• @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.

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
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.
Except there is something nefarious going on. They are misrepresenting what the experiment does.

If you can't grow a "virus" without a cell (which adds in foreign DNA), then you can't claim later that you "sequenced the genome" of the "virus." How do you know you're not getting DNA from the Vero cells? Or the Fetal Bovine Serum? Or dead bacteria?

If all a construction company can build is three story apartment complexes, that doesn't mean everyone should go around thinking they are hundred story skyscrapers. Of course, there is nothing nefarious about building three story apartment complexes, but selling them as hundred story skyscrapers is obviously fraudulent.

As such, it goes back to my original point. The mouse paper doesn't fulfill Koch's postulates, it can't fill them, and is very obviously in violation of second postulate. Therefore, Kirsch's claim that the study does fulfill Koch's Postulates is flat out wrong.
 

cedric

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
142
So called "covid" could be low level radiation sickness from low earth magnetic field.
Exposition to radiation could upregulate heme oxygenase-1 producing excess carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide mimics viral infections. They mandated masks to achieve carbon monoxide poisoning. Sprayed halomethanes or in disinfectants can be metabolised to carbon monoxide. Low zinc , endotoxin, PUFA, respirators, hypoxia/hyperoxia, some drugs increase carbon monoxide production.
https://osf.io/uvj42/
" COVID-19 morbidity and mortality caused by endogenous carbon monoxide poisoning, with recommendations for testing and treatment"
Carbon monoxide poisoning - Wikipedia
" Carbon monoxide poisoning typically occurs from breathing in carbon monoxide (CO) at excessive levels.[3] Symptoms are often described as "flu-like" and commonly include headache, dizziness, weakness, vomiting, chest pain, and confusion.[1]
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
Viruses exist. This is not the sort of thing anyone lies about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no viruses" claim.
Um, where have you been for the past 2.5 years?

Obviously, in the realm of "viruses" and disease, people do lie. A lot. In fact, lie after lie about this fake pandemic has been exposed on this forum, by researchers like Anthony Colpo, Mike Yeadon and others. Even some in government, like Ron DeSantis in Florida, have exposed some of the lies (in his case, the doomer death predictions that never came anywhere close to reality).

They lie about the PCR and other diagnostic tests.
They lie about the safety and efficacy of the "vaccines."
They lie about "Covid" being the cause of death when it is listed as such.
The Covid origin story is obviously fabricated, and sounds like they basically lifted it from Spiderman comics.
They lie about mask effectiveness.
They lie about lockdowns.
They lie about ventilator treatment protocols.

They have lied, lied, lied about every aspect of this alleged "Pandemic," which obviously never was a "pandemic" and never will be. Even going by their "official" and obviously inflated Covid death count, it never accounted for more than 3-4% of deaths. In other words, it's a "Pandemic" so deadly that 96% of deaths don't have anything to do with it.

So if various people and organizations are willing to lie about all of those things, why wouldn't they lie about the alleged star of this Pandemic Side show, the existence of SARS-Cov-2 itself? If seems perfectly logical that if they lied about every other aspect of the pandemic, they might have lied about the supposed virus at the center of it, too.

Of course, if they faked the existence of one "virus," then the problem becomes that they may have faked many more, possibly all. This is the potential backlash of running this fake pandemic the way they have.
 
Last edited:

cedric

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
142
If coronavirus exists face masks should be treated by authorities as dangerous contaminated material.
If coronavirus exists malnourished Africa should be decimated.
Why there is excess mortality form masks? Why there were masks mandate during Spanish flu? Because excessive endogenous carbon monoxide becomes exogenous poisoning.
 
Last edited:

cedric

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
142
We also produce methane, penthane depending on microbiom, metabolic status.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,648
Okay must say reading the responses on this thread is interesting. Has anyone read from a neutral stance to see how strong the ant-virus voice is? Hugh had a strong pro-virus voice and he took some punches for that. Why so much emotion is invested in the idea that viruses do not exist?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,751
Okay must say reading the responses on this thread is interesting. Has anyone read from a neutral stance to see how strong the ant-virus voice is?
Obviously, it's not as strong as the pro-virus voices. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, all pharma companies, the FDA, CDC, and state medical boards all believe in both viruses in general, and the alleged "Novel Corona Virus" in particular. The general public seems to believe in viruses, both their existence and the official mechanism of action.

