Theory: The ticks that cause a meat allergy were bioengineered like the ticks that cause Lyme disease?

[animalcule]

This is just something I've been thinking about, and maybe someone on here has better resources regarding it. But: there has been a rise in cases of meat allergy after being bitten by the Lone Star tick.

This Tick Can Make You Allergic to Meat, and It's Spreading

Work on genetically modified pigs might provide a solution to the strange illness

www.scientificamerican.com

Given all of the WEF talk about reducing meat consumption to save the planet, I wonder if this meat allergy reaction could be the result of some scientists' meddling, much like how Lyme Disease was likely the result of bioengineering (Amazon product ASIN 006289627XView: https://www.amazon.com/Bitten-History-Disease-Biological-Weapons/dp/006289627X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3RT4Y5UDDDIRR&keywords=lyme+disease+history+book&qid=1662128778&sprefix=lyme+disease+history+boo%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1
). The tick population is rising, more cases are being reported. If more and more people are allergic to red meat, they won't eat it. They've been 'nudged' away from this dietary choice.

Thoughts? I'm open to this being nonsense, the thought just occurred to me.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

This is just something I've been thinking about, and maybe someone on here has better resources regarding it. But: there has been a rise in cases of meat allergy after being bitten by the Lone Star tick.

This Tick Can Make You Allergic to Meat, and It's Spreading

Work on genetically modified pigs might provide a solution to the strange illness

www.scientificamerican.com

Given all of the WEF talk about reducing meat consumption to save the planet, I wonder if this meat allergy reaction could be the result of some scientists' meddling, much like how Lyme Disease was likely the result of bioengineering (Amazon product ASIN 006289627XView: https://www.amazon.com/Bitten-History-Disease-Biological-Weapons/dp/006289627X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3RT4Y5UDDDIRR&keywords=lyme+disease+history+book&qid=1662128778&sprefix=lyme+disease+history+boo%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1
). The tick population is rising, more cases are being reported. If more and more people are allergic to red meat, they won't eat it. They've been 'nudged' away from this dietary choice.

Thoughts? I'm open to this being nonsense, the thought just occurred to me.

Nothing is nonsense or surprises me much anymore. The world is a hot mess.

 

[Fred]

Problem is, there would not be any way for the "elites" to avoid getting bitten, so it wouldn't be prudent to release something that might bite you ... unless they have a secret cure, that is.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Problem is, there would not be any way for the "elites" to avoid getting bitten, so it wouldn't be prudent to release something that might bite you ... unless they have a secret cure, that is.

That is exactly what I have said in other threads.

 

[Fred]

That is exactly what I have said in other threads.

I would guess that a "cure" might involve following Ray's guidelines and possibly might include treating meats with certain enzymes.

 

[animalcule]

Problem is, there would not be any way for the "elites" to avoid getting bitten, so it wouldn't be prudent to release something that might bite you ... unless they have a secret cure, that is.

I think people sometimes underestimate how many elites are “true believers.” I think a substantial portion of the people pushing no-meat agenda really don’t think meat is healthy. So if they do get bitten, maybe they don’t think it will be a terrible thing they need to reverse.

The meat allergy though can apparently go away in several years, assuming you’re not bitten repeatedly.

 

[joaquin]

If there was a dime's worth of evidence (this not include radio talk show hosts repeating baseless assertions) that microbes of any sort were being engineered to cause disease, why aren't the same pie-holes talking about pesticides, EMFs, heavy metals, chemtrails, and the increased use of seed oils over the last 30 years and rocket fuel in tap water?

Is it all a distraction? Is it a distraction to give military veterans a sense of superiority over the sheeple? Everyone has that uncle that says "china created the coronavirus in a lab" who smugly believes he is so much smarter than those dumb snowflake millennials.

 

[animalcule]

If there was a dime's worth of evidence (this not include radio talk show hosts repeating baseless assertions) that microbes of any sort were being engineered to cause disease, why aren't the same pie-holes talking about pesticides, EMFs, heavy metals, chemtrails, and the increased use of seed oils over the last 30 years and rocket fuel in tap water?

