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

[RealNeat]

For those who believe in the current definition of viruses but also in the association-induction hypothesis I implore you to consider Rays criticism of the cell membrane, pump, channel hypothesis and consider what overlapping factors there are with virology. I'm sure you'll see how similar the issues are.

First an overview of the process from an older GE Podcast by Danny Roddy.

(Phil) Pranarupa: "Well look, there must be a lipid membrane, we've got these electron microscope images which show a bilayer pattern. You can treat cells and mitochondria with solvents to remove up to around 95% of their fat content stain them with osmium and they will still produce a characteristic two-dimensional bilayer pattern" and I think that supports Herald Hillman's criticisms of a lot of the imaging procedures used in biology and his basic point is is that the lipid
membrane seen in these electron microscope images is basically an artifact of the staining procedure. When a cell or tissue is imaged by electron microscopy it goes through a number of procedures; it's cut, fixed in glutaraldehyde, washed, fixed again in osmium tetroxide, washed, dehydrated in ethanol reducing the size significantly, propylene oxide is used to remove residual ethanol, its embedded in the mold and then it's cooked for 24 hours at 60 degrees Celsius and then subjected
to electron bombardment. I don't know, this seems like it might not be producing an accurate picture of the cell.

DR: There's something I had never thought about, but I first read about it on your site, it's not unreasonable to ask, where are the photos of
the channels pumps and receptors?

(Phil) Pranarupa: I think looking at the lipid membrane they're supposed to be around 10 nanometers in width and I think the receptors, channels, pumps they should be around 20 to 30 nanometers, so there should be some evidence for them in the electron microscope images, I don't think there is any.

That last part may even be more misleading than certain aspects of virology as the receptors, channels and pumps should be visible if so called "viruses" are visible (through EM) since they are around the same size. But the lies surrounding cells feed into virology and the lies surrounding virology feed into cell study.

A link for more explanation; Harold Hillman: What Price Intellectual Honesty?

---

Then, when we analyze the methods by which "viruses" are isolated, purified and shown to exist we have this;

From this article by Mike Stone The Numerous Alterations During Sample Preparation for EM Imaging

"Before the preparation of the sample for EM imaging, there is no attempt at purification nor isolation. There are billions of identical particles that could be present in the sample. Virologists pick whatever heavily altered particle fits the mold or idea of the “virus” they want to find and then share it as proof of said “virus.” They do not take into account that these particles more than likely were not a part of the original sample to begin with nor that they were created during the culturing, fixing, and embedding processes. They assume form, function, and pathogenicity without ever proving it.

This is why purification/isolation of an unaltered sample directly from a sick patient is the only way to ensure that what is being imaged has any relevance whatsoever. Even then, the various admitted alterations caused by cell culturing as well as the EM preparation process is more than enough to doubt the validity of any findings. There is nothing in that sample that was not altered in some form. There can be no validity to any claims that what is imaged was ever in the original sample taken from a sick patient before it was put through the numerous cell destroying methods. It is a guarantee that the sample will be altered from it’s original state through these preparation processes."

Also quoted by Mike Viral Infection at High Magnification: 3D Electron Microscopy Methods to Analyze the Architecture of Infected Cells

• Fixation protocols will have to keep up to avoid creating artifacts that were not visible to researchers previously
• Before TEM, “viruses” were detected indirectly by means of the cytopathic effect in infected cells or through clinical manifestations
• EM is considered essential to identify unknown emerging “viruses,” for which no primers, antibodies or probes are available
• This is due to the fact that EM is a generic approach and has the potential to detect all “viral” particles (“catch-all”) present in a sample

And from Cowans book, "Breaking the Spell" (free on Archive)

..."These steps are the way science is supposed to work. One isolates the variable—in this case, the virus—and then characterizes the makeup of the virus. Once one is certain of the existence of the pure virus, test animals can be exposed to it. Yet this simple, doable experiment has never been successfully done for even one so-called viral disease, and it has certainly never been attempted for COVID-19 and SARSCoV-2. Not even once. When I ask doctors or virologists why they don’t carry out this
simple, clear, logical, rational proof to demonstrate the existence of a new virus and show it causes disease, I hear one of two answers. The
first is that not enough of the virus is present in any bodily fluid of any sick person to find it in this way. I have even asked scientists whether
they would see the virus if the bronchial fluid from 10,000 people with “COVID” were pooled, but the response is the same: “There is not enough virus to find.” This, of course, begs the question: On what theory are we then claiming the virus is making people sick? To this, there is no answer. The second answer I have heard is that viruses are intracellular “parasites”—so, of course, we can’t find them outside the cells. When asked how the virus passes from one person to another, as we are told it does, virologists reply, “it buds out of the cell, goes into a droplet and travels to the next person.” In other words, the virus is transmitted when it is outside of the cell. I can only wonder why virologists can’t find it during this transmission step since they clearly think it is outside the cell.

And the one person who seemed to have done it properly (SARSCOV2 viral isolation) found nothing.

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

 

[yerrag]

The only thing the masters haven't done is to make virology into another 'mystery' as revealed to us by God.

