Response to bcfromfl regarding previous post about "All Virology is Smoke and Mirrors."

posted 3 years ago by MAG768720 3 years ago by MAG768720 +28 / -0

About a week ago, I posted this thread about how science has proven that viruses do not exist:

https://greatawakening.win/p/13zgX5Opzn/

It's hard to follow a thread for more than a day or two. I noticed that bcfromfl asked some good questions in that thread.

I just responded, and decided to create this new thread if anyone wants to respond.

This is an important topic, and it seems many people on GAW are ignoring the elephant in the room: What if the entire concept of a "virus" is a lie? What are the implications?

This is not just a crazy theory. There is now evidence that it is a fact. Worth consdering and discussing.

bcfromfl wrote:

OK, so I watched the video. You have to understand the time involved in watching all these videos people post...a half hour here...an hour there, etc., etc. It really begins becoming an investment in time. I wish folks would post a summary, and then, if others are interested in learning more, they can watch. Anyway...

I found this guy's presentation facetious, sarcastic, and devoid of evidence. His entire talk was basically, "I say it's so, and these doctors say it's so, so therefore this is how it is." That's not proof of a theory. That's bullying an audience to believe something because he (or others) says it's so. No scientific evidence whatsoever was offered. A slide or two showing viral particles? What does that mean? Without evidence, one must take his word that the other researchers he's quoting are relevant, or even exist. That's why scientific discussions should also include tests, experiments, or other forms of evidence...to help prove the theory.

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce? Why are there labs like the Wuhan lab, studying coronaviruses? Why do researchers climb into bat caves to collect samples? Why does Dr. David Martin claim that there are 73 patents on coronaviruses from 2009 to 2017? Why does Dr. Peter Daszak claim that manipulation of coronaviruses is easy, through the insertion of sequences? This doctor's presentation had more in common with a comedy routine than a scientific discussion.

I'd like to understand more about germ theory vs. terrain theory, but this video, quite frankly, was a waste of time. I'm sorry I didn't find it as informative as you did.

My response:

You have to understand the time involved in watching all these videos ... I wish folks would post a summary

I agree with you. That's why I posted a summary. It's not easy to summarize, though.

His entire talk was basically, "I say it's so, and these doctors say it's so, so therefore this is how it is." That's not proof of a theory.

As opposed to Anthony Fauci or the others who say, "Trust muh science?" Cowan goes into great detail why his theory is likely correct. Has any virologist even tried to refute him? Supposedly yes, and unsuccessfully according to him, but I have not seen that. He is not the only doctor/researcher who is saying these things. He is one of many.

Besides that, he DID explain his theory. He DID NOT simply say this is what it is, and believe me because I say so.

He explained how ALL virologists claim a virus exists and how they claim a virus causes illness. He explained that no virus has ever been isolated and purified, how virologists simply re-define the world "isolated" to mean something it does not actually mean, and how they use a computer model to create the so-called genetic sequence, which is used to "test" for the virus.

How is that not a clear explanation? He also showed results of a lab study done by another researcher -- the first time it has ever been done in nearly 70 years (because no virologist has ever thought of doing it) -- that actually used a CONTROL to figure out what virologists are looking at.

It is not JUST his word. He backs it up. It is up to the viewer to understand what he is saying.

No scientific evidence whatsoever was offered.

That is a false statement.

A slide or two showing viral particles? What does that mean?

You clearly did not understand the significance: (a) it is claimed that person has a virus inside their body, (b) a sample of their snot is taken, which is claimed has the virus in it, (c) other genetic material (NOT from the person -- aborted fetal cells, cow serum, etc.) is added to the sample, (d) additional chemicals are added to the sample that are designed to kill genetic material, (e) the soup is added to monkey kidney cells, (f) the monkey kidney cells die, (g) fragments are left of the soup, and (h) those fragments are claimed to be proof that the virus existed inside the person, and that this virus is what made the person sick.