Is it all a distraction? Is it a distraction to give military veterans a sense of superiority over the sheeple? Everyone has that uncle that says "china created the coronavirus in a lab" who smugly believes he is so much smarter than those dumb snowflake millennials.

There is more than a dime’s worth of evidence. And it’s as though you’re saying, “If someone is going to research something in one area, why aren’t they researching things in all these other areas?? Hmm? Hmmmm?? Riddle me that!”

Very weird, distorted perspective in this comment. Bioengineering/otherwise altering viruses and other microbes has been going on for decades. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a well funded area that often goes under the umbrella of “national defense.” Lyme disease is potentially the result of government sponsored research during the Cold War.

… Your account is very new.

 

[joaquin]

I guess we never get past the mandella effect and say when and how was HIV, or Coronavirus or Lyme disease REALLY created in a lab? We just hear folks such as Icke and Rense mouth on and on for decades and just assume that there must be something there, some factual evidence, or else they would not be talking about it.

Truth of the matter is that there was such a build up the intelligence community during the cold war that the purpose of these agencies go far beyond whatever they pretend. It is easier to put fake ideas into the public conversation (ufos, alien invasion, genetic modification of viruses) than to actually do the genetic manipulation.

And if it is possible for the tiniest of viruses to be manipulated in a laboratory, isn't it truly arrogant to pretend that: There is just no way this is a false idea has been continually filtered out to the public mindset over 40 years?

Think about it. One thing is possible but the other is not?

 

[tankasnowgod]

If there was a dime's worth of evidence (this not include radio talk show hosts repeating baseless assertions) that microbes of any sort were being engineered to cause disease, why aren't the same pie-holes talking about pesticides, EMFs, heavy metals, chemtrails, and the increased use of seed oils over the last 30 years and rocket fuel in tap water?

Is it all a distraction? Is it a distraction to give military veterans a sense of superiority over the sheeple? Everyone has that uncle that says "china created the coronavirus in a lab" who smugly believes he is so much smarter than those dumb snowflake millennials.

There is more than a dime’s worth of evidence. And it’s as though you’re saying, “If someone is going to research something in one area, why aren’t they researching things in all these other areas?? Hmm? Hmmmm?? Riddle me that!”

Very weird, distorted perspective in this comment. Bioengineering/otherwise altering viruses and other microbes has been going on for decades. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a well funded area that often goes under the umbrella of “national defense.” Lyme disease is potentially the result of government sponsored research during the Cold War.

… Your account is very new.

Sure, there is evidence that such things are being researched. The funding itself is proof enough of that. But there really isn't a dime's worth of evidence that this research has been successful, not in any meaningful way. We've even seen how companies, organizations and governments will continue to throw time, money, and resources into ideas that never bear any sort benefits, with mRNA drugs being a prime example. They are total bust for what the original ideas and claims were, but that hasn't stopped the research (nor even getting obviously flawed products to market).

As far as a lot of "bioweapon" or "gain of function" research is concerned, I tend to think the very premise is off base. It all seems to based on the fundamental belief that symptoms or diseases are inherent characteristics of pathogens, whether they be bacteria, fungi, or "viruses." The reality is that there are a lot of other factors at play, especially the health of the host or patient. Even in standard medicine, there is the concept of "opportunistic infection." There is no reason that concept shouldn't apply to every sort of disease or problem that has a germ as a cause (or partial cause).

To that end, I think the idea of "bioweapons" are more a distraction than anything else. The idea is far more powerful itself than the reality.

If you go back and read the Scientific American article you linked, you can obviously see it's crafting a narrative. A woman get's a disease, and they blame it on a tick bite. Even though there are potentially thousands of other potential causes or reasons. It's speculation that is then topped with more speculation, with more speculation heaped on top of that.

In the original patients case, where was the proof? They didn't have the tick that bit her, so they can't claim what "species" it is. Considering they are going on her memory, how do they know it was a tick bite, and not maybe a flea or mosquito or some other sort of bite?