Perhaps in a few more generations. After all, the march towards total domination of peoples is a slow process. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs takes a while. The hard part is over with the 'Nazis and Fascists and Ninjas" smashed, and the remaining extermination left to do is still enormous.

It seems to me if we begin the process towards becoming pagans, we might as a species begin to discard the dogmas that begin with a monotheistic religion centering on having three persons in one god, with a mother to one of them to boot.

When this is the foundation of our civilization, how can we, in general, not accept a much easier pill in virology?

 

[tankasnowgod]

..."These steps are the way science is supposed to work. One isolates the variable—in this case, the virus—and then characterizes the makeup of the virus. Once one is certain of the existence of the pure virus, test animals can be exposed to it. Yet this simple, doable experiment has never been successfully done for even one so-called viral disease, and it has certainly never been attempted for COVID-19 and SARSCoV-2. Not even once. When I ask doctors or virologists why they don’t carry out this
simple, clear, logical, rational proof to demonstrate the existence of a new virus and show it causes disease, I hear one of two answers. The
first is that not enough of the virus is present in any bodily fluid of any sick person to find it in this way. I have even asked scientists whether
they would see the virus if the bronchial fluid from 10,000 people with “COVID” were pooled, but the response is the same: “There is not enough virus to find.” This, of course, begs the question: On what theory are we then claiming the virus is making people sick? To this, there is no answer. The second answer I have heard is that viruses are intracellular “parasites”—so, of course, we can’t find them outside the cells. When asked how the virus passes from one person to another, as we are told it does, virologists reply, “it buds out of the cell, goes into a droplet and travels to the next person.” In other words, the virus is transmitted when it is outside of the cell. I can only wonder why virologists can’t find it during this transmission step since they clearly think it is outside the cell.

A lot of great points in your post, but I think these two cut right to the heart of the matter. I have wondered for about a year now why they would "add" Vero Cells to something they were claiming was an "isolate." The reason given is "because viruses can't replicate outside of cells." Like that has anything in the world to do with isolation. You need two humans in order to reproduce a third, but that doesn't stop individual humans from being "isolated" from all other humans in various ways, shapes, and forms.

If, indeed, viruses do travel outside of cells, both in blood to infect other cells, and in things like saliva and mucus to infect other individuals, there should be no need to have any virus "reproduce" in order to detect it, making the "Vero Cells" both unnecessary and a source of contamination in any such experiment. There should be huge amounts of the virus, whether "alive" or "dead" that could, at the very least, be detected. But instead, we have experiments where they add multiple sources of genetic contamination, and multiple substances (like trypsin and various antibiotics and antimycotics) that can damage cells, and potentially create the "virus" when no "virus" actually exists.

 

[Whichway?]

A lot of great points in your post, but I think these two cut right to the heart of the matter. I have wondered for about a year now why they would "add" Vero Cells to something they were claiming was an "isolate."

The isolate is from someone suspected of having your virus. You could at that stage maybe gene sequence it to find out what you had, but you may not enough genetic material in that isolate to get a reliable gene sequence. The isolate is like a seed. It needs something to grow in, so you place it into cell culture, where if it does contain virus it now can replicate.

The reason given is "because viruses can't replicate outside of cells." Like that has anything in the world to do with isolation. You need two humans in order to reproduce a third, but that doesn't stop individual humans from being "isolated" from all other humans in various ways, shapes, and forms.

Humans are large and can be seen with the naked eye. Virus are too small to be seen, but you can see their effect on cell cultures when cells become infected.

If, indeed, viruses do travel outside of cells, both in blood to infect other cells, and in things like saliva and mucus to infect other individuals, there should be no need to have any virus "reproduce" in order to detect it,

While viruses can travel in droplets, to detect it using our current genetic methods does require more than a droplets worth to detect. That is a current limitation of our instruments.

making the "Vero Cells" both unnecessary and a source of contamination in any such experiment. There should be huge amounts of the virus, whether "alive" or "dead" that could, at the very least, be detected. But instead, we have experiments where they add multiple sources of genetic contamination, and multiple substances (like trypsin and various antibiotics and antimycotics) that can damage cells, and potentially create the "virus" when no "virus" actually exists.

When you put cells into a culture vessel they “adhere“ to it proteins on their cell surface that allow them to anchor themselves to the vessel. When it comes time that you grown them in media long enough and you want to collect them to collect the DNA inside and gene sequence it to obtain the virus DNA as well, you add Trypsin and this cuts the little anchors, and prevents the cells adhering to the culture vessel. They become rounded in the process but don’t die and a can be “passaged” to another vessel with fresh media to continue growing if thats what you want.

Antibiotic-Antimycotics are added to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi. The same growth media that provides the building blocks for the growth of the cells and any virus inside them, will also be gobbled up by bacteria and fungi that get into your media. These agents simply inhibit their growth.

