Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point too deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!
Great piece here...... I knew by cc'-ing you, I'd release the Kraken here. This is very well stated. And I'm pretty sure I identify with at least some of the videos and writings you might have watched and read for the backdrop of your thesis.
Yeah, thanks for dragging me in. I tangled with Slyver a few years back. He's clearly educated in the scientific method and these processes so I look forward to his feedback on my missive. I've tried to poke holes in this for years now, and looked for anybody that could, but can't find either - it's air tight. All I've ever see from our "experts" (Malone, Mikovits, McCullough, etc.) are dismissals, denials and inane defenses of an indefensible subject. The jig is up. They had their chance. Their silence is deafening. They can't address any of these points head-on, so they don't even try.
And yeah, I've shared a few videos over the years for those wanting to dig deeper, but this first part of "The Viral Delusion" pretty well sums up what I had to say as a good primer -> https://www.bitchute.com/video/jajyAdPMdzfJ/
If somebody can watch this and not come away, at a minimum, having some serious questions and concerns about boogey-men viruses, then I just don't know what to say.
Quite right. I like Dr. McCollough as a brilliant and honest medical doctor. In saying this, He is more 'excusable' in this arena because he is a medical doctor...... Yet, Dr. Malone.....ehh, I don't trust him for 'some' reason. For Dr. Mikovits, I'm convinced she suffers from PTSD and is a bit daffy. I watched Dr. Kaufman ask her some questions and it was very visible her PTSD was showing.
Absolutely. McCullough ins't qualified as are Malone and Mikovits.
But here's the kicker. I believe that both of them firmly BELIEVE their training and education...errr... brainwashing. I'm quite sure Judy does anyway. I've seen her on two occasions get cornered by Dr, Kaufman during webinars. Both were hard to watch. She simply couldn't answer his simple and direct questions in the least, reverting to 3+ minute jargon-filled, non-sensical ramblings. When Dr. Kaufman would point out the flaws in her ramblings, she would just repeat herself with more techno-babble nonsense. But I don't think she was trying to be deliberately deceptive. I genuinely think she believes she has worked with boogeymen-viruses and her psyche simply won't allow her to even entertain the possibility that she might have been deceived.
"It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled".. eh?
As to Dr. Malone, I've only seen him questioned on the topic once in the presence of the nodding Dr. McCullough. He gave the classic 1-minute "wave-of-the-hand" blanket dismissal that I've seen others do as I mentioned in the missive. "Well of course boogeymen-viruses are real, myself and thousands of other virologists have been working with them for decades...this "no virus" argument is a controlled opposition attempt to divide the truther community'''...blah blah blah. And of course, now millions of people just turn around and parrot what he said. Highly effective stuff.
He too may very well believe he and his colleagues have "worked with viruses". It's hard to say.
As to all three, I fully appreciate their coming out and opposing the dominant Covid nonsense, so I applaud them for that. But none have made an effort to counter the points made by the "no viruses camp" assertions. And to me, that says it all. Because if I was a virologist, I'd want to put these assertions to rest as soon as I possibly could. If for no other reason, to assure the world that fear of the boogeyman-virus is a valid concern.
But nope, we're coming up on 3-years now without a single attempt. And frankly, you could call it 8 years now since Dr. Lanka won the measles appeal case. And 20 years since Dr. Lanka first came out asserting boogeymen-viruses don't exist. And more like 30-years since the Perth Group pointed out that nobody had found any HIV boogeyman-virus, and implied in their assertions was that they couldn't find any papers of any kind that truly isolated a boogeyman-virus.
So 30-years running in reality and 3 years that have gone "viral" shall we say, with the mass truther community. All without a single, direct rebuttal to the very simple assertions.
That's game over in my book. And of course, the health modality I ascribe to, figured out by a giant of a genius I might add, asserted for the last 15-years of his life that there was no proof of the boogeyman-virus. But if there were, like bacteria, they would perform a restorative/repair role in our body, not a destructive, contagious dis-ease causing role as has been blamed on all these so-called "germs" (bacteria and fungi).
When you can see that all institutional models prevailing today are in the business of selling us "fear", above all else, you realize the essence of all the deception. They want us scared so we give our power away to them -> blind trust in authority is their ultimate goal.
First, I want you to know I very much appreciate you taking the time and effort to state your case clearly. Also, I want you to know you have given me things to consider, but it will take time. I may respond directly later, but for now let me address one thing that stood out.
an actual "thing" called a boogeyman-virus must be proven to exist.