This is what you are referring to as "viral particles."

In the very same experiment, the researcher ran a control (something virologists NEVER do). In that control, he performed the exact same steps as above, EXCEPT he never took a sample of snot from a person to start with. He just added all the other genetic material, the chemicals, and the monkey kidney cells. He ended up with the EXACT SAME RESULT in the control as he did in the test. But there was never a "virus" from a person, because there was no sample from a person. No person was involved in the control, AT ALL.

He could have just as easily used a grapefruit or a goat. In fact, he used yeast. Nothing at all from a human. And yet, the "virus" magically appeared -- according to what the virologists say.

This PROVES that the images seen are NOT from a virus, because there is no possibility that a virus was ever in the control.

one must take his word that the other researchers he's quoting are relevant, or even exist.

The researcher who did this experiment, that Cowan refers to, is a German named Stefan Lanka. He exists. He won a court case in Germany over this issue (a damn near impossible thing to do, considering that German courts are even more corrupt in favor of the estblishment than American courts are).

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

Yes. And so are many others, not just him.

Why are there labs like the Wuhan lab, studying coronaviruses?

Follow the money. Who is getting rich off bogus research? How do you track the money spent by the Wuhan lab in China? How many offshore bank accounts received money for "consultants?"

Gain of function could also be used for bioweapons (aka "vaccines") to make them more deadly, with the S1 protein/virus story being a diversion so people will not look at what is really going on. I don't know, but we should be considering multiple ideas, not just one.

Why does Dr. David Martin claim that there are 73 patents on coronaviruses from 2009 to 2017?

Because those patents do exist. But the FIRST thing to establish is whether or not there is ANY evidence that can withstand scrutiny that viruses exist in the first place. If they do not, then those patents were for something ELSE (such as bioweapons). I could create a patent for unicorn shoes. Does that mean unicorns exist.

Most of these people are NOT questioning the basic premise of virology. They are just assuming that virologists know what the hell they are doing. This is how Kary Mullis got started on the HIV/AIDS thing. He was not a virologist. He just assumed they knew what they were talking about. He assumed they had evidence to back up their claims. But then, he had to write a research grant and use their claims in it. He asked around, and NO VIROLOGIST ANYWHERE could show ANY research that proved their claims. As he said, "I was getting freaked out. That's when I realized, they don't know. That's why they act so weird. They don't want anybody questioning, because they don't really know anything."

Virology is operating on a FALSE PREMISE. It is entirely possible that most virologists BELIEVE what they are saying; or don't really believe it, but go along for the ... $$$$$$$$$.

Robert Gallo eventually admitted that he NEVER had any evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

NEVER. HAD. EVIDENCE.

But he lied and let other people believe it, and he also got rich from the lie.

Why does Dr. Peter Daszak claim that manipulation of coronaviruses is easy, through the insertion of sequences?

I am not familiar with his work. But the SARS-CoV-2 sequence is an "in silico" sequence. That means it was CREATED INSIDE A COMPUTER PROGRAM. It does NOT EXIST in nature -- at least, the sequence itself does not prove it exists in nature. It was created inside a computer.

This is why I am skeptical of Dr. Judy Mikovitz. She BELIEVES all of her work on HIV was relevant and real. Imagine if she was just a "useful idiot" during her entire career. How difficult would THAT be to admit to herself, much less admit to the public?

Some of these people believe what they are saying. But ...

That does NOT mean they are right. They MIGHT be wrong.

And if viruses do not exist, then they ARE wrong.

And there is NO EVIDENCE that viruses actually exist.

Virology was going "out of business" in the 1940's and 1950's, because virologists could NOT prove they were right about anything. Then Enders came along and created the current fake method of "isolation" of a virus. Even HE wrote that when he did a control experiment without DNA, the results were the same as a test with DNA.

That was 1954.

NOBODY ... has EVER ... done another control experiment to test the basic premise of the existence of viruses ... until 2021.