We are now seeing the criminal globalists attempting to pivot from "Covid will kill everybody" to "Covid will cause HIV, which will cause AIDS, which will kill everybody -- but it's definitly not the vaccines that caused any of this harm, so take your vaxx."
So, I wanted to create a thread of a post I wrote in another thread. This way, I can reference this thread in the future, and others here can debate this subject.
My initial research into HIV/AIDS led me to conclude that HIV was real, but it did not cause AIDS, because AIDS is nothing more than a made-up definition, and not a real physical syndrome.
Later, I discovered that people were saying HIV also is not real (does not exist).
Now, I have concluded that all viruses are made-up fantasies, because virologists ALL use a method to "study a virus" that is not valid.
We know that PCR is a technique, and is not something that can diagnose any illness. Likewise, nobody has ever actually seen a virus, captured a virus to study, or studied a virus. What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells in a lab (not in a person), and everything else from there is pure speculation, not scientific at all.
Regarding HIV/AIDS, it is helpful to understand the history of how things have progressed over the past 50 years.
AIDS - Originally to Explain Gay Illnesses
AIDS does not exist as a real thing in the real world. Instead, it is just a definition, which is used to create fear in the public and money into the bank accounts of the fraud promoters.
In the 1970's, gay men in San Francisco were getting weird illnesses, some of them died. Michael Gottlieb (a Fauci co-conspirator) came up with the term GRID ("Gay-Related Immune Deficiency") as an explanation. There was NO scientific research to base this on. It was just a guess.
They tried to get grant money to "study" this thing (that did not really exist), but they came up empty because nobody wanted to spend money to help out the fags in San Fran.
So, they changed the name to AIDS ("Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome"). They claimed that anyone could get it (not just homosexuals). AGAIN, they had absolutely NO scientific evidence for this. It was just a made-up claim.
"HIV Causes AIDS" -- a Claim With No Science Behind It
Robert Gallo invented the "smoking gun." This is what changed everything. He claimed that he discovered that HIV was a virus that caused AIDS. The media went crazy with it, and the public panicked. Now, everybody could get a deadly illness just by having sex.
The money poured in, and Anthony Fauci was the ringleader for this scam.
At this point, they started doing HIV tests. And those tests were bogus. They could NOT diagnose anything. Kary Mullis spoke out against using the PCR technique as a diagnostic tool for HIV. But they continued doing it.
AIDS is nothing more than a definition. IF (a) you have one of 30+ illnesses listed by the CDC, AND (b) you test positive for HIV (with a bogus test), THEN you are diagnosed with AIDS.
If you have the illness but test negative, then you "just" have the illness, but not AIDS.
There is NO scientific research to prove this. NONE.
Robert Gallo would later state on the record that he NEVER had any proof. It was ONLY an hypothesis.
But the money rolled in.
So, what is the TRUTH?
The Truth About HIV/AIDS
The truth is those homos in San Francisco were part of the new "free love" movement that was sweeping the country in the 1960's/1970's. They were the gay subculture of it.
They created bath houses to have casual sex in. But their kind of sex is unnatural, so they used drugs to relax the anal muscles. They used Amyl Nitrate ("poppers") which turned out to be highly toxic to humans.
Plus, they were using recreational drugs to party for days at a time without going to sleep.
This "gay lifestyle" is what caused their bodies to build up with toxins, and they developed all sorts of nasty illnesses. Some of them died.
The Drugs Killed the AIDS Patients
Once the false "HIV causes AIDS" story became the narrative, they would test people for HIV. If they were positive (using a bogus test), and if they also had one of those 30+ illnesses listed by CDC, then they were diagnosed as having "AIDS."
They were then put onto "AIDS drugs" like AZT, which was a failed chemo drug. AZT is EXTREMELY toxic.
Cancer patients are given toxic drugs for a LIMITED time period to kill off cancer cells. But AIDS patients were put on these drugs FOREVER. These drugs killed them.
That's why they eventually stopped using these highly toxic drugs. It was too obvious what was really going on.
And once this was all figured out, AIDS just "went away."
There was a time when people were in fear of having sex. Now, nobody really even thinks about AIDS.