...
calling a bacteriophage a virus is like calling a donkey a unicorn that lost its horn
If you have two batches of the same bacteria in a medium, identical in every way, but you add isolations of a bacteriophage to one and not to the other, and one dies in the same way, every time, is that not evidence of the existence of something in that isolate? I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in, but I have personally done chain transfections, taking the supernatent from one infected set of cells and infected another set of cells producing the same results, on and on, ad infinitum.
In other words, I have made my own isolations from these infected cells. You don't need to add anything (except water), you just isolate through standard techniques (in this case centrifugation). So unless they added something from the very first isolate, and somehow that "something" continues through dilution after dilution from each subsequent isolate, your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.
Only biological material, or chemicals made by biological processes can persist through continued dilutions (because somehow it keeps getting made). Whatever that biological material is, it acts identical to virologists ideas of a virus. In addition, the function of bacteriophage proteins and the DNA that encodes those proteins contained within them has been studied in extreme detail. These studies were done with controls.
The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous. I myself have done hundreds of such experiments. I mean, there's an entire field of bacteriology called phage typing, whereby specific phage isolates are added to bacteria samples to determine the type of bacteria present. Each time this is done there is a control.
I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid. They aren't stupid. Biologists understand full well the scientific process. Some papers have problems, and not all scientists follow the scientific process as well as they should, but that is more a function of the publishing process than the scientific process. Scientists, in general, understand the process very well. They understand the importance of hypothesis and controls. They understand that their results, and more importantly, their conclusions aren't "truth." There are some that aren't as bright as they think they are, but they aren't all idiots. In fact, in my experience, the vast majority are pretty damn smart. They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma). In other words, they aren't "missing something" in their experiments (controls, stuff being added into their mediums, hypotheses, etc.), they are being restricted from looking in certain directions (dogma). THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)
I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.
I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in
Correct, that's what we're saying. If you have a pocket full of change and I say "isolate" the pennies from the nickels, dimes and quarters, regardless of whether you can visually identify the pennies or not, until you "isolate" the pennies from the mix, you don't have an "Isolated pennies" yet.
your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.
Your reasoning is rightfully starting with the fact that you have a known "thing", the bacteriophage, that you're looking for, that you've seen, that others have found, seen and "isolated" in the past. Our argument is, nobody has yet been able to START WITH this "known thing" called a boogeyman-virus. Because of this, they can now claim any particle they find at the bottom of the viral culturing petri dish, that wasn't put into the toxic soup in the beginning, is a boogey-man virus as that "thing" wasn't there in the beginning.
I didn't include this in my original missive but you may be familiar with this idea of an "exosome" (outside the body (cell)). It's just a catch-all word they use to describe little particles they can't identify as some "known thing". But the great irony of these exosomes is that virologists are forced to reluctantly admit that they can't tell the difference between exosomes and boogeymen-viruses. The virologists say they look identical to one another - same size, shapes, morphology, etc. This is a damning admission. But then, they want us to turn around and agree that their electron microscope pictures they point their little red arrows at are really boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes. We assert that all these "things" are just "exosomes", or as they sometimes also call them "extracellular vesicles" - which is the same thing. All of it is just particles of the decayed, disintegrated vero cells...and possibly just particles that were in the FBS serum for all we know. But at the end of the day, just particles.
No virologist or scientist has ever taken these particles they point to in the electron microscope pictures following the cytopathic effect in the cultures, isolated them from the toxic brew (using the real definition of course) and then taken these fully isolated particles they claim are boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes or extracellular vesicles, and gone on to infect lab animals or humans via normal so-called "infection vectors" that ultimately causes the symptoms and dis-ease said to be caused by the boogeyman-virus in the bottom of their petri dish.
And furthermore, no scientific paper exists where they can demonstrate that these newly isolated particles can be introduced to a healthy cell line and shown to enter the cellular membrane via any alleged "receptor" (e.g. "ACE receptor) and then go on to use the cellular machinery to "replicate" themselves. They can't "see" this of course, because you have to kill everything to see at this magnification level with electron microscopes. The fact that Royal Rife and Gaston Naessens "somatoscope" dark-field microscopy does exist today, although not used in mainstream establishment labs is lost on them. If dark-field microscopy was used, they COULD see this alleged boogeyman-virus receptor breach and replication process happening....if it were true. But we assert it isn't true, and therefore, nobody in the field of virology would attempt such a feat.