 

[RealNeat]

"Pests" and "pests" who feed on "pests" are victim to the same process/ toxicity as fish, that feed on smaller fish and become bioaccumulators as a result. Seneff had also talked about potential glyphosate injection through tick bites.

Ticks can dump their saliva and other fluids (ex toxins) into the wound if removed improperly. I really like the Tick Twister, comes in very handy for properly removing a tick without squeezing, of course you have to find them first, I prefer a bright daylight LED flashlight with a hazy lens that disperses light, it is able to spot ticks on a naked body quite easily, imo you need another person to do it.

If I can, and I'm not around toxic plants, I wear sandals and shorts in the woods (I know, blasphemous) it makes it so ticks are easier to spot on bare skin and I always feel them trying to crawl up my leg hairs. Or you can just wear brighter clothes. You have some time until they attach so I just loosely check until I'm home and do a through search with flashlights and mirrors once we're home.

The ducktape around the ankles also works (sticky side up) along with rose geranium essential oil, diluted in alcohol and sprayed on clothing and shoes. Having chickens also helps. Eliminating barberry bushes works to prevent mice which the ticks feed off of and are likely the reason for their toxicity, and humans are likely the reason for the mouse's toxicity.

As far as the Lyme Island story and all that, I haven't looked deeply but I'm sure an attempt to mess with them is ongoing, along with many other ways to stabilize poisons to engage in so called "biowarfare" or possibly to make living away from the city and being self sufficient hell.

That being said its not unheard of insects, plants and fungi to influence, alter and inhibit vital bodily process (naturally) to deter or weaken the predator, prey or offender.

 

[animalcule]

Sure, there is evidence that such things are being researched. The funding itself is proof enough of that. But there really isn't a dime's worth of evidence that this research has been successful, not in any meaningful way. We've even seen how companies, organizations and governments will continue to throw time, money, and resources into ideas that never bear any sort benefits, with mRNA drugs being a prime example. They are total bust for what the original ideas and claims were, but that hasn't stopped the research (nor even getting obviously flawed products to market).

As far as a lot of "bioweapon" or "gain of function" research is concerned, I tend to think the very premise is off base. It all seems to based on the fundamental belief that symptoms or diseases are inherent characteristics of pathogens, whether they be bacteria, fungi, or "viruses." The reality is that there are a lot of other factors at play, especially the health of the host or patient. Even in standard medicine, there is the concept of "opportunistic infection." There is no reason that concept shouldn't apply to every sort of disease or problem that has a germ as a cause (or partial cause).

To that end, I think the idea of "bioweapons" are more a distraction than anything else. The idea is far more powerful itself than the reality.

If you go back and read the Scientific American article you linked, you can obviously see it's crafting a narrative. A woman get's a disease, and they blame it on a tick bite. Even though there are potentially thousands of other potential causes or reasons. It's speculation that is then topped with more speculation, with more speculation heaped on top of that.

In the original patients case, where was the proof? They didn't have the tick that bit her, so they can't claim what "species" it is. Considering they are going on her memory, how do they know it was a tick bite, and not maybe a flea or mosquito or some other sort of bite?

Yea, ok. There are thousands of cases (the numbers are growing in my region), not just the woman in that article. The proof is from all of the other patients who were bitten by ticks, creating the pattern, and the tick itself having alpha-gal to inject. Is it iron clad? No. I'm fine with that. If there turns out to be some other factor causing all of these people to become allergic to meat, ok, great, I'll look into that.

As a general rule now, though, I don't tend to engage w/people who are still claiming that 1) gain of function research has never produced bioweapons and 2) "viruses" don't exist and the only thing that matters is terrain. Of course terrain matters. It will determine what characteristics of the pathogen will be able to wreak havoc and what will be suppressed and lead to nothing but a little tiredness. It doesn't mean that specific viruses don't have certain characteristics and potential to cause certain outcomes. I really don't see your own logic holding up. Opportunistic infections and specific bacteria strains/viruses are not mutually exclusive. The opportunistic infection came from a pathogen, and that pathogen has characteristics not shared with some other pathogen that would cause different symptoms/different methods of destruction.

