I am with you I had the same thing and haven't been sick since. I am open to maybe it was some other kind of sickness they unleashed or even vax shedding. But my son brought it back from High School and all but one in our family got it. My 7 year old daughter didn't get it.

She got it a year or so later from school, it was a milder form, but no of us got it again even though we didn't change our behavior and spent time with her as we always did. Immunity proven

You don't even know why it's bullshit.

Everyone wakes up on their timeline. I happy when they get up. I know people who truly believed WMDs in iraq. Now they know it was bs. That's okay. I could have forced them deeper in their foxhole by arguing or just wait them out.

The ideas that they can't be used to isolate a virus are ludicrous

This is the key remark you made in the above comment Slyver. On this, we agree completely. Your ability to isolate bacteriophages, of similar size, shape and morphology proves it's possible, just like what has been done with the nebulous "exosome". All this to say, anybody suggesting boogeyman-virus isolation is not possible is spewing nonsense - "ludicrous" as you say. We're not dealing with a technical problem here, it's something far more sinister.''

Dr. Tom Cowan was contacted by a guy whose profession was to literally "find very hard to find things". This guy stated that boogeymen-viruses would be one of the EASIEST things he could find given all the details of their alleged size/shape. He said he had been working in this unique field for over 40 years as one its well known specialists and had never once been asked to find any boogeymen-viruses, although he had a great deal of experience finding other trace substances/chemicals/elements in human tissue/fluid samples.

On the topic of bacteriophages, I understand the scientific community at large calls these a type of "virus". But this is highly misleading, quite on purpose I might add. Because before such an attribution can be made, an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist. And electron microscope pictures or viral culturing cytopathic effects (without control experiments, independent variables or hypothesis) or correlative epidemiology studies are not even remotely close to good enough. All this to say, calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn. First you have to prove the unicorn exists, only then can we speculate as to whether the donkey is related to the mythical creature.

Here is the core problem in a nutshell. The field of virology has been called out - COMPLETELY in a BIG WAY, with very easy to understand assertions from the "no boogeyman-virus" camp. And no virologist has even ATTEMPTED to respond to their assertions. Instead, they simply repeat this same basic line when confronted; "virologists have been working with boogeyman-viruses for decades so we know they exist" type deflections. This statement, knowing full well that Dr. Stefan Lanka won the famous "no proof of measles" case in 2015 as well as his 2020 viral culturing control experiment paper demonstrating you didn't need to add the fluids of a sick person (ostensibly containing a boogeyman-virus) to cause the cytopathic effect. And let's make no mistake, it is the cytopathic effect that virologists use as their ONE AND ONLY CLAIM as proof that viruses exist.

So Dr. Lanka showed he can produce the cytopathic effect without adding any boogeyman-viruses. This is key. He DEFINITIVELY demonstrates something else is causing these chromosomally abnormal, highly sensitive and reactive green monkey kidney cells to deteriorate and decay. Is it the lowering of the nutrition (FBS), the addition of the anti-biotics which are highly poisonous to living tissue, especially kidney tissue, or something else? My money is on the anti-biotics, ostensibly used to "sterilize" the vero cells to ensure no bacteria are present. But I can't prove that at the moment, it's merely speculation.

The front-half of this viral-culturing process is also a MAJOR problem, as the bodily fluids/tissues are not proven to contain any boogeyman-viruses before adding them to the toxic culture soup. How can we be sure there are any boogeyman-viruses at all without doing this step? How can we be sure there aren't 2 or 3 or more boogeyman-viruses? We can't be sure of anything actually. Our virologists excuse? The boogeyman-viruses are "too hard to find" or "there aren't enough in the sample" or "the boogeyman-viruses are hiding within the cell membrane". These statements are what our virologists were brainwashed to believe and say. Taken as a whole, they can be seen for what they are - deflections.

Doctors Cowan and Kaufman pressed a Wuhan virologist on a call back in late 2020 and asked if they could find a boogeyman-virus if they added 10 fluid/tissue samples of people sick with the same dis-ease together. The answer was "nope", not enough to find. They then asked 100, a vat with 1000 samples and got the same answer. They then asked 10,000, looking for the point at which the virologist would finally agree he could find them, but he stopped responding to them and moved to other questioners. This was a telling exchange in my opinion. First it demonstrated that the virologist had clearly never even attempted to find a virus in a real world sample. And second, that he couldn't answer the question if someone asked him about a vat of 1 billion fluid samples. He didn't know because he had no idea. He was just repeating his brainwashing. But most importantly, this exchange demonstrated to me that such absurdity simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that a microscopic fleck of my spittle can fly out of my mouth into yours, teaming with boogeyman-viruses, that can make you sick hours or days later. Both notions can not rationally be held as true, which in my reckoning, renders them both false.

However, the debate-ending assertions that we can all agree on without any hemming and hawing are the fact that virologists do not follow the scientific method in any way, shape or form. The classic viral-culturing process is 100% PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC. In fact, it's clearly not even treated as an experiment at all as no hypothesis is even stated in their papers let alone the defining of an independent variable. But the most damning part of it is that they do not run any control experiments. This is CLEARLY deliberate and undoubtedly NECESSARY to continue upholding the boogeyman-virus lie.