So it's not just a matter of taking pictures of particles with an electron microscope that proves the existence of the boogeyman-virus. That's only a third of the equation. The burden of proof is on the virologist to demonstrate this receptor breach, intra-cellular machinery takeover event and replication process to demonstrate the second third of the equation. And should they succeed at this, then the final third of the equation is to take these newly replicated boogeymen-viruses, isolate them and introduce them to human subjects or lab animals via normal "infection vectors", not with injections into the sterile body cavity and bloodstream, which then exhibit the symptoms and alleged dis-ease the boogeyman-virus is said to cause. Really it's the second and third part of the equation that are essential. The electron microscope pictures are entirely unnecessary in the proof.
All this to say, the problem we have with both the viral culturing and sequencing techniques is there is no scientific proof that the starting "material" is anything other than RNA/DNA derived from the human bodily fluids/tissues or the vero cells. Without definitively demonstrating the provenance of the RNA/DNA, nothing can be proven. And Occam's razor suggests that's all these virologists are doing with their sequencing (assembling) process - they're working with human RNA/DNA fragments due to the natural bodily process of apoptosis, which is always heightened when a person is sick to make it all the more obvious what's going on.
The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous.
I fully agree. You're working with a REAL "thing" that exists in nature. Virologists are not. It's this simple.
I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid.
I never said such a thing and I hope you don't think I implied it. We all believe what we've been taught. This is at the crux of the issue - not intelligence levels or IQ or whatever. It's a situation of "blind belief in authority" where today's working virologists had to have blindly believed their professors and teachers in medical school in order to get their degree and license. And assuming you don't suspect you're being deceived in any way, this is perfectly understandable. It's happened in all walks of life, professions, disciplines, etc. I've pierced but a handful - but virology and health are my specialties - thanks to Cooties-1984 I might add.
Scientists, in general, understand the process [scientific method] very well.
I totally agree. I'm not suggesting they don't. I'm simply saying all their papers do NOT follow the fundamental tenants of the scientific method. It's not a problem with "understanding". This is simply a case of "this is how you do it...follow the rules...do what others that came before you did...and above all else....don't ask too many questions". I can't think of any better explanation then this -> if you want to keep your paycheck, pay off your loans and live the lifestyle you've become accustomed to, maintain your reputation, etc., your best bet is to "go along to get along" on the off chance you start getting cold feet...
They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma).
I agree again. They've been deceived within the dogma of their discipline. Furthermore, many assume that if you didn't receive the same education that they had, then you can't possibly be qualified to question their methods and techniques. This is why it took somebody like Dr. Lanka, one of their own, to blow the lid off of things and add credibility to the "no virus camp" claims.
THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)
Agreed again, 100%!
I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.
Great! That's all I can hope for. I don't expect anybody to believe me straight-away. It took me a good 6-months to come around to all this. I was a heavy skeptic from the start. It was the lack of credentialed virologists countering the assertions and arguments of the "no virus camp" that finally swayed me. It was clear they had nothing to offer but dismissal/denial. And as I mentioned, I honestly believe Judy Mikovits does fully BELIEVE she has worked with viruses all her life. I don't think she's trying to deceive us by defending her work. She literally doesn't understand how she was fooled. That's my take on it anyway. And the same may hold true for Dr. Malone as well. It's hard to say. All I know for sure is that neither these two, nor anybody else has even attempted to respond to the "no-virus-camp" assertions in any meaningful way. And they've all been invited to discuss at open round tables thousands of times now over the past 3 years. No takers, no talkers and none are willing to go on record.
I wish you luck in poking around with the material and look forward to your professional assessment in the future. Now that you know the trick word "isolation" and the lack of control experiments in play, you'll be well armed to see through some of these not-so-obvious discrepancies.
I deep-dived the subject in 2020 and have presented it to hundreds of people the past few years. Learned a lot from my mistakes, and what resonates with the different personality types I'm dealing with.
Honestly, I enjoy interacting with the skeptical professional scientist types the best. They push back and help me strengthen my position by pointing out the gaps, if any exist. After about a dozen of these interactions over the past few years, I'm confident that the "no virus" argument is now well beyond air-tight.
Slyver knows his stuff, no doubt about it. I look forward to his pushback/feedback.
Anyway, thanks for your vote of confidence and keep up the fight! We're still outnumbered like 10 to 1 out there in the wild!!!
@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0 , u/slyver
Continuing...
Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point too deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!
Great piece here...... I knew by cc'-ing you, I'd release the Kraken here. This is very well stated. And I'm pretty sure I identify with at least some of the videos and writings you might have watched and read for the backdrop of your thesis.