I had Covid, and it was like no illness I've ever had before. And by the time I got it, I wasn't even worried about getting Covid. I thought I'd shrug it off like a cold. But I was in bed for two weeks, and incredibly fatigued for weeks after. My blood oxygen dropped to 93. My lungs had difficulty fully expanding, it hurt to breath. I thought I might have to go to the hospital. It was almost like there was this virus, experienced by millions of people worldwide, with a certain set of characteristics including lung involvement, that had infected me... But no, not possible, right? Because viruses don't exist? What happened to me then? And why did it happen to so many others?

 

[RealNeat]

As a general rule now, though, I don't tend to engage w/people who are still claiming that 1) gain of function research has never produced bioweapons and 2) "viruses" don't exist and the only thing that matters is terrain.

You're breaking your own rule, seems like you got it all figured out, why waste your time asking emotional rhetorical questions to @tankasnowgod if you aren't open for debate? I wont be offended if you don't respond.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Yea, ok. There are thousands of cases (the numbers are growing in my region), not just the woman in that article.

So what? That doesn't prove what the cause was. It could even be a different cause in each case.

The proof is from all of the other patients who were bitten by ticks, creating the pattern, and the tick itself having alpha-gal to inject. Is it iron clad? No.
I'm fine with that. If there turns out to be some other factor causing all of these people to become allergic to meat, ok, great, I'll look into that.

It's certainly not "iron clad," and it's barely even circumstantial. And truly, if they don't have evidence that each case was bitten by the exact same type of tick in a similar timeframe, it doesn't even rise to the level of "circumstantial."

As a general rule now, though, I don't tend to engage w/people who are still claiming that 1) gain of function research has never produced bioweapons and 2) "viruses" don't exist and the only thing that matters is terrain.

First off, why do you think "viruses exist" or that "gain of function" has produced "bioweapons?" My guess here is that you haven't looked into the evidence of either. There are several threads talking about the problems with all the research around "viruses" not the least of which is that they have never been detected in blood, saliva or mucus without serious processing to "amplify" the amount of "virus" present.

And as I've noted before, people lose all sense of scale when the magic "bioweapon" word is thrown around. If you have looked into actual tests of bioweapons, like "Operation Sea Spray," you would know that many tons of aerosolized germs are needed to infect even a relatively small city like San Francisco, and even then the effects weren't noticeable to most people.

Of course terrain matters. It will determine what characteristics of the pathogen will be able to wreak havoc and what will be suppressed and lead to nothing but a little tiredness. It doesn't mean that specific viruses don't have certain characteristics and potential to cause certain outcomes. I really don't see your own logic holding up.

Well, considering the way viruses are identified, it's impossible to prove any "virus" causes any symptom, whether specific or general.

Opportunistic infections and specific bacteria strains/viruses are not mutually exclusive. The opportunistic infection came from a pathogen, and that pathogen has characteristics not shared with some other pathogen that would cause different symptoms/different methods of destruction.

But.... do they? In pretty much any symptom you can identify, there are usually dozens to hundreds of different conditions that can cause it. Coughing, for example, could be caused by a cold or dust or allergies or a dry throat, or pneumonia and lung cancer, and many others. Same symptoms, different diseases, and a whole range of seriousness.

I had Covid, and it was like no illness I've ever had before. And by the time I got it, I wasn't even worried about getting Covid. I thought I'd shrug it off like a cold. But I was in bed for two weeks, and incredibly fatigued for weeks after. My blood oxygen dropped to 93. My lungs had difficulty fully expanding, it hurt to breath. I thought I might have to go to the hospital. It was almost like there was this virus, experienced by millions of people worldwide, with a certain set of characteristics including lung involvement, that had infected me... But no, not possible, right? Because viruses don't exist? What happened to me then? And why did it happen to so many others?

Again, a logical fallacy. The symptoms you had certainly don't prove that Covid exists. Plus, everyone who gets "Covid" seems to get different symptoms. Many don't even experience symptoms at all (the alleged "Asymptomatic Patients").