Until now ... because they have recently attempted to bring back the fear porn for HIV.
Just like Fauci led the fake scam of HIV/AIDS (and controlled the $$$$$), he has been leading the fake scam of SARS/Covid. Now that they have maxed out what they can to get everyone taking the fake Covid vaccines, they are pivoting to HIV, to scare more people into taking what will be the fake HIV vaccines.
They are pivoting to "Covid causes HIV, which causes AIDS, which causes serious illnesses -- because it's definitly not the fake vaccines that caused all those sudden illnesses, that did not exist before the fake vaccines were unleashed."
Get it?
Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR, explaining how he realized that there is no science behind the "HIV causes AIDS" scam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFAvKJe9VE
"House of Numbers" is the best documentary I have ever seen about the history of HIV/AIDS, and why the "scientists" cannot answer very basic questions. It was done more than 10 years ago, before Covid, and you will see a lot of the Covid players in it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/k7168G95ecNT/
The 2021 research that proves that NO viruses exist:
https://rumble.com/vtd2cf-cov-myths-exposed-scientists-prove-sars-cov-2-cov-dont-exist.html
What [They] are Planning Next
They have recently changed the PCR "diagnostic" they are using. They have not done away with PCR; they are just changing the inputs. It is still not a diagnostic tool, but is being used as a diagnostic tool.
The plan is to make the claim that you just take one "test" and you get multiple results. You can be "diagnosed positive" for Covid, HIV, Herpes, and anything else they want to dream up. But no matter what, you WILL be postiive for something, even though you have no signs of sickness at all. Unless, of course, you are a good little lemming/slave and do not rock the boat.
This is to get the mRNA vaxx into your body. Injecting everyone at ALL COST is the goal.
Why?
There are no good reasons why, only bad reasons.
Yeah, I've also read that HIV / AIDS isn't really a virus but just a consequence for an incredibly unsanitary and debauched lifestyle.
Correct.
The claim for many years was that gay men in the wealthy, western countries got it, and heterosexual men and women in poor, African countries also go it.
What do they have in common?
Toxic drugs for the gays, and toxic living conditions for the poor.
Do you have a medical degree, or a scientific degree of any kind?
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome is real which takes in a huge spectrum of problems tHat can lead to death it usually follows human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that has damaged your immune system. Maybe Covid 19 virus and in theory the vaccines might in some cases lead to AIDS. Scientists are studying that and the warnings are out.
Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy.
In addition, these ideas are not my original ideas. The people who came up with these ideas DO have medical degrees, chemistry degrees, and virology degrees.
But then, so does your local doctor, who has no clue what they hell he is talking about.
Which leads us back to ... Argument from Authority is a logical fallocy.
There is no scientific basis for which to believe that statement.
Nobody has ever identified a pathway for SARS-CoV-2 to lead to AIDS.
If you want to re-defined AIDS as "any condition whereby you are more likely to get sick," then it is possible that the vaccine injections could cause it.
But that would be RE-defining AIDS. Based on the CURRENT definition of AIDS, it would require SARS-CoV-2 to CAUSE someone to get HIV, and NOBODY has shown any biological pathway for that to happen.
It is ALL speculation, and NO science.
Actually, they are not.
Yes, that is the entire point of it all. FEAR.
You should watch the video he linked. Really opened my eyes.
The causal relationship between these two has not been established sufficiently as far as I can see.
For example, if a positive HIV test causes someone to take HIV medication, and they later express the disease symptoms we call AIDS, does that mean the HIV caused AIDS, or did perhaps the medication cause AIDS? I don't know, but as far as I can find, it has not been established that HIV is both necessary AND sufficient to cause AIDS.
There is so much here to unpack.
What does it mean "to see" something? Does it mean we look with our eyes and "oh look, there's a unicorn"? Do we have to "touch" the unicorn to make it real? Do we have to hear the unicorn make sounds? Do we have to smell the unicorn farts? What makes something "real"?
In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope? Are we not assuming there isn't a little gremlin painting a picture for us to look at through the scope? I mean, how do you define "see" in the context of a virus?
We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions. I suggest we have seen millions if not billions of things that look exactly like we expect a virus to look like.
As to what you think we are seeing (cell fragments), see below.
