100 percent for covid because it doesn't exist.
The media and public sector that joined in with them HYPED this to the heavens those who fear, believe it,, many of us know its a lie.
Just say it, admit it for once Nd commit to it. ITS A LIE...now let's get on to the AUDITS.
This is bullshit. No covid
Leaked on purpose. Timed to the election.
Another thread coming to fruition moving into BOOM week (we hope),
and now there needs to be accountability