When you do these experiments you of course run control wells which have your cells and all the reagents you add MINUS the addition of the isolate. So you look for visual changes in your control wells that indicate it is infected, plus you gene sequence its contents. It should come back negative, as opposed to your wells that have cells + isolate. If your isolate contained virus, once it has access to cells you can go from the 10,000 copies that may have been contained in the isolate, to billions of copies after it has had something to grow in. Now you have enough to genetic sequence it and identify it.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The isolate is from someone suspected of having your virus. You could at that stage maybe gene sequence it to find out what you had, but you may not enough genetic material in that isolate to get a reliable gene sequence. The isolate is like a seed. It needs something to grow in, so you place it into cell culture, where if it does contain virus it now can replicate.

A complete misuse of the word "isolate." Nothing is isolated from the sample taken from the patient, so the word "isolate" should not be used. Not only is no attempt made to rid the sample of bacteria, fungi, and other human DNA, but other things are added to it. It's the exact opposite of an "isolate."

Humans are large and can be seen with the naked eye. Virus are too small to be seen, but you can see their effect on cell cultures when cells become infected.

Sounds like you are describing germs in general. Bacteria and fungi are too small to be seen with the naked eye, and fit the description of everything you mention here. Still, they are hundreds of times bigger than alleged viruses, and can be seen with more standard microscopes, no need for electron microscopes.

While viruses can travel in droplets, to detect it using our current genetic methods does require more than a droplets worth to detect. That is a current limitation of our instruments.

How do you know "viruses travel in droplets" if they can't be detected in droplets? Wouldn't this rely on surrogate or circumstantial evidence? It's an assumption that can't be proven.

It's funny, because the CDC and others have started to say that 'Undetectable means Untransmissible," at least in regards to HIV.

HIV Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U), or Treatment as Prevention

Information about the scientifically sound concept of HIV Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U), or treatment as prevention from NIAID.

www.niaid.nih.gov

HIV: Undetectable, Can't Transmit the Virus

The agency has adopted the widely accepted position that an HIV-positive person with an undetectable viral load cannot pass the virus through unprotected sex.

www.healthline.com

CDC Admits People With HIV Who Are Undetectable Can't Transmit HIV

In a historic letter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention support the science behind "Undetectable Equals Untransmittable."

www.hivplusmag.com

And yet, the entire field of virology can't detect any virus in droplets, but still claims that this is how viruses are transmitted.

When you put cells into a culture vessel they “adhere“ to it proteins on their cell surface that allow them to anchor themselves to the vessel. When it comes time that you grown them in media long enough and you want to collect them to collect the DNA inside and gene sequence it to obtain the virus DNA as well, you add Trypsin and this cuts the little anchors, and prevents the cells adhering to the culture vessel. They become rounded in the process but don’t die and a can be “passaged” to another vessel with fresh media to continue growing if thats what you want.

Antibiotic-Antimycotics are added to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi. The same growth media that provides the building blocks for the growth of the cells and any virus inside them, will also be gobbled up by bacteria and fungi that get into your media. These agents simply inhibit their growth.

When you do these experiments you of course run control wells which have your cells and all the reagents you add MINUS the addition of the isolate. So you look for visual changes in your control wells that indicate it is infected, plus you gene sequence its contents. It should come back negative, as opposed to your wells that have cells + isolate. If your isolate contained virus, once it has access to cells you can go from the 10,000 copies that may have been contained in the isolate, to billions of copies after it has had something to grow in. Now you have enough to genetic sequence it and identify it.

This is a pretty good explanation of the process, but the process itself is still meaningless. There is no proof that what's being called a "virus" was in the original sample, and the control experiment doesn't in any way prove that it was. The "virus" could still be generated at several points along the way, and it certainly doesn't prove that, even if it did exist in the original sample, that it was in any way causing any symptoms in the original patient.

Some of your claims are also wrong. Like, the addition of antibiotics don't "simply inhibit" the growth of bacteria (and themselves should be unnecessary, as bacteria are large enough to be filtered out of the original sample). Antibiotics can also damage the cell, whether scientists intend for that to happen or not. Every drug has many effects, and the effects of antibiotics in this experiment aren't just to kill bacteria. And, of course, even if it does, the dying bacteria from these antibiotics may be the source of these "viruses." I'm guessing most Vero Cells and Fetal Bovine Serum is filtered of bacteria before being used in these experiments. But the sample from the sick patient never is.

As Mike Stone was quoted above-

"Before the preparation of the sample for EM imaging, there is no attempt at purification nor isolation. There are billions of identical particles that could be present in the sample. Virologists pick whatever heavily altered particle fits the mold or idea of the “virus” they want to find and then share it as proof of said “virus.” They do not take into account that these particles more than likely were not a part of the original sample to begin with nor that they were created during the culturing, fixing, and embedding processes. They assume form, function, and pathogenicity without ever proving it.

 

[Whichway?]

A complete misuse of the word "isolate." Nothing is isolated from the sample taken from the patient, so the word "isolate" should not be used. Not only is no attempt made to rid the sample of bacteria, fungi, and other human DNA, but other things are added to it. It's the exact opposite of an "isolate."

Isolate in this sense just means a sample isolated (taken) from a patient showing symptoms of the disease. No need to be so pendantic.

