First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead are derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are not talking about philosophical ideas, such as what is the meaning of life. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Your statement is purely subjective. The Scientific Method is NOT subjective. It is entirely objective.
"Proof" is determined when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they went in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead are derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are not talking about philosophical ideas, such as what is the meaning of life. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Your statement is purely subjective. The Scientific Method is NOT subjective. It is entirely objective.
"Proof" is determined when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they took it in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead are derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are not talking about philosophical ideas, such as what is the meaning of life. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Proof is when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they took it in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead is derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are not talking about philosophical ideas, such as what is the meaning of life. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Proof is when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they took it in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead is derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are talking about the meaning of life here. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Proof is when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they took it in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead is derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials are all about. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either.
That is a profound statement. We are talking about the meaning of life here. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof."
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Proof is when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it,
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they took it in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?