Meanwhile, Cowan had to surrender his medical license. Duesberg (who questions the "HIV equals AIDS" theory") has basically been a pariah, and not allowed to publish in journals, due to his views.
Hugh had a strong pro-virus voice and he took some punches for that.
Well, I certainly didn't attack him personally, but he didn't offer any compelling reasons for his belief, other than that he doesn't think that people would lie about such a thing.

Really, his beliefs aren't that different than a child's belief in Santa Claus. I'll reprint his comments (and note substiutions in brackets), and see for yourself-

[Santa Claus] exists. This is not the sort of thing [parents] lie about, and only idiots and misinformation agents would believe the "no [Santa Claus]" claim.

There are more millions of people who have had access to [home security cameras] and other equipment used to observe [Santa coming down the chimney Christmas Eve], and many of them have studied [Santa and Magic] during and after their education. This is in no way a sustainable lie.
Is this "proof enough," since toys appear under trees Christmas Morning, and we have movies and stories about Santa, even even some news programs will do a "Santa Tracker" on Christmas Eve?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QIvapZbDRk
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,648
Obviously, it's not as strong as the pro-virus voices. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, all pharma companies, the FDA, CDC, and state medical boards all believe in both viruses in general, and the alleged "Novel Corona Virus" in particular. The general public seems to believe in viruses, both their existence and the official mechanism of action.

Meanwhile, Cowan had to surrender his medical license. Duesberg (who questions the "HIV equals AIDS" theory") has basically been a pariah, and not allowed to publish in journals, due to his views.

Well, I certainly didn't attack him personally, but he didn't offer any compelling reasons for his belief, other than that he doesn't think that people would lie about such a thing.

Really, his beliefs aren't that different than a child's belief in Santa Claus. I'll reprint his comments (and note substiutions in brackets), and see for yourself-


Is this "proof enough," since toys appear under trees Christmas Morning, and we have movies and stories about Santa, even even some news programs will do a "Santa Tracker" on Christmas Eve?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QIvapZbDRk

LoL about the Santa Tracker!! I don’t follow any of those pro-virus voices that you mention, so I don’t know. As I mentioned above, I need to take a deep dive into the subject and I simply am interested in other subjects at the moment, so until I personally research it I do not take anyone’s word for it. The jury is out for me. I will one day dig in. In the meantime watching with curiosity.
 

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
it would be nice if people actually took the time to watch the bare minimum thing I linked before just repeating the same old stuff.

I don't understand why one thinks that repeating the basic questions about virus existence or the well known cell culture process somehow contributes something. This "movement" wouldn't be so large if there wasn't depth to the critical arguments against viruses. It's all been dissected and accounted for, at least the most common rebuttals have been.

People assume we are idiots and think their simpleton counter arguments suffice. We're not dumb, the mainstream accounts and processes don't add up, that's why we have presented an alternative AFTER looking at the rhetoric shoved down our throats.

I'll link more later. For now, let's hope people review what's already been provided before clogging the thread with "no, not true, your dumb" type stuff.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,648
Last edited:

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
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.
@Lollipop2 Steve Kirsch has been responded to on multiple occasions. Here is one such article The “Virus” of Sin

And another: The real reason I now refuse to debate Steve Kirsch – Fluoride Free Peel

And a video address to "the undeniable proof of imaging" and Steve
View: https://youtu.be/jWb3vTu-I6M
 
Last edited:

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
Just because the violations of the postulates are "easy to explain" doesn't mean that they aren't violations.
The second postulate refers to purity as in no other microorganisms growing, not purity as you'd refer to a supplement. Like I said, whether it's bacterial or tissue culture, you need a medium to grow them in.
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?
See above, you need those things to grow cells in vitro -- it's not a shortcut that they're using, it's a necessity to use media and growth factors for cell culture.
Bacteria are large enough to be filtered out by lab grade GIBCO filters, another point made by Kaufman. They never bother with this step.
Yeah there are many ways to skin a cat. You should email the authors and ask them why they didn't use a micropore filter.
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.
The antibiotics are in there to create a pure culture. Obviously the donor sample is not pure.
 