Regardless of the cause, people have been coming down with colds, flus, and pneumonia for centuries now. While you may not have personally experienced an illness like that before 2019, millions of people worldwide have, in pretty much any year of record. Like 2009, 2014, 1989, 1994, 2018, and sure, even 2020, 2021, and 2022. Every year, during cold and flu season, hundreds of thousands of Americans alone experience a cold with the seriousness of symptoms you describe, and some even worse. A coworker of mine was laid out with the flu, and largely bedridden, for six weeks..... back in 2018.

 

[animalcule]

You're breaking your own rule, seems like you got it all figured out, why waste your time asking emotional rhetorical questions to @tankasnowgod if you aren't open for debate? I wont be offended if you don't respond.

Because I was bored and kept typing. A mistake.
I don't have it all figured out. But part of attempting to figure it out is discerning the signal from the noise. Am I always right in my assessment? Nope. But I've read enough from people saying the things he's said to want nothing to do with their particular angle, as I think it is a distraction and a waste of time. Same as how I won't seriously engage with anyone with anyone who thinks the mRNA shots are modern miracles and will continue to take boosters - I even know a man who signed his kids up to the vaccine trials. He's got his authorities, his particular orientation, and there's no convincing him he isn't make sound, rational choices in the best interest of his health and his kids' health. Same with this guy. He can spout nonsense, thinking he's exposing some overlooked logical inconsistency ("Ah! But a cough can be caused by all kinds of things! How do you know it's pathogen X? Didn't think of that, did you?? *massive eye roll*). Yes: PCR tests were set to incredibly high replication levels and gave many false positives, many people diagnosed w/Covid probably didn't have it, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It's been isolated. I went down the "viruses don't exist" rabbit hole when covid first started, and I'm not going back down it.

Here's Steve Kirsch on the it:

Has the virus been isolated? Yes.

So why aren't we doing experiments on animals to determine the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Answer: Because nobody wants to know the answer.

stevekirsch.substack.com

"I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” It’s a reasonable approach if you are careful about which experts you trust.

All of the expert friends I’ve asked (including Robert Malone and Li-Meng Yan) tell me that “the virus has been isolated.” So it has been “isolated” according to their belief in what the term means.

Others interpret the term differently and would claim the virus hasn’t been isolated. In fact, according to their definition, no virus in history has ever been isolated. That’s important to know. They use that as justification for their belief that there is no virus here since viruses don’t exist at all.

Both sides are right because they define the term differently. It’s all semantics.

You can physically buy the virus in various forms (at ATCC and EVAg). If you have a BSL3 lab and a live virus, you can expose it to animals and they will get sick.

Some people will disagree with what I just wrote
​

I knew my statement would light a fire before I wrote this. When I asked on my telegram channel “has the virus been isolated?” I received 295 comments which is around 10X more than normal.

When I posted this article on Telegram, it again lit up with 284 comments as of Jan 9.

Various commenters are calling each other flat earthers, etc. Nobody on the chat has ever ordered a product from ATCC.

The arguments go flying about double-blind studies to “prove” you got the right virus, the use (or misuse) of Koch’s postulates, whether Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka are “for real” or “nut jobs,” whether the FOIA asks were contrived to elicit a null response, and what the definition of “isolation” really is (does it mean purified or not, for example).

If you watch this video at 4:00, you’ll see even virologists themselves don’t agree on the definition of “isolate.” Does it require purification or not? If we don’t agree on the terminology, there is no end to the arguments. And that’s exactly what we see on the chat.

That us why debating Kaufman and his collaborators is fruitless: each side will dig in on their own definitions and settle nothing. I just got off the phone with James Lyons-Weiler who debated this issue (he didn’t recall who he debated with) but his take is that it went nowhere and both sides were unmoved after the “debate.”

These three articles are a good read:

1. The Psychiatrist Who Calmly Denies Reality
2. No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’
3. Report Falsely Claims US CDC ‘Admits COVID-19 Doesn’t Exist’

Stefan Lanka lost his $100,000 bet in the lower court because someone found 6 papers that together proved Lanka was wrong. The Supreme Court in Germany overturned it because Lanka put terms in his bet that it had to be a single paper. So Lanka was fundamentally wrong and simply won on a technicality.