We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc.. This technique is called cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS), and/or if we have the antibodies for it, we can also use chromatography to capture proteins, or virions, or anything that expresses specific molecules on the exterior. We see virus's in all sorts of ways.
Is there any speculation in there? Sorta. We use statistics and multiple experiments to be as sure as we can be that what we have is what we think we have.
Is that 100% certain? No, but nothing is 100% certain. The idea that there is any experiment that ever tells anything with 100% certainty completely misunderstands what science is.
Science is the best method we have of being less wrong than we were before. It has nothing to do with telling the Truth. Science can't tell the Truth, because it starts from the basic premise that we don't know what the Truth is. It perpetually remains in that position to ensure we don't miss anything. Because if you believe you know the Truth, you won't look at evidence to the contrary. Science must be willing to look at evidence to the contrary or it is a worthless practice. Just like all other forms of investigation that do the same....
There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are). Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome, as found by WGS when we fractionate the samples. Exosomes do not contain the same material inside (the same RNA/DNA sequences every time) nor do they have those unique proteins on the outside, nor does the extracellular milieu contain the same amount of exosomes as it does virions (there are in general many more virions than there are exosomes in any random sampling). This is an assumption on my part. I am going on pictures I have seen, I have never done the experiments on viruses myself, but I have seen a lot of pictures.
Does that make me correct? Even if I had done the experiments myself, would that make me correct? No, but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that it is incorrect either, therefore, it is, for me, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because I have seen no reason to doubt it.
As for apopotic blebs. When a cell undergoes apoptosis, like when it gets really sick from poison, it breaks up into little bubbles (blebs). These blebs are not uniform in size like virions are, nor do they contain unique sequences of RNA/DNA like virions do.
The idea that there is "no such thing as a virus" does not match with documentation or experiment. IF it is all a fraud, it isn't because "the experiments haven't been done correctly". It would have to be a conspiracy of all scientists, not just those at the top, and I know from personal experience that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.
I think the whole "doesn't match with Koch's principles" thing is controlled opposition, designed to make those that don't understand the minutia of cell biology believe something plausible to discredit everything else they say.
Just like Flat Earth is for those who don't understand physics.
See = Vision.
Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.
What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.
That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.
They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.
They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).
They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.
They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.
And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"
THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."
It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.
If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.
That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.
Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.
So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.
Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
The human genome started with a real, live human.
But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION -- an assumption that these particles are "virons" when in reality they are fragments of the genetic material that was MIXED into this soup, and were created when the toxins did what toxins do.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.
Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.
Stefan Lanka not only showed that the "virus" image is created by the process the virologist uses, but also showed that the "genome" was created in a computer, also WITHOUT starting with any material from any human. Got the exact same genetic sequence. No virus, because no human or animal fluid to start the process with. Just the mixture of other genetic materials and the toxins.
Same result.
Explain that.
1/2
I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way).
People in the macroscopic world rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.
Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.
Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.
What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. Not to say it can't be done, but the effort v. reward is unbalanced.
We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.
If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.
This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.
You say a lot of things in the “process” they use, that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.
I assert it is not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.
This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.
Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.
This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.
… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.
Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.
2/2
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
How can you say both:
and
???
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
Really?
Are you sure?
Are you 100% positive about that?
Like, absolutely 100%?
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because "proof" is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not, is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced some result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt born of reason, and not desire, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
If you are suggesting we can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
We have been programmed to not see that we are in The Matrxi and to believe in dogma. That doesn't make us stupid.
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
Assuming you agree that a "virus" is some discreet unit/object that exists in the real world, you'll find that the current "proofs" for its existence is masked through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Just like how we don't actually own our shares and how the financial markets is a scam obscured through layers of obfuscation.
That Stefan Lanka paper should lead you in the right direction. All current "proofs" for "viruses" as popularly understood are merely arguments, the same as telling you there's a cat in the box. It's only when you decide to actually see the cat yourself do you realize the box is actually empty.
Thank you for this. Really opened my eyes.
Interesting, isn't it?
Of course, a person has to be willing to at least check it out in order to get anything from it.
Glad you found it of value.
Slyver --
1 of 2:
My point is this:
Therefore ...