Sounds like you are describing germs in general. Bacteria and fungi are too small to be seen with the naked eye, and fit the description of everything you mention here. Still, they are hundreds of times bigger than alleged viruses, and can be seen with more standard microscopes, no need for electron microscopes.

How do you know "viruses travel in droplets" if they can't be detected in droplets? Wouldn't this rely on surrogate or circumstantial evidence? It's an assumption that can't be proven.

bull****. It absolutely can be proven. Hook two air tight cages together and introduce one animal with a respiratory virus into one and see if the other animal develops the virus symptoms. Or take droplets and put them under an EM. I was referring to the technical ability to genetically sequence from a droplet to identify what viral DNA is in the droplet. Using gene sequencing is preferable these days to using EM images to visually identify viral particles.

It's funny, because the CDC and others have started to say that 'Undetectable means Untransmissible," at least in regards to HIV.

HIV is in blood, semen and vaginal fluid. It is quite different to respiratory viruses which are shed from the epithelial cells of the respiratory tract and passed on via droplets and aerosols.

HIV Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U), or Treatment as Prevention

Information about the scientifically sound concept of HIV Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U), or treatment as prevention from NIAID.

www.niaid.nih.gov

HIV: Undetectable, Can't Transmit the Virus

The agency has adopted the widely accepted position that an HIV-positive person with an undetectable viral load cannot pass the virus through unprotected sex.

www.healthline.com

CDC Admits People With HIV Who Are Undetectable Can't Transmit HIV

In a historic letter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention support the science behind "Undetectable Equals Untransmittable."

www.hivplusmag.com

And yet, the entire field of virology can't detect any virus in droplets, but still claims that this is how viruses are transmitted.

Again so you understand, respiartory viruses are shed in droplets, but the practical difficulty of collecting droplets from a sneeze or exhale and gene sequencing that material, means that the take a sample (isolate) from the patient using a nasal swab, incubate it with cells that viruses can grow in and gene sequence that material (with adequate controls) and now you can diagnose viruses.

This is a pretty good explanation of the process, but the process itself is still meaningless. There is no proof that what's being called a "virus" was in the original sample, and the control experiment doesn't in any way prove that it was.

The "virus" could still be generated at several points along the way,

If it could be generated at several points along the way, why doesn’t virus sequence show up in your control samples that contain just very cells, media and antibiotics?

and it certainly doesn't prove that, even if it did exist in the original sample, that it was in any way causing any symptoms in the original patient.

Virus symptoms depends on which tissue is infected, and how much tissue damage has occurred due to how much virus is replicated before your immune system can get on top of the infection.

Some of your claims are also wrong. Like, the addition of antibiotics don't "simply inhibit" the growth of bacteria (and themselves should be unnecessary, as bacteria are large enough to be filtered out of the original sample).

You don’t filter the original sample from the patient due to practical reasons. Filtering samples in this way is time consuming and adds expense. Why do that when the antibiotics-antimyotics will take care of any bacteria and fungi which come along with the collected sample?

Antibiotics can also damage the cell, whether scientists intend for that to happen or not. Every drug has many effects, and the effects of antibiotics in this experiment aren't just to kill bacteria.

What do you think the antibiotics are there for then

And, of course, even if it does, the dying bacteria from these antibiotics may be the source of these "viruses."

How can the dying cells be the source of the genetic material that is unique to a virus? Viruses contain gene sequences that are completely different from those of the cell, and the cell is not able to re-shuffle or re-write is genetic code to produce small pieces of gene sequence that then looks like virus. Also some cells will die in the control, and if what you are thinking is true, then viral sequence would turn up in those, which it does not. You don’t understand this process.

I'm guessing most Vero Cells and Fetal Bovine Serum is filtered of bacteria before being used in these experiments. But the sample from the sick patient never is.

As Mike Stone was quoted above-

 

[joaquin]

A complete misuse of the word "isolate." Nothing is isolated from the sample taken from the patient, so the word "isolate" should not be used. Not only is no attempt made to rid the sample of bacteria, fungi, and other human DNA, but other things are added to it. It's the exact opposite of an "isolate."

Whichway? said "Isolate in this sense just means a sample isolated (taken) from a patient showing symptoms of the disease. No need to be so pendantic."

So what you mean is that germ theory folks can just change the definition of words to reach their conclusion?

Tank holds you to standards and you accuse him of being "pendantic". Which is to say you get to move the goal posts at your own whim.

 

[joaquin]

Isolate according to Cambridge dictionary:
to separate something from other things with which it is connected or mixed

 

[tankasnowgod]

Isolate in this sense just means a sample isolated (taken) from a patient showing symptoms of the disease. No need to be so pendantic.

I don't think this is pedantic. It's the entire issue. Calling it an "isolate" implies that the virus has been isolated from all other material. 100% not the case. This is deception, pure and simple. There are far better words that could be used in this circumstance.

bull****. It absolutely can be proven. Hook two air tight cages together and introduce one animal with a respiratory virus into one and see if the other animal develops the virus symptoms. Or take droplets and put them under an EM. I was referring to the technical ability to genetically sequence from a droplet to identify what viral DNA is in the droplet. Using gene sequencing is preferable these days to using EM images to visually identify viral particles.