Yeah, thanks for dragging me in. I tangled with Slyver a few years back. He's clearly educated in the scientific method and these processes so I look forward to his feedback on my missive. I've tried to poke holes in this for years now, and looked for anybody that could, but can't find either - it's air tight. All I've ever see from our "experts" (Malone, Mikovits, McCullough, etc.) are dismissals, denials and inane defenses of an indefensible subject. The jig is up. They had their chance. Their silence is deafening. They can't address any of these points head-on, so they don't even try.
And yeah, I've shared a few videos over the years for those wanting to dig deeper, but this first part of "The Viral Delusion" pretty well sums up what I had to say as a good primer -> https://www.bitchute.com/video/jajyAdPMdzfJ/
If somebody can watch this and not come away, at a minimum, having some serious questions and concerns about boogey-men viruses, then I just don't know what to say.
Quite right. I like Dr. McCollough as a brilliant and honest medical doctor. In saying this, He is more 'excusable' in this arena because he is a medical doctor...... Yet, Dr. Malone.....ehh, I don't trust him for 'some' reason. For Dr. Mikovits, I'm convinced she suffers from PTSD and is a bit daffy. I watched Dr. Kaufman ask her some questions and it was very visible her PTSD was showing.
Absolutely. McCullough ins't qualified as are Malone and Mikovits.
But here's the kicker. I believe that both of them firmly BELIEVE their training and education...errr... brainwashing. I'm quite sure Judy does anyway. I've seen her on two occasions get cornered by Dr, Kaufman during webinars. Both were hard to watch. She simply couldn't answer his simple and direct questions in the least, reverting to 3+ minute jargon-filled, non-sensical ramblings. When Dr. Kaufman would point out the flaws in her ramblings, she would just repeat herself with more techno-babble nonsense. But I don't think she was trying to be deliberately deceptive. I genuinely think she believes she has worked with boogeymen-viruses and her psyche simply won't allow her to even entertain the possibility that she might have been deceived.
"It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled".. eh?
As to Dr. Malone, I've only seen him questioned on the topic once in the presence of the nodding Dr. McCullough. He gave the classic 1-minute "wave-of-the-hand" blanket dismissal that I've seen others do as I mentioned in the missive. "Well of course boogeymen-viruses are real, myself and thousands of other virologists have been working with them for decades...this "no virus" argument is a controlled opposition attempt to divide the truther community'''...blah blah blah. And of course, now millions of people just turn around and parrot what he said. Highly effective stuff.
He too may very well believe he and his colleagues have "worked with viruses". It's hard to say.
As to all three, I fully appreciate their coming out and opposing the dominant Covid nonsense, so I applaud them for that. But none have made an effort to counter the points made by the "no viruses camp" assertions. And to me, that says it all. Because if I was a virologist, I'd want to put these assertions to rest as soon as I possibly could. If for no other reason, to assure the world that fear of the boogeyman-virus is a valid concern.
But nope, we're coming up on 3-years now without a single attempt. And frankly, you could call it 8 years now since Dr. Lanka won the measles appeal case. And 20 years since Dr. Lanka first came out asserting boogeymen-viruses don't exist. And more like 30-years since the Perth Group pointed out that nobody had found any HIV boogeyman-virus, and implied in their assertions was that they couldn't find any papers of any kind that truly isolated a boogeyman-virus.
So 30-years running in reality and 3 years that have gone "viral" shall we say, with the mass truther community. All without a single, direct rebuttal to the very simple assertions.
That's game over in my book. And of course, the health modality I ascribe to, figured out by a giant of a genius I might add, asserted for the last 15-years of his life that there was no proof of the boogeyman-virus. But if there were, like bacteria, they would perform a restorative/repair role in our body, not a destructive, contagious dis-ease causing role as has been blamed on all these so-called "germs" (bacteria and fungi).
When you can see that all institutional models prevailing today are in the business of selling us "fear", above all else, you realize the essence of all the deception. They want us scared so we give our power away to them -> blind trust in authority is their ultimate goal.
First, I want you to know I very much appreciate you taking the time and effort to state your case clearly. Also, I want you to know you have given me things to consider, but it will take time. I may respond directly later, but for now let me address one thing that stood out.
If you have two batches of the same bacteria in a medium, identical in every way, but you add isolations of a bacteriophage to one and not to the other, and one dies in the same way, every time, is that not evidence of the existence of something in that isolate? I guess you are stating the isolate is not actually an "isolate" and there are other things added in, but I have personally done chain transfections, taking the supernatent from one infected set of cells and infected another set of cells producing the same results, on and on, ad infinitum.