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
The second postulate refers to purity as in no other microorganisms growing, not purity as you'd refer to a supplement. Like I said, whether it's bacterial or tissue culture, you need a medium to grow them in.

See above, you need those things to grow cells in vitro -- it's not a shortcut that they're using, it's a necessity to use media and growth factors for cell culture.

Yeah there are many ways to skin a cat. You should email the authors and ask them why they didn't use a micropore filter.

The antibiotics are in there to create a pure culture. Obviously the donor sample is not pure.
You must have missed this (any every other link in this thread): The Rooster in the River of Rats - Andrew Kaufman, M.D.
 

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
If you can't grow a "virus" without a cell (which adds in foreign DNA), then you can't claim later that you "sequenced the genome" of the "virus." How do you know you're not getting DNA from the Vero cells? Or the Fetal Bovine Serum? Or dead bacteria?
If your going to sequence th viral genome, you'd titrate the virus down so only one plaque forms in a we'll, freeze-thaw the cells to lyse them, then take the supernatant, grow that up in cells, do an RNA extraction with DNase treatment, do RNAseq or some such, then align the reads against what you know is in there. You'd be able to see a lot of reads aligning to the Veros and maybe some to bovine. Then you've gotta make a contiguous sequence from the remainder using bioinformatics tools. It's not really my area, but they don't just willy-nilly try to reconstruct ALL the sequence reads into a new genome.
 

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
It's a simple question: did you or did you not watch the entire video on viral isolation and Koch's postulates provided above. Stop with the useless ad hominem insults. Outline specifically what it is that you perceive Kaufman doesn't get "the basics of." Because the argument presented is pretty clear. @Mountain
 
Last edited:

RealNeat

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,671
Location
HI
If your going to sequence th viral genome, you'd titrate the virus down so only one plaque forms in a we'll, freeze-thaw the cells to lyse them, then take the supernatant, grow that up in cells, do an RNA extraction with DNase treatment, do RNAseq or some such, then align the reads against what you know is in there. You'd be able to see a lot of reads aligning to the Veros and maybe some to bovine. Then you've gotta make a contiguous sequence from the remainder using bioinformatics tools. It's not really my area, but they don't just willy-nilly try to reconstruct ALL the sequence reads into a new genome.
Besides isolation, what is the intention of a virus. It's not living right? It has no processes which would indicate it's intentionally doing anything, Ray has also emphasized the is point. This makes it nothing. Evolutionary incentive is null, since attributing any conscious characteristic to a virus would make it living.

It makes it at most fragments of our own cells, with zero proof that they cause disease. More like the byproducts of poisoned cells in culture.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
5,822
It doesn't help the case if you don't know basic viral culture techniques and then try to take exception with them

It doesn't help the case to not follow rigorous scientific method to eliminate all confounding factors. That's how people without specific expertise in some technique can find fault.
 

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
It doesn't help the case to not follow rigorous scientific method to eliminate all confounding factors. That's how people without specific expertise in some technique can find fault.
You'd just use uninfected cells and process them the same as infected then look for differential cytopathic effect between the two treatments
 

Mountain

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
129
Besides isolation, what is the intention of a virus. It's not living right? It has no processes which would indicate it's intentionally doing anything, Ray has also emphasized the is point. This makes it nothing. Evolutionary incentive is null, since attributing any conscious characteristic to a virus would make it living.

It makes it at most fragments of our own cells, with zero proof that they cause disease. More like the byproducts of poisoned cells in culture.
IMO it doesn't really matter if you believe that virus are actually as they're described by mainstream virology or if you believe that they're some kind of cellular product that gets blebbed out under stress. The important thing is that they do replicate and are transmissible. I wouldn't say there's zero proof that viruses cause disease. I work with insect viruses and it's pretty easy to see that they cause mortality and disseminate through the organism through replication. I think a lot of us on the forum have a conspiracy theory bent, which can be good because it allows us a healthy skepticism of mainstream ideas, but it's easy to get swept up in stuff.

But yeah in biology the harder question is always the why rather than the what.
 

Similar threads

Top