Has such an experiment ever been done?

Even then, this in itself wouldn't prove that any particular "virus" was what was being transmitted. The only thing you would be doing is introducing an animal with a respiratory condition into the airtight cage.

There are thousands/millions/billions of germs out there, including things like bacteria and fungi, as well as other potential "viruses." This would only prove that something is being transmitted, not any particular virus.

HIV is in blood, semen and vaginal fluid. It is quite different to respiratory viruses which are shed from the epithelial cells of the respiratory tract and passed on via droplets and aerosols.

Again so you understand, respiartory viruses are shed in droplets, but the practical difficulty of collecting droplets from a sneeze or exhale and gene sequencing that material, means that the take a sample (isolate) from the patient using a nasal swab, incubate it with cells that viruses can grow in and gene sequence that material (with adequate controls) and now you can diagnose viruses.

I understand that is the claim. I just don't believe it, or think it's adequately backed up.

If it could be generated at several points along the way, why doesn’t virus sequence show up in your control samples that contain just very cells, media and antibiotics?

Maybe virologists just don't look for it as thoroughly in the control sample. We know that all sorts of fraud goes on in these experiments. Or, maybe something from the human sample acts as an accelerant, or raw material for the creation of these viruses. If, say, 1 picogram of Vero Cells are used, but the human sample provides 100,000 picograms of similar cellular material, it could be as simple as the control sample not having enough materials to generate "viruses."

Virus symptoms depends on which tissue is infected, and how much tissue damage has occurred due to how much virus is replicated before your immune system can get on top of the infection.

This is pure speculation. We know people have symptoms in the real world, things like colds, flus, warts and such. The symptoms as such don't prove the existence of any virus, or that it's replicating.

You don’t filter the original sample from the patient due to practical reasons. Filtering samples in this way is time consuming and adds expense. Why do that when the antibiotics-antimyotics will take care of any bacteria and fungi which come along with the collected sample?

Because Antibiotics and Antimycotics can damage all cells. All drugs have effects other than what is intended.

I also think the "time and money" saving arguments are beyond ridiculous, after the past 2.5 years. That is 30 months and Trillions of dollars wasted, all for an alleged "pandemic" that has a "virus" at it's source. A few more hours and even a few thousand more dollars for a better experiment seems minimal, compared to what has been foisted on the public the past few years.

What do you think the antibiotics are there for then

It's not the stated purpose of what the antibiotics are there for. It's all the other UNINTENDED effects they can have.

You said yourself they do control experiments without the "isolate." How about more "control" experiments where they filter out bacteria beforehand, and use no antibiotics?

How can the dying cells be the source of the genetic material that is unique to a virus?

Where is the proof that any of this "genetic" material is unique to anything? How do you know what's being "sequenced" is a "virus?" It's a mess of human cells, monkey kidney cells, bacteria, other microflora, and cow DNA that's being "sequenced." No "virus" is every being isolated and purified from the material. So, it's not like something "pure" is being sequenced in the first place.

Viruses contain gene sequences that are completely different from those of the cell, and the cell is not able to re-shuffle or re-write is genetic code to produce small pieces of gene sequence that then looks like virus. Also some cells will die in the control, and if what you are thinking is true, then viral sequence would turn up in those, which it does not. You don’t understand this process.

I understand the process. I still don't think the process is justified. Nor does it have much practical implication in the real world.

 

[joaquin]

This is the Aids fiction narrative all over, a re-run.

And just like now, back then better evidence (than a floating virus) was presented concerning the cause of AIDS and the respected professors and researchers were blacklisted. Duesberg was barred from giving speeches. Others had their funding cut off.

The virus denialists at that point in time, just like now, were being shadow banned, while the crowd appealing-to-authority were dispensing their toxic AZT.

 

[MC_55]

Science is not ontology. Processes cannot be isolated -- at least not under the current laboratory capacities of modern humanity in a biochemical context. Make the distinction between proximate and ultimate cause. Virus, if one chooses to call them that are a post-cellular event (exosome) which seem to be a detoxification adaptation of cells.

First, the reality of the outside world cannot be proven – it must be taken on faith and only on faith. Our awareness is of sense impression which are themselves reducible only to states of our own mind. All we can know are the contextual states of mind adduced during the sense impression. Referring to sense impression as a state of mind in an external world do not prove the existence of said external world. Therefore, as per Harold Hillman, all attempts to deploy analytical techniques inevitably result in the creation of a distinct system, which cannot be proven to correspond to the original system in question.

Second, any observation take place in a context, and is conditioned by it. The sets of data deemed to be important, having causal association ascribed, or anything we take to be important is dictated by the mind-state previously mentioned, by who is paying us, social pressure and societal (unconscious) norms. Cold objectivity be damned – does not exist. There is no such thing as divorcing an object from its subject and the subjects are not under the direct control of the sensory apparatus in question, thus they cannot be accounted for using experimental control.