In other words, I have made my own isolations from these infected cells. You don't need to add anything (except water), you just isolate through standard techniques (in this case centrifugation). So unless they added something from the very first isolate, and somehow that "something" continues through dilution after dilution from each subsequent isolate, your idea of "something else" doesn't add up.
Only biological material, or chemicals made by biological processes can persist through continued dilutions (because somehow it keeps getting made). Whatever that biological material is, it acts identical to virologists ideas of a virus. In addition, the function of bacteriophage proteins and the DNA that encodes those proteins contained within them has been studied in extreme detail. These studies were done with controls.
The idea that no one ever noticed bad science being done on something like a bacteriophage, which has literally millions of experiments having been done on them is ludicrous. I myself have done hundreds of such experiments. I mean, there's an entire field of bacteriology called phage typing, whereby specific phage isolates are added to bacteria samples to determine the type of bacteria present. Each time this is done there is a control.
I swear, some people seem to believe that just because biologists have been brainwashed (which I agree with, and not just biologists), that that makes them stupid. They aren't stupid. Biologists understand full well the scientific process. Some papers have problems, and not all scientists follow the scientific process as well as they should, but that is more a function of the publishing process than the scientific process. Scientists, in general, understand the process very well. They understand the importance of hypothesis and controls. They understand that their results, and more importantly, their conclusions aren't "truth." There are some that aren't as bright as they think they are, but they aren't all idiots. In fact, in my experience, the vast majority are pretty damn smart. They aren't being fooled in the way you suggest. They are being fooled in other ways (through dogma). In other words, they aren't "missing something" in their experiments (controls, stuff being added into their mediums, hypotheses, etc.), they are being restricted from looking in certain directions (dogma). THAT is how science is controlled. (That and the publication process, which is where most of the fuckery happens.)
I can't really speak to mammalian viruses because I have personally never worked on them. I have read many experimental reports however, and have not previously noticed red flags. You have given me some specific things to look for however, and I will do so.
Correct, that's what we're saying. If you have a pocket full of change and I say "isolate" the pennies from the nickels, dimes and quarters, regardless of whether you can visually identify the pennies or not, until you "isolate" the pennies from the mix, you don't have an "Isolated pennies" yet.
Your reasoning is rightfully starting with the fact that you have a known "thing", the bacteriophage, that you're looking for, that you've seen, that others have found, seen and "isolated" in the past. Our argument is, nobody has yet been able to START WITH this "known thing" called a boogeyman-virus. Because of this, they can now claim any particle they find at the bottom of the viral culturing petri dish, that wasn't put into the toxic soup in the beginning, is a boogey-man virus as that "thing" wasn't there in the beginning.
I didn't include this in my original missive but you may be familiar with this idea of an "exosome" (outside the body (cell)). It's just a catch-all word they use to describe little particles they can't identify as some "known thing". But the great irony of these exosomes is that virologists are forced to reluctantly admit that they can't tell the difference between exosomes and boogeymen-viruses. The virologists say they look identical to one another - same size, shapes, morphology, etc. This is a damning admission. But then, they want us to turn around and agree that their electron microscope pictures they point their little red arrows at are really boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes. We assert that all these "things" are just "exosomes", or as they sometimes also call them "extracellular vesicles" - which is the same thing. All of it is just particles of the decayed, disintegrated vero cells...and possibly just particles that were in the FBS serum for all we know. But at the end of the day, just particles.
No virologist or scientist has ever taken these particles they point to in the electron microscope pictures following the cytopathic effect in the cultures, isolated them from the toxic brew (using the real definition of course) and then taken these fully isolated particles they claim are boogeymen-viruses and not exosomes or extracellular vesicles, and gone on to infect lab animals or humans via normal so-called "infection vectors" that ultimately causes the symptoms and dis-ease said to be caused by the boogeyman-virus in the bottom of their petri dish.
And furthermore, no scientific paper exists where they can demonstrate that these newly isolated particles can be introduced to a healthy cell line and shown to enter the cellular membrane via any alleged "receptor" (e.g. "ACE receptor) and then go on to use the cellular machinery to "replicate" themselves. They can't "see" this of course, because you have to kill everything to see at this magnification level with electron microscopes. The fact that Royal Rife and Gaston Naessens "somatoscope" dark-field microscopy does exist today, although not used in mainstream establishment labs is lost on them. If dark-field microscopy was used, they COULD see this alleged boogeyman-virus receptor breach and replication process happening....if it were true. But we assert it isn't true, and therefore, nobody in the field of virology would attempt such a feat.
