• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Michael Yeadon xVP Pfizer, "there is no virus!" Germ Theory is finally sinking.

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
One of the "there is a virus but it's not severe" folks has changed their mind.

If you guys remember Dr. Peat had mentioned Yeadon in the later part of 2020 and his viral video speaking out against the so called pandemic, it was especially interesting because he was a VP at Pfizer (provided below)

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WG0V0dTQ5k7n/




Now he has made the statement that he agrees with Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan,
View: https://t.me/ViroLIEgy/781


Many here have slowly transitioned their beliefs of viruses and the threads with well informed people have also increased.

Basic questions have been replaced by deep thought and a critical analysis of what viruses really are, if they are a thing by themselves at all.

My other thread Book Suggestion: "The Contagion Myth" By Thomas Cowan & Sally Fallon
shows my own thought process evolving as at first I sided more with Zach Bush, and still think he has a really wholesome view of the situation. But even his claims and the evidence they rely on are not solid enough to extrapolate the things he preaches.

The reality is, the evidence is severely lacking for a properly isolated virus, in the literal sense of the word.

I ask of thread readers to refer to the "Book suggestion" thread above before asking basic questions, as the resources there are plentiful.

Questions like;
We have EM images of SARSCOV2 and spikes, then what are those?

Then what happened to "all those" people?

Then what's herpes?

Do you want AIDS!?

And all other surface level questions are addressed in that thread through links and books.

Let's break new ground in this thread by digging deeper than the basics.
 

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
If you are uninterested in looking through threads to understand how one could even question the existence of viruses, start here. It will take you through the (lack of) science and show the misleading way in which these particles are said/ shown/ grown to exist and cause disease.

 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,648
As a health dose of “the other side”counter post, I am posting a recent post Steve Kirsch made. In the post he links to 7 other posts he has made about the subject.

 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
As a health dose of “the other side”counter post, I am posting a recent post Steve Kirsch made. In the post he links to 7 other posts he has made about the subject.

Some of Kirsh's points are ridiculous. For example-

They have no alternate hypothesis to explain the data that is on the table​

Generally, when you challenge an established hypothesis, you do that by presenting an alternative hypothesis that is a better fit to explain all the data (in this case, gathered over the past 100 years). They cannot even explain simple things like how my wife got COVID and then I got it 5 days later. Both of us have been virus free for the entire pandemic.

I think the fact that all the tests are surrogate tests are explanation enough. None of the tests, NONE, are testing for a "virus," simply proteins associated with a virus. There are all sorts of things that could spur a positive test when others were "negative." Kaufman mentioned a few, such as new "sequences" now being reclassified as "positives" due to "variants." Maybe Kirsh and his wife ate a paw paw or goat meat that was positive. Or, drank some coca cola. Or, the PCR test site raised the cycle count. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons that the tests could have produced a positive, absent any "Novel Corona Virus."


Does Kirsch really believe that if he (a man) took a drug store pregnancy test, and it came back positive, that he was somehow pregnant? It's a surrogate test, just like every single COVID test is. Most of those pregnancy tests look for elevated HCG levels, so if it comes back positive in a man, it's probably due to something like supplementing HCG or having cancer, or some other mechanism.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
One of the "there is a virus but it's not severe" folks has changed their mind.

If you guys remember Dr. Peat had mentioned Yeadon in the later part of 2020 and his viral video speaking out against the so called pandemic, it was especially interesting because he was a VP at Pfizer (provided below)

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WG0V0dTQ5k7n/




Now he has made the statement that he agrees with Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan,
View: https://t.me/ViroLIEgy/781


Many here have slowly transitioned their beliefs of viruses and the threads with well informed people have also increased.

Basic questions have been replaced by deep thought and a critical analysis of what viruses really are, if they are a thing by themselves at all.

My other thread Book Suggestion: "The Contagion Myth" By Thomas Cowan & Sally Fallon
shows my own thought process evolving as at first I sided more with Zach Bush, and still think he has a really wholesome view of the situation. But even his claims and the evidence they rely on are not solid enough to extrapolate the things he preaches.

The reality is, the evidence is severely lacking for a properly isolated virus, in the literal sense of the word.

I ask of thread readers to refer to the "Book suggestion" thread above before asking basic questions, as the resources there are plentiful.

Questions like;
We have EM images of SARSCOV2 and spikes, then what are those?

Then what happened to "all those" people?

Then what's herpes?

Do you want AIDS!?

And all other surface level questions are addressed in that thread through links and books.

Let's break new ground in this thread by digging deeper than the basics.


Nice to see Yeadon bringing up these questions. I think it's clear that the "isolation" experiments of the "Novel Corona Virus" are at best incomplete, and likely fraudulent.

You can also add Anthony Colpo to the list of those questioning the existence of SARS-Cov-2


All around the world, skeptics have been submitting FOI requests to their state and federal health departments, asking two perfectly sensible questions:

  1. Have you isolated, via scientifically valid methods, the virus dubbed "Sars-Cov-2"?
  2. If so, have you then administered this "Sars-Cov-2" to animals and/or humans under controlled experimental conditions and produced the disease dubbed "COVID-19"?
Any health department worth its oldest Xerox should have immediately implemented these two steps as a matter of course.