The biggest irony of all is, the 1954 Ender's measles paper is the basis for all modern viral culturing procedures today and the vast majority always cite this paper in their citations. And in that paper, Enders actually DOES PERFORM a control experiment as he states directly in the paper. He also states his results which COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED from the main experiment allegedly proving the measles boogeyman-virus existed. It's right there in black and white. He got the same results in 1954 as Dr. Lanka got in 2020. The "cytopathic effect" is the lynchpin of the whole deception. If there are two, three or dozens of ways to cause this cytopathic effect, the burden of proof is on the virologist to scientifically demonstrate how their particular tests cytopathic effect could ONLY have been caused by the mythical boogeyman-virus.

And let's not forget virology's very deliberate, and highly deceptive use of the word "isolate/isolation". As has been clearly pointed out and demonstrated by the "no virus camp" team over and over again in referencing the "Methods" section of hundreds of these papers, the most common use of the word Isolate/Isolation refers to either: 1. "Isolating" the fluid/tissue sample from the patient. or 2. Isolating the fluids/tissue sample from the swab or bronchial lavage constituents. Only under the rarest of cases has anybody seen any virology paper that actually attempts to filter and centrifuge the fluid/tissue down to a band of particles they allege to be boogeymen-viruses ---- which is what the uninitiated 99% of the population would ASSUME the virologist means when they say they "isolated the virus".

So we have deliberate deception stacked upon deliberate deception, sprinkled with deliberate deception from beginning to end in virology. The word "isolated" doesn't mean what we think it means, nobody checks for any boogey-man viruses in tissue/fluid samples prior to throwing them in the toxic culture mix, and nobody runs any control experiments to rule out other possible causes for the cytopathic effect. The rules of the game I was taught was "3 strikes and you're out!". And this complete lack of honesty, transparency and scientific rigor is wholly and completely INDEFENSIBLE in my opinion. And that is why, not a single credentialed virologist I'm aware of will sit down at the debate table with the "no boogeyman-virus camp" nor will they address these 3 basic points. It's quite clear to me the reason this is so is because they CAN'T DEFEND IT!!!

Now, I have heard quite a few virologists quickly turn the conversation to their more modern "Sequencing" techniques for proof of the boogeyman-virus. This process too is a load of rubbish on its face. The clearest point that can be made about their "Sanger/Metagenomic Sequencing" techniques is that they can never, ever, ever find a "fully intact viral genome" in their fluid/tissue samples. But of course, they want us to believe they can find 789 KAJILLION RNA fragments of the mythical boogeyman-virus sequence. How these people cannot see through this obvious deception is beyond me. It should be quite obvious, even to a child, that all these RNA fragments are, without even a shadow of a doubt, fragments of HUMAN RNA, the host in which they were derived from. The technicians attempts to say "we remove all known human RNA from our analysis" is disingenuous at best, deliberately deceptive at worst. The problem with this argument is, or course, that they don't catalog tiny fragments of known human RNA, they catalog full strand and/or mostly complete sequences of known human RNA. And should you be bored out of your mind enough to read through their explanation of this sequencing process, you see them eliminating these long/large strands of RNA right at the start. And many times, after this process they then chop up the remaining RNA fragments into even tinier pieces --- making them easier to work with to RE-ASSEMBLE their frankenstein-viruses.

The simplest analogy to this deceptively named "sequencing" process is this; imagine taking say "Grapes of Wrath" and shredding it up. Amidst the shreds, you would find the occasional complete sentence, maybe even several or a full paragraph. Maybe if you were a bad shredder, you might even miss a full page. And amidst this you would likewise find single words as well as single letters, etc. A whole mixed bag. Now your goal is to take this now shredded book and make it conform to your model (fake boogeyman-virus genome model), like for instance "For Whom the Bell Tolls". So you tell your software program to take all the shredded paper and stitch the letters, words, sentences, etc. together to match this book which it then does -> ASSEMBLY. The beginning and middle of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" assemble together beautifully. However as we get toward the end of this assembly process, as it turns out, we've run out of say "Os" and "Ts" for example as "For Whom the Bell Tolls" used more of these letters than "The Grapes of Wrath". Now, every time we hit the word "the", the software program can only give us "he", and for "cat" we get "ca", the words "to" and "too" vanish altogether in the final assembly process etc. And voila, this is how our magical, mythical "viral variants" are born. Last I heard, there were over 500,000 "SARS-COV2" variants in the the virologist's databases. This is absolutely LUDICROUS of course. But now you know how they do it and why they get the results they get. No two "viral sequencing" are ever identical and this is the reason why.

It should be noted for all other RNA/DNA "Sequencing" research the world over, the scientists always START with the complete, fully intact genome of the test subject, be it a carrot, mouse or human. They then go about snipping up the full genome to perform their experiments. This is what "sequencing" is for "everything else". But of course, not for our mythical boogeymen-viruses, they're the special exception to the rule.

out of space..

@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0