So it's not just a matter of taking pictures of particles with an electron microscope that proves the existence of the boogeyman-virus. That's only a third of the equation. The burden of proof is on the virologist to demonstrate this receptor breach, intra-cellular machinery takeover event and replication process to demonstrate the second third of the equation. And should they succeed at this, then the final third of the equation is to take these newly replicated boogeymen-viruses, isolate them and introduce them to human subjects or lab animals via normal "infection vectors", not with injections into the sterile body cavity and bloodstream, which then exhibit the symptoms and alleged dis-ease the boogeyman-virus is said to cause. Really it's the second and third part of the equation that are essential. The electron microscope pictures are entirely unnecessary in the proof.
All this to say, the problem we have with both the viral culturing and sequencing techniques is there is no scientific proof that the starting "material" is anything other than RNA/DNA derived from the human bodily fluids/tissues or the vero cells. Without definitively demonstrating the provenance of the RNA/DNA, nothing can be proven. And Occam's razor suggests that's all these virologists are doing with their sequencing (assembling) process - they're working with human RNA/DNA fragments due to the natural bodily process of apoptosis, which is always heightened when a person is sick to make it all the more obvious what's going on.
I fully agree. You're working with a REAL "thing" that exists in nature. Virologists are not. It's this simple.
I never said such a thing and I hope you don't think I implied it. We all believe what we've been taught. This is at the crux of the issue - not intelligence levels or IQ or whatever. It's a situation of "blind belief in authority" where today's working virologists had to have blindly believed their professors and teachers in medical school in order to get their degree and license. And assuming you don't suspect you're being deceived in any way, this is perfectly understandable. It's happened in all walks of life, professions, disciplines, etc. I've pierced but a handful - but virology and health are my specialties - thanks to Cooties-1984 I might add.
I totally agree. I'm not suggesting they don't. I'm simply saying all their papers do NOT follow the fundamental tenants of the scientific method. It's not a problem with "understanding". This is simply a case of "this is how you do it...follow the rules...do what others that came before you did...and above all else....don't ask too many questions". I can't think of any better explanation then this -> if you want to keep your paycheck, pay off your loans and live the lifestyle you've become accustomed to, maintain your reputation, etc., your best bet is to "go along to get along" on the off chance you start getting cold feet...
I agree again. They've been deceived within the dogma of their discipline. Furthermore, many assume that if you didn't receive the same education that they had, then you can't possibly be qualified to question their methods and techniques. This is why it took somebody like Dr. Lanka, one of their own, to blow the lid off of things and add credibility to the "no virus camp" claims.
Agreed again, 100%!
Great! That's all I can hope for. I don't expect anybody to believe me straight-away. It took me a good 6-months to come around to all this. I was a heavy skeptic from the start. It was the lack of credentialed virologists countering the assertions and arguments of the "no virus camp" that finally swayed me. It was clear they had nothing to offer but dismissal/denial. And as I mentioned, I honestly believe Judy Mikovits does fully BELIEVE she has worked with viruses all her life. I don't think she's trying to deceive us by defending her work. She literally doesn't understand how she was fooled. That's my take on it anyway. And the same may hold true for Dr. Malone as well. It's hard to say. All I know for sure is that neither these two, nor anybody else has even attempted to respond to the "no-virus-camp" assertions in any meaningful way. And they've all been invited to discuss at open round tables thousands of times now over the past 3 years. No takers, no talkers and none are willing to go on record.
I wish you luck in poking around with the material and look forward to your professional assessment in the future. Now that you know the trick word "isolation" and the lack of control experiments in play, you'll be well armed to see through some of these not-so-obvious discrepancies.
Your patience has blown my mind. I am simply not able to reach people like him the way you did.
I deep-dived the subject in 2020 and have presented it to hundreds of people the past few years. Learned a lot from my mistakes, and what resonates with the different personality types I'm dealing with.
Honestly, I enjoy interacting with the skeptical professional scientist types the best. They push back and help me strengthen my position by pointing out the gaps, if any exist. After about a dozen of these interactions over the past few years, I'm confident that the "no virus" argument is now well beyond air-tight.
Slyver knows his stuff, no doubt about it. I look forward to his pushback/feedback.
Anyway, thanks for your vote of confidence and keep up the fight! We're still outnumbered like 10 to 1 out there in the wild!!!