At bottom, the problem of induction outlined by Quine, Two Dogma's of Empiricism as a modern example, so one need not go wading into David Hume's intolerable prose. Third, that an object itself is not present in any defensible metaphysical manner. What is present, phenomenologically (or ontologically?), are forces and energy, though even those imply a further and ineffable substratum. The observables are immediately reduced to dispersions of force, forces whose affects can be sensed, but not the force itself “Ding an sich.”

This is taken for granted. If I am an empiricist and I see a tree, what I see exists solely in my mind: it is my senses that have made brown and green out of the elementary forces of the tree, the energies that are interpreted by my mind as colors or textures. When I see an object and call it a “thing,” I am behaving arbitrarily – calling an object “single thing” when in fact any object immediately observable in nature is a collection of millions of pulses of force and energy; in reality a plethora of things, which must appeal to an infinite series, rather than a single thing. See St. Anselm or Leibniz for the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence. Very helpful. Essentially, an infinite string of contingencies brings one no closer to Truth.

Empiricism knows only internal, psychic states and nothing else. It is not a form of knowledge at all and leads to an extremely superficial approach to the world, justified only by the base utilitarianism – and incidentally the current state of affairs is instructive as an example. Therefore, even energy itself must be further reduced since we cannot see or touch force and energy. Logically, then, a viral entity cannot survive outside the nest of forces which bring it into existence.

To sum, viruses cannot be isolated, no object can be isolated from its contextual surroundings, moreover single cause (one genome = one disease state) is not now, nor was it ever anything other than a weapon devised by an Occulted and entrenched european elite, for the purposes of covering the liabilities of the assorted toxaemias produced by the industrial revolution -- every technological leap exposes humanity to increasingly foreign contextual surroundings, and produces states of dis-ease which are then arbitrarily associated with things only the highly specialized priesthood is capable of determining; obviously you plebs.

The entire virus vs. no virus narrative is a red herring to distract humanity from the ongoing mega-whopper crime the organized crime syndicate operating the western world is attempting to pull off.

 

[RealNeat]

Science is not ontology. Processes cannot be isolated -- at least not under the current laboratory capacities of modern humanity in a biochemical context. Make the distinction between proximate and ultimate cause. Virus, if one chooses to call them that are a post-cellular event (exosome) which seem to be a detoxification adaptation of cells.

First, the reality of the outside world cannot be proven – it must be taken on faith and only on faith. Our awareness is of sense impression which are themselves reducible only to states of our own mind. All we can know are the contextual states of mind adduced during the sense impression. Referring to sense impression as a state of mind in an external world do not prove the existence of said external world. Therefore, as per Harold Hillman, all attempts to deploy analytical techniques inevitably result in the creation of a distinct system, which cannot be proven to correspond to the original system in question.

Second, any observation take place in a context, and is conditioned by it. The sets of data deemed to be important, having causal association ascribed, or anything we take to be important is dictated by the mind-state previously mentioned, by who is paying us, social pressure and societal (unconscious) norms. Cold objectivity be damned – does not exist. There is no such thing as divorcing an object from its subject and the subjects are not under the direct control of the sensory apparatus in question, thus they cannot be accounted for using experimental control.

At bottom, the problem of induction outlined by Quine, Two Dogma's of Empiricism as a modern example, so one need not go wading into David Hume's intolerable prose. Third, that an object itself is not present in any defensible metaphysical manner. What is present, phenomenologically (or ontologically?), are forces and energy, though even those imply a further and ineffable substratum. The observables are immediately reduced to dispersions of force, forces whose affects can be sensed, but not the force itself “Ding an sich.”

This is taken for granted. If I am an empiricist and I see a tree, what I see exists solely in my mind: it is my senses that have made brown and green out of the elementary forces of the tree, the energies that are interpreted by my mind as colors or textures. When I see an object and call it a “thing,” I am behaving arbitrarily – calling an object “single thing” when in fact any object immediately observable in nature is a collection of millions of pulses of force and energy; in reality a plethora of things, which must appeal to an infinite series, rather than a single thing. See St. Anselm or Leibniz for the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence. Very helpful. Essentially, an infinite string of contingencies brings one no closer to Truth.

Empiricism knows only internal, psychic states and nothing else. It is not a form of knowledge at all and leads to an extremely superficial approach to the world, justified only by the base utilitarianism – and incidentally the current state of affairs is instructive as an example. Therefore, even energy itself must be further reduced since we cannot see or touch force and energy. Logically, then, a viral entity cannot survive outside the nest of forces which bring it into existence.

To sum, viruses cannot be isolated, no object can be isolated from its contextual surroundings, moreover single cause (one genome = one disease state) is not now, nor was it ever anything other than a weapon devised by an Occulted and entrenched european elite, for the purposes of covering the liabilities of the assorted toxaemias produced by the industrial revolution -- every technological leap exposes humanity to increasingly foreign contextual surroundings, and produces states of dis-ease which are then arbitrarily associated with things only the highly specialized priesthood is capable of determining; obviously you plebs.

The entire virus vs. no virus narrative is a red herring to distract humanity from the ongoing mega-whopper crime the organized crime syndicate operating the western world is attempting to pull off.