NONE of that has EVER been done with ANY virus in the history of virology.
Larry Corey, head of NIH Covid vaccine trials, said in 11/20/20, "“The studies aren’t designed to assess transmission. They don’t ask that question, and there’s really no information on this at this point in time.”
That's kind of a big deal. The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive assertion (in this case, that the vaccines prevent transmission). They didn't even look at that.
Guess why? Because NO virus has ever been proven to cause transmission of ANY virual illness. They tried to prove it with the Spanish Flu, and could not. It seems that since then, they stopped trying.
There are now more than 100 institutions around the world (FDA, CDC, NIH, foriegn versions of these, university labs who study viruses, etc.) who have stated on the record that they have NO SARS-CoV-2 VIRUS, ISOLATED FROM ANYTHING ELSE, in their labs, they know of NO lab anywhere in the world that does, and they know of NO PAPER by anyone, anywhere who has demonstrated this.
In a previous thread, I'm pretty sure that you, Slyver, posted a link as a rebuttal to me on this issue, where you claimed that a sample of SARS-CoV-2 could be purchased.
But what it seemed to me that you failed to comprehend was that the link you posted was for a MIXTURE of genetic materials, whereby it was CLAIMED that the virus was "in there."
This is the fundamental point that so many people are missing (including trained virologists): There is NO VIRUS in any test tube or petrie dish anywhere in the world ... that is not ALSO MIXED IN WITH OTHER GENTIC MATERIAL (monkey kidney cells, etc.).
This is THE ONLY WAY that virologists study "viruses."
This is not true for bacteria or other microorganisms -- ONLY viruses.
And it is NOT PROOF of anything, when they are NOT studying ONLY the things they claim to be studying (i.e. a "virus").
This is THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE that you continue to evade and dance around.
There was a time when EVERYBODY (in the "scientific community," such as it was) believed -- REALLY BELIEVED -- that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
EVERYBODY who was anybody believed it. They imprisoned Galileo for claiming otherwise. That is how strong their belief was -- and how universal it was.
But they were ... WRONG.
The same thing is going on TODAY, in the 21st century, when it comes to virology.
Virologists are uniformly of a BELIEF, and that belief is ... NOT BASED ON SCIENCE ... and it is ... WRONG.
OF COURSE, you believe that ALL virologists canNOT possibly be wrong. Of course, you believe it. So did I ... until I looked into what the other side was saying. BTW, that "other side" includes medical doctors, biologists, and one brave virologist who was willing to question the fundamental assumptions that ALL of modern virology is based on -- which is (a) Germ Theory (Pasteur), and (b) the Enders/Pebble paper from 1954.
As a side note, it appears that Louis Pasteur was a snake oil salesman/con man. He LIED about his various experiments, and documented his lies in his diary. But that's a side issue.
Again, you are missing the point. FIRST, you have to prove that they ARE virons. Which means: FIRST, you have to prove that viruses are REAL, and not cellular debris. NOBODY has ever done that.
Virologists say there is "not enough virus" in a bodily sample to "find the virus in it." The head of Wuhan's Virology lab said it. He said you couldn't even find "enough virus" if you had fluids from 10,000 people mixed together.
Question: Then HOW THE HELL DO VIROLOGISTS THINK THEY FIND IT?
Answer: They MIX the bodily sample with OTHER GENETIC MATERIAL, and then ... THEY POISON THE CELLS ...and when the cells die, as they must, the PROCLAIM IT WAS THE VIRUS "IN THERE" THAT DID IT.
ALL of those photos you are looking at are AFTER the "virus" was (a) mixed with OTHER GENETIC MATERIAL, (b) poisoned, and (c) then the CREATION of those things you see in the photos appear.
Those photos were NOT taken of something that was in the human body to begin with. They were CREATED by the PROCESS that virologists use (100% of the time, they use ONLY this process).
How do I KNOW this? Because virologist Stefan Lanka PROVED it -- but YOU do not want to look at that evidence, do you?
All of these "markers" and "surrogates" are COP OUTS.
Because virlogists cannot do the BASIC experiment to isolate and purify this thing they CLAIM exists, they make up all sorts of excuses to justify their belief.
