New FOIA docs related to C19 origins. Forget speaker drama and start digging in !
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
I stated specifically NOT the PCR test. I am talking about lab tests. Some people talk about "covid never being isolated," then I point to numerous tests to the contrary. I've done it more times than I can count. I can do it again if you wish. It's all over the place. People then say, "That's not isolated. Here's what 'isolated' really means." To which I say, you have never performed these tests and have no idea what they are doing. I've even gone so far as to explain what the tests are doing, and how they are a form of isolation, and people still completely deny it, because it's only 99.99999999999999% isolation, and not 100% isolation.
It's all so silly.
As for your toothpaste taste, I can't say anything to that. I tasted nothing like pickles, but perhaps the experience was similar for you. Perhaps you even got a different coronavirus. Coronaviruses have been around for until millennia. SARS was reportedly made from other coronaviruses. SARS is reported to interact with specific receptors which are prevalent in the lungs, but also in the nasal cavity. Other viruses do that as well. There is nothing unique under the sun in virus land. On the contrary, it is highly likely (basically certain) that SARS was designed specifically to interact with those receptors. Perhaps it was chosen because of some other virus that does a similar thing.
I am not denying the propaganda, the lies in testing, the lies in diagnosis, that the vaccine is almost certainly responsible for more deaths than covid, etc. I have made the case for all of those things in great detail. But like all of the best lies, they are usually based on the truth. That is how you sell it. You can't convince all of the biologists that something exists unless something exists. You can however convince biologists that something is worse than it is. That is not hard at all. Biologists are people, and are just as subject to propaganda as anyone else, but actual tests can't be explained by "it doesn't exist" or "complete biology denial" as you support.
Ngmi, honestly. I can point to many things that have been “reported” over the years.
Epstein was close with universities for a reason. Our whole science system is a lie and they maintain it together with their blackmail webs.
This is called a straw man argument. I am talking about thousands of reports of isolation (very specific pieces of data) by hundreds of different labs/biologists. You are talking about some reports of completely unrelated things being fraudulent.
I agree with this completely. I have been a part of the "science system" for a substantial portion of my life. It's completely fubar. HOWEVER, the fucked up stuff is not in the experiments themselves (at least not these types of experiments that every undergrad does and has been repeated literally millions of times).
Run the same tests in the same way today, you'll get the same result. There was no new virus, they were testing for something present everywhere. Remember the pawpaw.
"scientists" are not thinking beings anymore, they're glorified technicians. They don't understand the results they're seeing and happily put any data that disagrees with their conclusions (like the pawpaw) from mind.
Trust the science? Fuck no. It's all fake.
I have run these exact same tests in other situations. They are common tests. It is basic biology. I am letting you know that there is evidence to the contrary. You are saying that the evidence must be wrong, despite the fact that it is basic science. You are justifying that statement with "scientists are not thinking beings anymore" etc.
Ok, is that true? in some ways I assert that yes, it is true. There is so much faith and dogma in the system and people don't know how to look past it. They have been trained to not see that the dogma even exists, while also being trained to espouse the exact opposite.
However, this lack of thinking is not true in the way you are applying it. It isn't true with respect to experiment. Experimental results are just measurements. Interpretation of those measurements relies on other things, but the other things in this particular case is other experimental measurements. What I am trying to tell you is, there is much less "interpreting" going on than you imagine. These particular isolation experiments rely on some very basic things with very solid foundations. They don't rely on believing in "germ theory," because they aren't looking for germs, they are looking for specific RNA sequences in specific areas of a cell. That they are found in some cells, and specific areas of those cells that exhibit a certain phenotype (exactly as if they were "sick" with a virus) and not in other cells or other areas of the "sick" cells is very hard to explain in any other way except that they have found a virus (foreign RNA in this case).
How do you think that RNA (which is completely foreign to humans) gets there, in the "sick" cells, and the specific areas of those cells if not by an invader (AKA a virus)?
I think you are believing what you want to believe and justifying it because if you allow yourself to think that you might be wrong about this very basic thing your whole theory falls apart. That is not investigation, and it has nothing to do with evidence. This is the appeasement of cognitive dissonance. You have a belief that must be true, and you will do whatever you can to justify it, including ignoring my arguments and evidence to the contrary.
NEVER trust the science. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking. Scientists are trained to not trust the science (except when it's not science it's dogma, and that is the fraud in the system). However, if you don't listen to the arguments presented you are purposefully ignoring evidence. Listening to arguments in earnest is not in any way the same thing as trusting them. Conflating the two is a serious flaw, and immediately proves an investigation false. If you assume something is false without looking at it, you have completely derailed from an honest investigation.
There is so much fuckery in the system it is ludicrous, however, extending some is fake to all is fake is a false generalization fallacy (AKA a logically flawed argument).