I appreciate this interpretation but its a little too quantum for me. This type of thinking can validate what we call "lies" and lies should not be validated because they may become someone's so called reality. Having conviction of some sort of "reality" happens for many reasons, but intellectually (and with evidence) peoples perception can change, which is a big deal for what we call causation. Ultimately I believe there is one supreme truth, if we can change things in a subtle fashion then we should be able to change things massively and I don't see that in practice. This lets me know that the determinate of reality is beyond our perception, with the Truth making everything possible while we delude ourselves of what that may be.

All that being said, virology needs to be dissected and it is part and parcel to dismantling some of the lies that hold humanity down.

 

[RealNeat]

How can the dying cells be the source of the genetic material that is unique to a virus? Viruses contain gene sequences that are completely different from those of the cell, and the cell is not able to re-shuffle or re-write is genetic code to produce small pieces of gene sequence that then looks like virus. Also some cells will die in the control, and if what you are thinking is true, then viral sequence would turn up in those, which it does not. You don’t understand this process.

If it could be generated at several points along the way, why doesn’t virus sequence show up in your control samples that contain just very cells, media and antibiotics?

Stefan Lankas control experiments are starting to show just that, phase 1 and 2 are worth reviewing with phase 3 potentially being a big nail in the coffin for arguments like this. This is what happens when purification is used just as a place holder word, there is nothing to base anything off of besides a jumbled mess. To know your grandma you first have to meet her, one cant just point to a crowd and say "that's my grandma!" just because they were told "your grandma is a living creature who possibly looks like you." Its common sense, in order to refer to something, especially specifically, you first have to know a tangible thing to reference. You also have to make sure your method of finding it is free of confounding variables, or at least accounted for.

Phase 1 review;

View: https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/cpe-english:f


Phase 2 and (ongoing) 3 review here: Start at 1:23:00 in the video.

Debunking the Nonsense

A few months ago, I was invited by Alec Zeck to help develop and participate in a presentation brilliantly led by him and including many other people whom I greatly admire and respect such as Dr. J…

viroliegy.com

"Stefan Lanka’s Control Experiment, Phase 2&3

In Phase 2 of Stefan Lanka’s control experiment, yeast RNA was added in an attempt to recreate the SARSCoV- 2 genome without a sample of sputum present.

He succeeded.

In Phase 3, Stefan is attempting to show that, without any sample of sputum present, any viral genome can be created using the same alignment process– even while using Plant RNA and Healthy Human RNA. It’s been shown that the vast majority of the supposed “SARS-CoV-2 Genome” is actually human in origin, with tremendous overlap in the human genome, as well as ribosomal and bacterial sequences. They were also able to show the experiment was impossible to get the same result.

In addition to proving these sequences are not viral in origin, the team was able to generate genome sequences (with the published SARS-CoV-2 sequences) allegedly specific to the supposed viruses of HIV, Hepatitis, and Ebola from the same human sample. In fact, they turned out to be more accurate than that of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1. Without a shadow of a doubt, this shows how fraudulent the entire Genomic Sequencing process is. Random sets of sequences are assembled from millions of different pieces, never from a virus particle. The final product never actually existed in the human sample, it was created out of nothing."


Papers here:

2 Assets from Cowan Brands | Brandfolder

Find Cowan Brands official logos, images, and brand assets with usage guidelines on Brandfolder, the home for digital asset management.

brandfolder.com

And the so called "isolation" technique for viruses and their genome;

PS: Have you looked into any of the information previously provided or just commented at the end of the thread to state the redundant conventional rhetoric?

 

[MC_55]

I appreciate this interpretation but its a little too quantum for me. This type of thinking can validate what we call "lies" and lies should not be validated because they may become someone's so called reality. Having conviction of some sort of "reality" happens for many reasons, but intellectually (and with evidence) peoples perception can change, which is a big deal for what we call causation. Ultimately I believe there is one supreme truth, if we can change things in a subtle fashion then we should be able to change things massively and I don't see that in practice. This lets me know that the determinate of reality is beyond our perception, with the Truth making everything possible while we delude ourselves of what that may be.

All that being said, virology needs to be dissected and it is part and parcel to dismantling some of the lies that hold humanity down.

I appreciate this interpretation but its a little too quantum for me. This type of thinking can validate what we call "lies" and lies should not be validated because they may become someone's so called reality. Having conviction of some sort of "reality" happens for many reasons, but intellectually (and with evidence) peoples perception can change, which is a big deal for what we call causation. Ultimately I believe there is one supreme truth, if we can change things in a subtle fashion then we should be able to change things massively and I don't see that in practice. This lets me know that the determinate of reality is beyond our perception, with the Truth making everything possible while we delude ourselves of what that may be.

All that being said, virology needs to be dissected and it is part and parcel to dismantling some of the lies that hold humanity down.

Thank you for an intelligent response, without refering to racism, biological sex, or credentials.

 

[trance]

I used to be one of the covid skeptics, then I got myocarditis from an infection last winter and still haven’t recovered. The No-covid dogmatists can technically argue that these symptoms are possible with common colds, but the fact is that the furin cleavage site is not found in other common coronaviruses.

