I replied to 2 other threads, where the SAME article has been posted. It has been posted more than twice. I haven't even looked at who was posting it -- the same user? I don't know.

But this is too important for people to continue to be led astray.

So, I am creating a new thread to get a conversation going about what these "studies" REALLY mean.

This was my response to the latest thread:

I realize that most people here do not have a lifetime of understanding scientific studies and literature -- myself included. I hated science in school, and never pursued it.

However, the medical and scientific industries have become so corrupted with lies, that we owe it to ourselves to become somewhat educated on this stuff, or else we will be mislead and lied to even more.

was associated with

EVERY time you see those words, it means it was NOT a clinical trial, where the thing was tested in people, and observations were recorded. No, that is NOT what it means. It means it was an epidemiological study. An epidemiological study is NOT a real study. It is a questionnaire. "How many grapfruits did you eat in the past year?" might be a question asked.

NOBODY can answer these questions accurately, and there is also a bias towards answering questions the way someone thinks they should be answered, rather than the true facts (even if they can be remembered).

Epidemiological studies are ONLY for the purpose of collecting data and THEN forming hypothesis that can LATER be studied in a real trial.

Always take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dr. Georgia Eads, a psychologist who became interested in learning about the scientific studies related to nutrition, became horrified when she read hundreds of papers and realized almost all of them are epidemiological, and almost all of those are biased and/or otherwise fraudulent. She doesn't even bother reading them anymore, because they have an 80% failure rate. Meaning, when an epidemiological study "is associated with" something, and then later a real clinical trial is run to test the hypothesis, the trial FAILS to prove what was suspected from the study 80% of the time.

It's worse odds than a coin flip.

binding to the SARS-CoV-2 host receptor ACE2

Because NOBODY has EVER isolated a purified sample of SARS-CoV-2, and NO SAMPLE EXISTS in any laboratory anywhere in the world ... there is NO PROOF that this ACE2 receptor exists, either.

It is ENTIRELY a conceptual fantasy, with NO PROOF that it exists. Therefore, any claim about it is ALSO conceptual. NOBODY has "looked at it" and seen this thing happening in real time.

NOBODY.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity

What does THAT mean? It looks to me like it means a "positive PCR test," which is a BOGUS claim. PCR is NOT a diagnostic tool, so positive/negative is completely meaningless. Therefore, so is the claim of positivity of SARS-CoV-2.

In reality, it means nothing at all.

infection of Vero E6 cells

EVERY time you see the word "vero" ... IT MEANS MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS ... in a PETRIE DISH ... in a LABORATORY. Vero cells are NOT human cells, and they are NOT in the body.

This is the fraud that forms the foundation of ALL of virology. They put something on vero cells, they poison the vero cells, the vero cells break down, and then they CLAIM the breakdown has meaning (namely, that a "virus" must have killed the cells, when in fact it was the poisons they fed the vero cells that caused them to break down).

When the word "vero" shows up, you KNOW it is NOT a clinical trial. Just a lab experiment -- which might or might not mean anything. There is no way to know until this is an actual trial with real people, or at least to start with real animals.

in vitro

"In vivo" means inside a living organism, such as a human, a monkey (living), a cat, a rat, a mouse, or anything living.

"In vitro" means NOT inside a living organism, but rather in a laboratory and in a petrie dish, test tube, or some other non-living apparatus.

This ENTIRE article/study is PURE SPECULATION.

Do these things help people who are sick?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

We have NO WAY OF KNOWING the answer to that, based solely on this paper.

Get a clue, guys. "Edumacate" yourself, and learn how to understand these things.

If you don't, you will continue to be fooled and lied to. And then others who want to "debunk" you will have an easy time of it, because you didn't understand what the hell you were reading in the first place.

This trash paper keeps getting posted on GAW, as if it means something.

It MIGHT be a step in the right direction, but there is NO WAY to know that without a real trial.

Insist on REAL science, not junk claims.

The fake news media pushes junk claims ALL THE TIME.

That should be a clue.