Yet in every instance, the response to FOI requests asking these two eminently reasonable questions has either been "NO" or no response. I myself asked these questions of the hopelessly corrupt South Australian health department, trading as SA Health, via two FOI requests. Despite a massive annual budget of six billion dollars to 'look after' an entire state population of only 1.7 million people (the size of a single borough in many of the world's mega-cities), SA Health has completely ignored me.

It's not hard to work out why: SA Health doesn't have the evidence I requested.

I'll link to the thread of Andrew Kaufman going through the problems with the "isolation" experiment.


I still haven't seen any "Virus Believers" expose any flaws in his explanation, nor offer up reasons why the experiment using all sorts of DNA contaminants (including human, cow, monkey, other potential microflora) is somehow proof enough of a new virus (and to shut down the world and cause trillions of dollars in damages), especially when no one even claims to have purified it.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
Also, Kirsch's claim that "Koch's Postulates" were fulfilled by that mouse study is easily disproved by looking at the postulates and the Mouse study itself-

Koch's postulates are the following:

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
  3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
  4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

Postulate 2 was obviously violated, since the mouse study didn't use a virus from anything remotely resembling a "pure culture."

From the Materials and Methods section of the Mouse paper he references-

Viruses and cells​

The SARS-CoV-2 strain HB-01 was provided by W. Tan1. The complete genome for this SARS-CoV-2 has been submitted to GISAID (identifier: BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01/2020|EPI_ISL_402119), and deposited in the China National Microbiological Data Center (accession number NMDC10013001 and genome accession number MDC60013002-01). Seed SARS-CoV-2 stocks and virus isolation studies were performed in Vero cells, which are maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin, and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2. For infected mice, lung homogenates were used for virus titration tests using endpoint titration in Vero E6 cells. Virus titres of the supernatant were determined using a standard TCID50 assay.

Monkey Kidney (aka Vero Cells), Fetal Bovine Serum AGAIN, penicillin AGAIN, and streptomycin AGAIN. If that is "pure," then San Francisco's sidewalks are squeaky clean.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,648
Also, Kirsch's claim that "Koch's Postulates" were fulfilled by that mouse study is easily disproved by looking at the postulates and the Mouse study itself-



Postulate 2 was obviously violated, since the mouse study didn't use a virus from anything remotely resembling a "pure culture."

From the Materials and Methods section of the Mouse paper he references-



Monkey Kidney (aka Vero Cells), Fetal Bovine Serum AGAIN, penicillin AGAIN, and streptomycin AGAIN. If that is "pure," then San Francisco's sidewalks are squeaky clean.
Maybe someone can take him up on his million dollar challenge and win some easy money. I am not pushing any narrative either way to be honest. For me it requires a deep dive and I am more interested in other subjects at the moment with limited time. BUT I do want both sides put on the table and it seems this anti virus narrative has more threads. Did you read all six of Kirsch’s other articles about the subject? Or simply this one.

Anyway I am glad to see intelligent discussion and I can sure count on you for that… :):
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,246
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
As a health dose of “the other side”counter post, I am posting a recent post Steve Kirsch made. In the post he links to 7 other posts he has made about the subject.

Viruses exist. This is not the sort of thing anyone lies about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no viruses" claim.

There are more millions of people who have had access to microscopes and other equipment used to observe viruses, and many of them have studied viruses during and after their education. This is in no way a sustainable lie.
 

AlaskaJono

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
367
Viruses exist. This is not the sort of thing anyone lies about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no viruses" claim.

There are more millions of people who have had access to microscopes and other equipment used to observe viruses, and many of them have studied viruses during and after their education. This is in no way a sustainable lie.
DUUUUUUDE! This thread is not discussing beliefs in a virus. Proof. Evidence. And by the way, viruses are purported to be 20nm to 300nm in size, which makes them only visible with special microscopes not available in your local community college. Electron Microscopy. Not likely there are millions of these little units everywhere.

Bonus: This is from Thermofisher.com a pro virus research collaboration.....and the underneath of this reads. SARS-CoV-2 virus particles imaged with transmission electron microscopy. Note the spike protein, visible as protrusions on the surface of each particle. Image captured and pseudo-colored at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland.
1659607018479.png
Remember Fort Dietrich is a BioWeapons Research Lab. So it would seem the 'virus' IS the 'Treatment'. N'est-ce pas?

The Validity of existence of Virus should fall onto the shoulders of the Believers. In. "Science™". The straight fact that they can NOT truly isolate a single little bad virus (and they are purportedly all around us Everywhere - including the latest one!!!) is simply proof that the Con not only exists, but is perpetuated. People (or the Governments that tax people) are paying for the poisoning. Why do some folks call modern Allopathic medicine Rockefeller Medicine?