The main contradiction in the covid dissident sphere is that they will usually admit the ruling class has open depopulation plans, but if you suggest that they’ve created a virus for this purpose, you will get lynched by these dissidents.

 

[CastorTroy]

I used to be one of the covid skeptics, then I got myocarditis from an infection last winter and still haven’t recovered. The No-covid dogmatists can technically argue that these symptoms are possible with common colds, but the fact is that the furin cleavage site is not found in other common coronaviruses.

The main contradiction in the covid dissident sphere is that they will usually admit the ruling class has open depopulation plans, but if you suggest that they’ve created a virus for this purpose, you will get lynched by these dissidents.

Thousands of people, even young and healthy ones, suddenly die EVERY year by the flu. You can consider yourself lucky not to have been one of those. Cold or flu symptoms can vary from year to year. The only thing special in 2020 was the screenplay elaborated worldwide to manufacture a scamdemic.

There's no human resources or ability to create a virus that can last long enough to provoke such thing as a pandemic. It may be too lethal, but it won't have a chance to survive in a world populated by species that adapted and suceed across millions of years of evolution. Even if they could create anything close, they wouldn't be fool enough to risk their own life with something that could potentially go out of control. Far more easy and reliable to create the screenplay with their media, and push their "life saving" antidote.

 

[trance]

Thousands of people, even young and healthy ones, suddenly die EVERY year by the flu. You can consider yourself lucky not to have been one of those. Cold or flu symptoms can vary from year to year. The only thing special in 2020 was the screenplay elaborated worldwide to manufacture a scamdemic.

Troy, this is simply not true. Those common coronaviruses do not have the furin cleavage site and glycoprotein 120 from HIV.

 

[yerrag]

I used to be one of the covid skeptics, then I got myocarditis from an infection last winter and still haven’t recovered. The No-covid dogmatists can technically argue that these symptoms are possible with common colds, but the fact is that the furin cleavage site is not found in other common coronaviruses.

The main contradiction in the covid dissident sphere is that they will usually admit the ruling class has open depopulation plans, but if you suggest that they’ve created a virus for this purpose, you will get lynched by these dissidents.

Only perpetrators admit and you evidently used poor choice of words. Depopulation plans don't only involve the putative use of viruses. You don't have to be imaginative to name some examples.

So you bandy a term like furin-cleavage sites, and yet there has been no virus isolated at all. So how in the hell did they find these furin-cleavage sites?

Now I'll admit I'm ignorant about furin-cleavage sites. Tell us more about it.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I used to be one of the covid skeptics, then I got myocarditis from an infection last winter and still haven’t recovered.

So, you get diagnosed with a condition that existed long before 2019, and has no association with the alleged "Novel Corona Virus," and this is all it took to convince you that the "virus" is "real?" Obviously, you weren't much of a skeptic in the first place. Even coming down with "official" Covid symptoms doesn't prove the existence of a virus.

The main contradiction in the covid dissident sphere is that they will usually admit the ruling class has open depopulation plans, but if you suggest that they’ve created a virus for this purpose, you will get lynched by these dissidents.

Just because there are people at high levels that want to depopulate the planet doesn't mean they came up with a "virus" to do it. Even if they funded research to that end, there is no evidence that research was successful (or could be effective on a national or global scale). People understand there is a difference in scale between something like a handgun and 100 Nuclear bombs, but seem to lose all such sense of scale when the magic word "bioweapon" is bandied about. A few grams or milligrams "leaked" from a lab wouldn't be a danger to the world. You would need several million tons of aerosolized spray, deployed in a militaristic fashion.

Considering the IFR for Covid has been estimated at 0.15% by John Ionnidis, Covid obviously wouldn't be that "magic virus" in the first place. Even the "official" figures only make Covid responsible for about 3-4% of deaths over the past 30 months, and it's incredibly obvious those figures are wildly inflated, by at least 95%.

The Official COVID-19 Death Toll is a Big Fat Fraud

As I write this, the popular facts and figures website worldometer.info is reporting 578,975 COVID-19 deaths for the US, through 15 April 2021. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website claims that, as of 15 April 2021, there have been 561,356 deaths from COVID-19. I'm...

anthonycolpo.com

Of course, if there is no virus, then even the numbers cited by Colpo and Ionnidis would be wild exaggerations. The true IFR would be 0.0%, and the total number of deaths from Covid would be zero.

 

[LLight]

I'm not sure steping into such a warzone is good for my mental health but I have a question that I'm genuinely wondering (it might have been answered already sorry).

I wonder how are interpreted the sequenced genomes in the "SARS-CoV-2 does not exist paradigm". If we are sampling noise from an unpure medium, how can it be consistent over repetitions? Is it the sampling method that artificially produces this consistency (I guess it could because of the implications of the RNA swarm theory, which says that you would always have multiple virus versions existing together)? I admit I don't know how sequencing works at all. Maybe you have to indicate what you are looking for somehow, which would defeat the purpose of this procedure in the first place.

If it's the produce of an internal mecanism like exosomes, what do mutation of the genetic code we are sampling mean (you know, the "philogenetic trees of mutations and variants")?