I replied to 2 other threads, where the SAME article has been posted. It has been posted more than twice. I haven't even looked at who was posting it -- the same user? I don't know.

But this is too important for people to continue to be led astray.

So, I am creating a new thread to get a conversation going about what these "studies" REALLY mean.

This was my resonse to the latest thread:

I realize that most people here do not have a lifetime of understanding scientific studies and literature -- myself included. I hated science in school, and never pursued it.

However, the medical and scientific industries have become so corrupted with lies, that we owe it to ourselves to become somewhat educated on this stuff, or else we will be mislead and lied to even more.

was associated with

EVERY time you see those words, it means it was NOT a clinical trial, where the thing was tested in people, and observations were recorded. No, that is NOT what it means. It means it was an epidemiological study. An epidemiological study is NOT a real study. It is a questionnaire. "How many grapfruits did you eat in the past year?" might be a question asked.

NOBODY can answer these questions accurately, and there is also a bias towards answering questions the way someone thinks they should be answered, rather than the true facts (even if they can be remembered).

Epidemiological studies are ONLY for the purpose of collecting data and THEN forming hypothesis that can LATER be studied in a real trial.

Always take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dr. Georgia Eads, a psychologist who became interested in learning about the scientific studies related to nutrition, became horrified when she read hundreds of papers and realized almost all of them are epidemiological, and almost all of those are biased and/or otherwise fraudulent. She doesn't even bother reading them anymore, because they have an 80% failure rate. Meaning, when an epidemiological study "is associated with" something, and then later a real clinical trial is run to test the hypothesis, the trial FAILS to prove what was suspected from the study 80% of the time.

It's worse odds than a coin flip.

binding to the SARS-CoV-2 host receptor ACE2

Because NOBODY has EVER isolated a purified sample of SARS-CoV-2, and NO SAMPLE EXISTS in any laboratory anywhere in the world ... there is NO PROOF that this ACE2 receptor exists, either.

It is ENTIRELY a conceptual fantasy, with NO PROOF that it exists. Therefore, any claim about it is ALSO conceptual. NOBODY has "looked at it" and see this thing happening in real time.

NOBODY.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity

What does THAT mean? It looks to me like it means a "positive PCR test," which is a BOGUS claim. PCR is NOT a diagnostic tool, so positive/negative is completely meaningless. Therefore, so is the claim of positivity of SARS-CoV-2.

In reality, it means nothing at all.

infection of Vero E6 cells

EVERY time you see the word "vero" ... IT MEANS MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS ... in a PETRIE DISH ... in a LABORATORY. Vero cells are NOT human cells, and they are NOT in the body.

This is the fraud that forms the foundation of ALL of virology. They put something on vero cells, they poison the vero cells, the vero cells break down, and then they CLAIM the breakdown has meaning (namely, that a "virus" must have killed the cells, when in fact it was the poisons they fed the vero cells that caused them to break down).

When the word "vero" shows up, you KNOW it is NOT a clinical trial. Just a lab experiment -- which might or might not mean anything. There is no way to know until this is an actual trial with real people, or at least to start with real animals.

in vitro

"In vivo" means inside a living organism, such as a human, a monkey (living), a cat, a rat, a mouse, or anything living.

"In vitro" means NOT inside a living organism, but rather in a laboratory and in a petrie dish, test tube, or some other non-living apparatus.

This ENTIRE article/study is PURE SPECULATION.

Do these things help people who are sick?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

We have NO WAY OF KNOWING the answer to that, based solely on this paper.

Get a clue, guys. "Edumacate" yourself, and learn how to understand these things.

If you don't, you will continue to be fooled and lied to. And then others who want to "debunk" you will have an easy time of it, because you didn't understand what the hell you were reading in the first place.

This trash paper keeps getting posted on GAW, as if it means something.

It MIGHT be a step in the right direction, but there is NO WAY to know that without a real trial.

Insist on REAL science, not junk claims.

The fake news media pushes junk claims ALL THE TIME.

That should be a clue.