1659607885621.png

"No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Just an entertaining movie. Nothing to read into it.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
9,864
Location
Manila
Viruses exist. This is not the sort of thing anyone lies about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no viruses" claim.

There are more millions of people who have had access to microscopes and other equipment used to observe viruses, and many of them have studied viruses during and after their education. This is in no way a sustainable lie.
This is the same kind of language like telling people to "grow up" when they don't agree with you.

I fancy your students have a lot more than growing up to do when they get to become idiots under you.
 

DeadCatBounce

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
117
Location
West Side
Viruses exist. This is not the sort of thing anyone lies about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no viruses" claim.

There are more millions of people who have had access to microscopes and other equipment used to observe viruses, and many of them have studied viruses during and after their education. This is in no way a sustainable lie.
You are calling me and everybody else who know that viruses are a scam idiots ? Hmm. I think you are simply very outdated and need to read up on the subject. Not gonna call you names though. Would be low level.
 

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
Also, Kirsch's claim that "Koch's Postulates" were fulfilled by that mouse study is easily disproved by looking at the postulates and the Mouse study itself-



Postulate 2 was obviously violated, since the mouse study didn't use a virus from anything remotely resembling a "pure culture."

From the Materials and Methods section of the Mouse paper he references-



Monkey Kidney (aka Vero Cells), Fetal Bovine Serum AGAIN, penicillin AGAIN, and streptomycin AGAIN. If that is "pure," then San Francisco's sidewalks are squeaky clean.

This is actually pretty easy to explain. You need to grow virus in a cell line since they are replicated by host machinery - they're not technically "alive" as such.
Fetal bovine serum is supplemented in cell culture media to provide proper growth factors for the cells, they just don't grow properly or quickly enough in vitro otherwise. There are alternatives, like egg yolk additives, but FBS is the standard.
The antibiotics are in there to kill any bacteria that would be present in the sample being used to inoculate the Veros. Since cells in vitro don't have really any immune system, the whole flask would get quickly destroyer by any bacteria.

I'm not saying that SARS-CoV-2 is real or not but those things are all pretty standard issue in terms of cell culture.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
5,822
What do you mean be that? That's how cell culture is done.

Yeah I know how it's done. That doesn't mean it's the practice of good science. It means that's what scientists have agreed to call good science for a number of reasons (eg,, career, expediency, money, hubris, prestige, etc. ) that oftentimes deviate from the path of truth
 
Last edited:

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
Yeah I know how it's done. That doesn't mean it's the practice of good science. It means that's what scientists have agreed to call good science for a number of reasons (eg,, career, expediency, money, hubris, prestige, etc. ) that oftentimes deviate from the path of truth

My point was that all the things listed by Tankas as being suspect are done for good reason. You can't grow virus up without a cell, the cells need some growth factors and the antibiotics are in there to kill bacterial contaminants. There's nothing nefarious going on as far as that part of the paper is concerned.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
5,822
My point was that all the things listed by Tankas as being suspect are done for good reason. You can't grow virus up without a cell, the cells need some growth factors and the antibiotics are in there to kill bacterial contaminants. There's nothing nefarious going on as far as that part of the paper is concerned.

I wouldn't necessarily call it nefarious, but I'd definitely call it piss-poor sh*t science. It's become the norm in certain fields of science, eg virology, climate science, epidemiology.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
This is actually pretty easy to explain.
Just because the violations of the postulates are "easy to explain" doesn't mean that they aren't violations.
You need to grow virus in a cell line since they are replicated by host machinery - they're not technically "alive" as such.
Fetal bovine serum is supplemented in cell culture media to provide proper growth factors for the cells, they just don't grow properly or quickly enough in vitro otherwise. There are alternatives, like egg yolk additives, but FBS is the standard.
So, in other words, both the "standard" and "alternative" methods to "isolate" viruses could never possibly fulfill Koch's postulates. Why aren't they using a medium where no such supplementation (that obviously brings in foreign DNA and other potential contaminants) is necessary?
The antibiotics are in there to kill any bacteria that would be present in the sample being used to inoculate the Veros.
Bacteria are large enough to be filtered out by lab grade GIBCO filters, another point made by Kaufman. They never bother with this step.
Since cells in vitro don't have really any immune system, the whole flask would get quickly destroyer by any bacteria.
Which itself wouldn't be a bad thing in a truly scientific experiment. If the experiment get's quickly destroyed by other bacteria, that would be a very obvious indication that the culture itself wasn't "pure," which is a necessary condition to fulfill Koch's postulates. It would seem that the addition of antibiotics is a way for these scientists to cover up their mistakes, to make a sample seem purer or more otherwise sterile that it is.
I'm not saying that SARS-CoV-2 is real or not but those things are all pretty standard issue in terms of cell culture.
But just because it's "standard" or "the best scientists can do" doesn't mean it's useful or scientific. You can find all sorts of "standards" throughout medical history that seem barbaric now (and likely several today).
 

Similar threads

Top