That is EXACTLY what the "Sun revolves around the Earth" crowd did. It is scientific cowardace, because it does NOT follow the Scientific Method.
WE KNOW that ALL virologists use the SAME process to "isolate" a virus, which is NOT true isolation (it is MIXED with OTHER genetic material).
THEFORE, ALL of those points you are trying to make about the various surrogates and markers (i.e. cop outs for doing the real thing) are NOT VALID ... scientifically.
You could also just claim to sprinkle some magic fairy dust over the "virus" and its mixed-in-with genetic materials, and call it a day. It would be just as scientific to do so.
No, you have not, because that is NOT what virologists do.
You are ASSUMING that virologists somehow "find the virus in there," then pull it out, and then go through the process by fractionation, etc.
That is NOT what happens in those labs.
Every point you are making is about what they do AFTER the INITIAL PROCESS to "isolate" a virus.
What you are missing is that virologists have CHANGED THE DEFINITION of the word "isolate," and they use that term to mean something DIFFERENT than what it means to everyone else.
Here (again) is how it works:
(1) They take a bodily fluid from someone who has symptoms of illness.
(2) They MIX THAT FLUID with OTHER THINGS that HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL.
(3) They SPREAD this mixture on VERO CELLS (i.e. monkey kidney cells) WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL.
(4) Then, they STARVE the cells of nutrients.
(5) Then, the POISON the cells with antibiotics that are SPECIFICALLY TOXIC TO KIDNEY CELLS.
(6) If nothing happens (which is what happened in the original experiments), then they ADD MORE TOXINS.
(7) Eventually, the kidney cells DIE ... which they MUST do, because they are given enough poisons to make that happen.
(8) THEN ... (AND ONLY THEN) ... the virologist declares that it was the VIRUS that killed the kidney cells -- completely IGNORING the FACT that he poisoned the cells with toxins that are designed to kill kidney cells.
THAT is the ENTIRE PROCESS that 100% of virologists use 100% of the time, as the FIRST STEP in "isolating a virus" ... and THEN they go on to do all the things you mention.
AFTER that process is completed, then you can fractionate or do anything you want to the cellular debris that is left over, and it means NOTHING ... because there is NO PROOF that there was ever a REAL VIRUS in there in the first place.
Stefan Lanka PROVED this by doing a CONTROL experiment (which NO other virologist had EVER done in the past 70 years of virology) ... and he got the SAME RESULT when he started with NO fluid from any human.
I challenged you to explain THAT in a previous post ... but you instead IGNORED it.
Don't ignore it anymore.
It is the SUM TOTAL of my position. Everything else you are doing is just using red herring and straw man arguments, which evade the real point.
You are wrong. Plain and simple, you are wrong.
Dude, YOU are the one who posted a link for a SARS-CoV-2 sample that a lab could purchase ... and it said it was VERO CELLS.
WTF do you think VERO CELLS are? They are monkey kidney cells.
They ALSO use other genetic material, such as human fetal lung cells from a culture that was started 50 years ago.
What you CONTINUE TO MISS HERE is ... they MIX these materials WITH the thing they claim is a "virus" and then the claim that is "isolation."
Do yourself a favor: Look up the definition of "isolate." It does NOT mean to mix in with a bunch of other stuff.
No, dude, you have it wrong.
YOU are not a virologist, so you ASSUME that virology works the same as other science.
IT DOES NOT.
Virology is built on fundamental building blocks that are FALSE.
The testing they do is as I described it. ALL of their testing is done this way. They claim it is the ONLY way they can do it.
Judy Mikovitz, a virologist who claims she isolated HIV, was challenged by Andy Kaufman in a Zoom call, and she admitted that this is what she did, because as she stated, it is the ONLY way it can be done.
She has blinders on. She THINKS she is "isolating" the HIV virus, when in fact she is NOT.
You should watch the first video I linked in my OP. It is Kary Mullis explaining how he realized that "HIV causes AIDS" and no scientific backing whatsoever.
He, too, was NOT a virologist. He was a chemist, and he was helping out a virology lab. He ASSUMED (like you do) that virologists must have worked out the "HIV causes AIDS" claim via serious reserach.