I replied to 2 other threads, where the SAME article has been posted. It has been posted more than twice. I haven't even looked at who was posting it -- the same user? I don't know.

But this is too important for people to continue to be led astray.

So, I am creating a new thread to get a conversation going about what these "studies" REALLY mean.

This was my resonse to the latest thread:

I realize that most people here do not have a lifetime of understanding scientific studies and literature -- myself included. I hated science in school, and never pursued it.

However, the medical and scientific industries have become so corrupted with lies, that we owe it to ourselves to become somewhat educated on this stuff, or else we will be mislead and lied to even more.

was associated with

EVERY time you see those words, it means it was NOT a clinical trial, where the thing was tested in people, and observations were recorded. No, that is NOT what it means. It means it was an epidemiological study. An epidemiological study is NOT a real study. It is a questionnaire. "How many grapfruits did you eat in the past year?" might be a question asked.

NOBODY can answer these questions accurately, and there is also a bias towards answering questions the way someone thinks they should be answered, rather than the true facts (even if they can be remembered).

Epidemiological studies are ONLY for the purpose of collecting data and THEN forming hypothesis that can LATER be studied in a real trial.

Always take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. Dr. Georgia Eads, a psychologist who became interested in learning about the scientific studies related to nutrition, became horrified when she read hundreds of papers and realized almost all of them are epidemiological, and almost all of those are biased and/or otherwise fraudulent. She doesn't even bother reading them anymore, because they have an 80% failure rate. Meaning, when an epidemiological study "is associated with" something, and then later a real clinical trial is run to test the hypothesis, the trial FAILS to prove what was suspected from the study 80% of the time.

It's worse odds than a coin flip.

binding to the SARS-CoV-2 host receptor ACE2

Because NOBODY has EVER isolated a purified sample of SARS-CoV-2, and NO SAMPLE EXISTS in any laboratory anywhere in the world ... there is NO PROOF that this ACE2 receptor exists, either.

It is ENTIRELY a conceptual fantasy, with NO PROOF that it exist. Therefore, any claim about it is ALSO conceptual. NOBODY has "looked at it" and see this thing happening in real time.

NOBODY.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity

What does THAT mean? It looks to me like it means a "positive PCR test," which is a BOGUS claim. PCR is NOT a diagnostic tool, so positive/negative is completely meaningless. Therefore, so is the claim of positivity of SARS-CoV-2.

In reality, it means nothing at all.

infection of Vero E6 cells

EVERY time you see the word "vero" ... IT MEANS MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS ... in a PETRIE DISH ... in a LABORATORY. Vero cells are NOT human cells, and they are NOT in the body.

This is the fraud that forms the foundation of ALL of virology. They put something on vero cells, they poison the vero cells, the vero cells break down, and then they CLAIM the breakdown has meaning (namely, that a "virus" must have killed the cells, when in fact it was the poisons they fed the vero cells that caused them to break down).

When the word "vero" shows up, you KNOW it is NOT a clinical trial. Just a lab experiment -- which might or might not mean anything. There is no way to know until this is an actual trial with real people, or at least to start with real animals.

in vitro

"In vivo" means inside a living organism, such as a human, a monkey (living), a cat, a rat, a mouse, or anything living.

"In vitro" means NOT inside a living organism, but rather in a laboratory and in a petrie dish, test tube, or some other non-living apparatus.

This ENTIRE article/study is PURE SPECULATION.

Do these things help people who are sick?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

We have NO WAY OF KNOWING the answer to that, based solely on this paper.

Get a clue, guys. "Edumacate" yourself, and learn how to understand these things.

If you don't, you will continue to be fooled and lied to. And then others who want to "debunk" you will have an easy time of it, because you didn't understand what the hell you were reading in the first place.

This trash paper keeps getting posted on GAW, as if it means something.

It MIGHT be a step in the right direction, but there is NO WAY to know that without a real trial.

Insist on REAL science, not junk claims.

The fake news media pushes junk claims ALL THE TIME.

That should be a clue.