"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.
Oh, if you look closely, you can see that the question was not addressed to me. I replied to it.
I don't know if I've interpreted your question correctly, but here are my thoughts anyway.
In the first place, mRNA vaccines are unapproved and distributed on an emergency basis, so anything can happen.
The only thing that is safe to use are the drugs that have been used up. because we all know what side effects they have.
On top of that, people who have been vaccinated are aware that they are developing the disease, as if they had been given a virus. You can imagine it, can't you?
There is also a possibility that the disease has spread to the point where it is not a pandemic.
Add to that the figures of statistical fraud, and you can deliberately create data for a pandemic.
This is why it is more important to keep checking and monitoring the statistical standards than the data itself.
People who are not aware of the possibility of statistical fraud will act nervously.
Information on the existence of effective formulations is not disseminated by the media. People who are passive to information have been imprinted with the idea that vaccines are the only solution.
As a result, they get vaccinated. And then you get sick.
The Wuhan Institute for Virus Research has published a paper and uploaded the genetic information to GenBank.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7/figures/9 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329
I am also very doubtful that it is really a pandemic, but at least I can recognize that the virus exists in the Wuhan Virus Research Institute.
In any case, since it was the Wuhan Institute of Virology that first discovered SARS-Cov-2 and registered its genetic information in GenBank, there is no inconvenience whether the virus exists or not.
"Also, tell me which non-PCR test can detect this supposed virus."
Talking about the reliability of detection tests is not the same thing as talking about proving the existence of viruses. Please do not confuse the two. Very few people believe in the reliability of PCR tests. Did I mention the 94% false positive rate?
Therefore, the following is my current conclusion.
- SARS-Cov-2 is present in at least one test tube in the Wuhan laboratory.
- The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.
"There is no COVID-19 virus." What is the basis for this theory?
From time to time, I witness the claim that "SEARS-Cov-2 does not meet Koch's principle. So this virus does not exist". However, Koch's principle should be applied to the "identification of bacteria".
Unlike bacteria, viruses do not have cell membranes and cannot multiply without borrowing the host's cell division ability. This means that pure culture is not possible.
So, Koch's principle cannot be applied to viruses as if it were an ironclad rule.
Do you have any other arguments, other than Koch's principle?
Oh, to avoid any misunderstanding, I'll add a note.
At the beginning, when you have not found any understanding or view, it is good to start with loyalty. The attainment of the destination that you develop from there must be something that you have reason to believe in, otherwise it cannot be said to have been acquired. This means.
And here's a new sentence to add.
When we believe in something, it should not be an arrival by allegiance(a feeling of belonging), but an arrival with a reason to believe.
I would like to reiterate two messages that I have written here before.
It is all too easy to label someone as evil or an enemy and forget what you are fighting for. "Fighting the enemy" is, at best, a zero-sum game, and at worst, a battle that can only produce losers.
Sheepdogs owned by con artists, from the right or left, incite and instigate the sheep. Only those that can escape outside the ideological ranch can become wild.
There are probably patriots on the left as well. There are also patriots on the right. There are also patriots in the middle.
But only those on the outside are free.
As long as you are on the inside, you may be a patriot, but you are a traitor to freedom.
This is the same as the ear tag sign for livestock.
Ransomware would be part of the net governance. It's the same thing as using gun control as an excuse to go on a shooting spree.
The Rockefeller Foundation's "Operation Lockstep" specifies the establishment of a world government and net governance using a pandemic.
Everything that is rooted in fear or in preference or respect has the power to make us practice something.
Does this article mean that "vaccines don't work"? LOL.
Of course, this article is leading the charge to "attack those who have not been vaccinated.
It means, "Attack those who exercise their right to freedom. This article is advocating, "Be a rebel against freedom.
I know that it is the sheepdog's job to agitate the sheep.
And in 2017, the COVID-19 test kit was already in circulation.
Last year in Japan, the media and the public were abuzz with the same claim. Then they started fussing about asymptomatic sequelae.
What are asymptomatic sequelae? LOL.
Keep observing to see if the same "story" unfolds.
Vaccines that cause various adverse reactions may have been designed to overcome the asymptomatic nature of COVID-19.
Because asymptomatic is scary, right? LOL
She don't seem to be wearing a mask.
Thomas Sowell - People who call differences “inequities” and achievements “privilege” leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.
As long as we remain true to the spirit of freedom, we cannot interfere with the choices of others. We can only give advice and information.
Staying true to freedom requires a certain amount of resignation to others.
As long as we are faithful to our freedom, bad people can at best only destroy our bodies. Protecting one's own soul above all else is a top priority.
It would be worth pursuing the truth to see if they really isolated the virus.
SARS2 was also just imagined in a computer simulation.
There was a report in 2017 that "a study in Wuhan successfully isolated SARS", but I knew that was a lie too?
I was just thinking of investigating this.
A Rebel Against Freedom
2014 Donation to Wuhan virus development 2017 Predicted a pandemic 2020 Developed the Moderna vaccine
This is the man's history.
Forced vaccination is an act of treason against freedom of choice. Question the person's intention to rebel against freedom.
It is the one who wants to force people to take vaccines that must prove their safety. Demand that they provide scientific proof of safety.
Do not misunderstand who has the burden of proof.
A person who has received a slave injection wears a slave mask.
There seems to be no mistake in logic.
I'd like a link to that article and, if it exists, a link to an article with the exact number of people on the contrary.
I wrote the same message to another person, and I don't want to write it if I can help it, but since you asked, I'll respond.
"Proof from where?" is not the issue.
As long as it is certified as a proof, if you want to deny it, you have to bring a "proof to deny".
Even if the proof is faked, that is the problem of the person who faked it, and the problem of the reviewers who failed to see it.
It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.