The bigger tell is how lab animals are made to be ill. And humans in controlled studies.
Swapping spit doesn't work. Injecting blood from infected same species organisms (that doesn't trigger blood type rejection) doesn't work. I'll try to find it (it keeps moving and being deleted but it is available on pubmed), but there was an experiment with about 100 servicemen in 1918 where they volunteered to try and get sick with the Spanish Flu, and the researchers could not make them sick by any means, finally resorting to having them spit in each others' mouths with zero success.
Animals cannot be given a specific human illness solely by exposure to humans. It requires adjuvants like aluminum, petroleum products like polyethylene glycol, a "matrix" like FBS- which is Fetal Bovine Serum- calf's blood, Vero cells from green monkey kidneys, and antibiotics. This "base" is combined with cultured snot or the resultant product of the cell fractionation, injected into the test subject, and when the test subject becomes ill- the author points to the cultured snot/test cells as the cause, completely ignoring the effect of the mixture of incredibly toxic adjuvants, each of which could on its own result in an illness response.
Understanding the intricacies of cell fractionation is not the issue. The issue is that that the variables tested are not remotely independent variables and they never have been. I posit this is because they cannot work in the way they are described independently (and it is common knowledge that you need adjuvants in a vaccine or the immune response will not happen).
The reason these "waste products" have very specific genetic codes is because humans have very specific genetic codes that are incredibly dynamic and operate procedurally. When you cut your arm, you have a very specific response to the pain that triggers inflammation and the routing of resources like platelets to begin the healing process. When you are exposed to some extreme toxin like radiation, people have almost exactly the same physiological responses that produce identical cancers that can be identified with genetic testing. I am not saying I understand the purpose of the particles we call viruses or their functions, I am simply pointing out that the entirety of their existence in mainstream medicine and virology is based on flimsy lies.
If you cannot be made sick by exposure to the virus, or a "purified" version in saline, water, host blood, or host mucus, nothing in these substances is pathogenic. The only thing that causes illness is the adjuvants.
Now the adjuvants CAN kick off specific immune/detox reactions that can mirror the body's natural responses, and those may have the ability to create a small illness now that results in a small illness later. But that is at the cost of incredibly toxic adjuvants that accumulate and cause their own long-term chronic issues. If vaccines didn't leave a mark and result in increased overall health, explain the reality of things like this (it's also the food and soap and air and water obviously):
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/older-millennials-chronic-health-conditions.html
Don't get bogged down in the intricacies of experimental prose in the results, and instead evaluate the experimental design. If independent variables are not actually tested, the study is fraudulent and any forthcoming conclusion does not accurately explain reality. With enough money and the ability to exclude study members for any reason at all, you can prove almost anything in a peer-reviewed study. My father practiced medicine for 45 years and his assumption is that 95% of peer-reviewed studies are nonsense.
The bigger tell is how lab animals are made to be ill. And humans in controlled studies.
Swapping spit doesn't work. Injecting blood from infected same species organisms (that doesn't trigger blood type rejection) doesn't work. I'll try to find it (it keeps moving and being deleted but it is available on pubmed), but there was an experiment with about 100 servicemen in 1918 where they volunteered to try and get sick with the Spanish Flu, and the researchers could not make them sick by any means, finally resorting to having them spit in each others' mouths with zero success.
Animals cannot be given a specific human illness solely by exposure to humans. It requires adjuvants like aluminum, petroleum products like polyethylene glycol, a "matrix" like FBS- which is Fetal Bovine Serum- calf's blood, Vero cells from green monkey kidneys, and antibiotics. This "base" is combined with cultured snot or the resultant product of the cell fractionation, injected into the test subject, and when the test subject becomes ill- the author points to the cultured snot/test cells as the cause, completely ignoring the effect of the mixture of incredibly toxic adjuvants, each of which could on its own result in an illness response.
Understanding the intricacies of cell fractionation is not the issue. The issue is that that the variables tested are not remotely independent variables and they never have been. I posit this is because they cannot work in the way they are described independently (and it is common knowledge that you need adjuvants in a vaccine or the immune response will not happen).
The reason these "waste products" have very specific genetic codes is because humans have very specific genetic codes that are incredibly dynamic and operate procedurally. When you cut your arm, you have a very specific response to the pain that triggers inflammation and the routing of resources like platelets to begin the healing process. When you are exposed to some extreme toxin like radiation, people have almost exactly the same physiological responses that produce identical cancers that can be identified with genetic testing. I am not saying I understand the purpose of the particles we call viruses or their functions, I am simply pointing out that the entirety of their existence in mainstream medicine and virology is based on flimsy lies.
If you cannot be made sick by exposure to the virus, or a "purified" version in saline, water, host blood, or host mucus, nothing in these substances is pathogenic. The only thing that causes illness is the adjuvants.
Now the adjuvants CAN kick off specific immune/detox reactions that can mirror the body's natural responses, and those may have the ability to create a small illness now that results in a small illness later. But that is at the cost of incredibly toxic adjuvants that accumulate and cause their own long-term chronic issues. If vaccines didn't leave a mark and result in increased overall health, explain the reality of things like this (it's also the food and soap and air and water obviously): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/older-millennials-chronic-health-conditions.html
Don't get bogged down in the intricacies of experimental prose in the results, and instead evaluate the experimental design. If independent variables are not actually tested, the study is fraudulent and any forthcoming conclusion does not accurately explain reality. With enough money and the ability to exclude study members for any reason at all, you can prove almost anything in a peer-reviewed study. My father practiced medicine for 45 years and his assumption is that 95% of peer-reviewed studies are nonsense.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124