He discovered this was not true. There was NO such research. NONE.
Likewise, there has NEVER been ANY virus isolated and purified, in the true sense of what those words mean, even though it is done routinely for bacteria and other microorganism.
Nicely done. Slyver is clearly new to this debate, which to those who are unaware has been raging since the early days of "HIV." "Scientists" these days have been indoctrinated in the new science of purification where you basically do the opposite and drown it in jargon, computer algorithms and a myriad of supercilious nonsense until no one knows which way is up. They sneer at Koch's postulates and other such old science that would easily pull the rug out. If Slyver is actually wondering what isolation and purification would look like to one of these old time scientists, the so called Perth Group has detailed this ad nauseum: http://www.theperthgroup.com/. The general idea is there must be a "gold standard" of isolated and purified "virus," using the classic methods of centrifuge, EM characterization, etc. Otherwise, the genome you are calling "the virus" may be something else entirely and you must resort to inference or guesswork. You further must show that it and IT ALONE can cause sickness. Otherwise there is unlimited potential for fraud and all manner of shenanigans, aka, "Virology." This is why the manufacturers of PCR tests will admit in the fine print that they do not start from said "gold standard" when sourcing the respective genetic material for replication (unfortunately without such a gold standard, we have no idea what is actually being replicated) That way if the house of cards ever falls, the blame has been shifted up the pyramid. "We used the best available commercial material, it's not our fault no one ever isolated or purified." Have you not wondered how these "viruses" can be both abundant enough to cause illness and require HAZMAT suits while at the same time being too difficult to get enough of a sample from a sick person to run a simple isolation experiment? You can't have it both ways. If we all had to wear masks to prevent the virus from spreading it stands to reason that it should be easy enough to get some mucus, run it in a centrifuge, draw material out of the band where the "virus" would be if it was there and see what you see under EM. The virus research community has somehow accepted through groupthink and peculiar reasoning that this is somehow unnecessary. Why bother, the computer software can assemble the puzzle into more grant money. And there is the crux: no official source will ever fund a gold standard experiment, and dissenters can't afford a centrifuge and EM. Also, lets be honest, even if they ran 100 trials and found no virus every time, few would hear about it and even fewer would care. The virus scam was more or less designed to be unfalsifiable, with top down funding and authority, proprietary materials and equipment, high security labs, and gleeful crushing of all opposition (just ask Peter Duesberg). You would think it would give a well meaning researcher pause when they find themselves defending an edifice constructed by the likes of Gallo and Fauci. Its amazing how much self delusion can arise from the strange alchemy of student debt and ego involvement. Publish or Perish. And no journal is going to publish anything that truly threatens the golden goose. More significantly, they are much too smart to have been fooled. The first Tarot card is the fool for good reason. You must first see yourself as the fool before you can walk the path of knowledge.
Excellent post.
I don't know how many people are still checking out this thread, but you stated it well.
A very interesting thing to do is watch that 2nd link I posted in my OP for the "House of Numbers" video. Fast forward through and only watch the Q&A for the "experts" who are interviewed (including Fauci, Gallo, and virologists). They often refuse to answer, and when they do, it is always double talk and evasive non-answers.
If they were honest people, they would just answer the question simply and clearly. But as you said, they have created a complex weave of obfuscation to the point that there is no such thing as a straight-forward answer from anyone. In most cases, they get either angry or arrogant that anyone would dare question their fundamental premeses.
Like Slyver, they ASSUME things without evidence. And that leads to nothing but error and evasiveness.
Slyver --
2 of 2:
Because that's what virologists do. Maybe YOU don't, but virologists DO.
Have you read the Enders paper from 1954? That's where it all started.
YOU are not a virologist, working with "viruses," so your experience is irrelevent to this discussion.
YOU are not a virologist and YOU do not work with viruses.
That is what you stated, right?
YOU are the one who brought up the photos that are derived from electron microscopy. So, what do you DO with those photos is you don't LOOK at them?
How do you KNOW you are "seeing virons" in those photos if you don't LOOK at them?
That's because you choose to ignore my point.
Oh ... OK ... NOW I get it.
Joke is on me, I guess. You have been trolling me this whole time. Nothing you posted is serious, but at least others who read this can get an idea of the problem with virology.
If you are NOT trolling, then what the FUCK is your problem, dude? Can you not READ?
There were TWO experiments, one WITH a bodily fluid and one WITHOUT. The TWO experiements ended in the SAME result, which was a "virus" found in the electron microscope photos that you apparently do not look at.
This method was sued to prove that the ONLY method that ALL virologist use results in something that "looks like a virus" but is actually caused by something that is not a virus.
But YOU are not a virologist.
And YOU do not look at photos, so OK.
BINGO. You have NOT researched this issue from the side that opposes your viewpoint.
Instead, you have DISMISSED IT OUT OF HAND, WITH NO CRITIAL THINKING AT ALL.
That is an ASSUMPTION you are making because remember ... YOU are NOT a virologist, and YOU do NOT do this kind of work.
But the people do this kind of work ... DO IT THIS WAY, whether you want to believe it or not.
I could go down to any hospital in America and find an entire team of doctors who will blatantly say that no vaccine is harmful to anyone. They will say the Covid vaccine is (a) safe, (b) effective against contagion, and (c) effective against transmission.
They will say this despite the FACT that NONE of these claims have ANY science to back them up. They are ALL false claims.
But THEY belief it. That's because they drank the Kool-Aid and think they are smarter than anyone else who did not go through their system of indctrination.
But it makes no difference what they THINK.
The TRUTH is independent of what they think.
It is also independent of what you or I think. Only the evidence can point us in the right direction.
But to have any chance of heading in the right direction ... we must be willing to LOOK at the evidence.
YOU ... are not willing to look at the EVIDENCE presented by the other side of your arguement.
I once thought what you thought. But unlike you, I DID look at the other side, and I discovered that their evidence is the superior evidence, no matter what people like you -- who REFUSE to look at their evidence -- might think, due to their willful ignorance.
So, Slyver ... I made it about halfway through the 2/2 post of yours, but I must head out for the day.
I will say this:
You (once again) replied to a point of mine by simply posting links to articles or "studies" that you apparently think refute my point. You expect ME to wade through possibly several hours of reading and thinking about what those actually mean, but you are too fucking lazy to just make YOUR point and then use them to back up your point.
So, I checked out the first one, very briefly (because that's all it really takes if you know what you are looking for -- which YOU DO NOT). It is this:
https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jb.91.4.1645-1651.1966
Go straight to "Materials and Methods" section. It CLEARLY states in there that the reserachers used "viral cultures" (which is an immediate signal that it was not purified virus) and these cultures included OTHER GENETIC MATERIAL, OTHER THAN A "VIRUS" such as: (a) embyonated eggs, (b) mouse embryo, (c) chinese hampster lun cell, (d) calf serum, and a bunch of other shit I would have to look up to find out what sort of drugs they were adding to this mixed soup of chemicals.
What they were NOT doing is looking at an isolated/purified sample of a VIRUS ... because IT DOES NOT EXIST. If it did, then THAT is what they would look at.
You have done this TWICE now in our discussions. I do not believe you even LOOK at these papers. I think you just Google something and link the first few things you find. You didn't read all of these -- and you sure as hell did not understand what they were doing, so you could not understand if their conclusions are in anyway meaningful.
More than HALF of all "scientific studies" are completely worthless, either due to bad science or corruption via funding that produces results before the reserach is done. This is not ME saying this. This is the editors of Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
So, you want ME to jump through some hoops by reading through all this, when YOU have not done it yourself.
You also did not watch the videos I linked in my OP. This means you just jumped into the discussion, attempting to refute my position, not even understanding what my position is.
IF (and ONLY IF) you watch those videos so that you can clearly state (a) what MY position really is and (b) why YOU think it is wrong, specifically ... THEN I would be interested in continued debate.
I have changed my position (from what you believe to what I now believe), so I am open to new LOGIC and EVIDENCE.
But you have not provided anything but obfuscation and obstinance.
You don't even read (or understand) the citations that YOU provide, and you do not give me the courtesy of understanding what my position is.
So, if you are not willing to meet me halfway, then I am no longer interested in this discussion with you.
Hopefully others who read this will get something out of it.
Have a nice day.