DontCoitusMyCOTUS (despite the colorful language) points out:

1. Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowen are misleading people with their arguments. Kaufman, for example, is a psychiatrist who admits he has never done virus research.
2. “Hysterical watching a <insults redacted> demand virus isolated to their imaginary specs and dismissing ATCC which is the world’s largest oldest and most important micro organism repository in the world.”
3. The FOIA document requests are a “stunt designed to fail”
4. “Virus not isolated”: the definition Kaufman, Cowan, etc. use is different than what scientists who publish papers on virus isolation use. This is why there is such disagreement on this question because different people interpret “has been isolated” differently.
5. If you search for “Isolation of Wuhan Virus” you’ll find many papers in PubMed and NIH in many countries with details on how isolation was done (for example this one and this one). You can see a TEM picture here. Here are more references.
6. ATCC 351 variant RNA for sale is not in culture.

Don Newmeyer points out: “People insisting that the virus hasn’t been isolated or that they’re computer generated are displaying their ignorance of modern biology. Virus isolation and genomic sequencing is just basic methodology nowadays.”

Collapsse Podcast wrote: “The debate over whether or not it's been isolated is a distraction”

Matthew wrote: “I'm surprised you're giving Doctor Weed the time of day. I gave up ages ago debating with these virus denying folk. No matter what evidence you provide them, they choose to dismiss it in favor of what a psychiatrist says who's been caught lying and unable to provide a scientific rebuttal to the papers which prove it's existence. Kaufman didn't even understand how to read a reverse primer for a pcr test and was claiming they're testing for human DNA.” He showed a clip where Kaufman admits, “I’ve never done virus research”

Given a live virus, you can use it to test the vaccine
​

You can test the vaccine easily as well. Give the vaccine to the animals, wait, then expose them to the virus. You can do biodistribution studies of the vaccine as well; you don’t even need the virus for those studies."

 

[tankasnowgod]

Here's Steve Kirsch on the it:

Has the virus been isolated? Yes.

So why aren't we doing experiments on animals to determine the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Answer: Because nobody wants to know the answer.

stevekirsch.substack.com

"I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” It’s a reasonable approach if you are careful about which experts you trust.

All of the expert friends I’ve asked (including Robert Malone and Li-Meng Yan) tell me that “the virus has been isolated.” So it has been “isolated” according to their belief in what the term means.

Others interpret the term differently and would claim the virus hasn’t been isolated. In fact, according to their definition, no virus in history has ever been isolated. That’s important to know. They use that as justification for their belief that there is no virus here since viruses don’t exist at all.

Both sides are right because they define the term differently. It’s all semantics.

You can physically buy the virus in various forms (at ATCC and EVAg). If you have a BSL3 lab and a live virus, you can expose it to animals and they will get sick.

Some people will disagree with what I just wrote​

Yeah, you know who those "some people" are? Anyone who knows the definition of the word "isolate," or bothers to look up the definition in a dictionary (especially a medical one). Any normal person would think that "isolation" means that the "virus" has been separated from all other material. In practice, this would mean separating out the "virus" from human DNA and other bacteria and microflora taken from a sick patient. This is something that virologists never even attempt, and even say it's impossible.

I have a copy of Tabler's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary in front of me, the first definition of the word isolation refers to people and the second and third are-

2. In Chemistry, to obtain a substance in pure form from the mixture of solution that contains it.
3. An organism identified in pure form in a microbial culture.

Going by Tabler's definition, Covid has never been isolated. When Virologists (and Kirsch) use are using the term "isolate," they don't mean that the "virus" is in a pure form in solution or culture, merely that it has been separated about 30-60 Microns from other cellular material. I'd call this deception or fraud. The least Kirsch could do is define the term "isolate" or reference a source, since he seems to think this dispute centers around the definition of the word. Of course, if he did that, people might see the problem with his argument, so he leaves it up to the reader to assume his meaning.

In the real world, this means a few things. First, that you can never test the "virus" in animals to see if it produces infection, because it could be some other thing in the mixture that does that. It also means there is no way to "genetically sequence" the virus, since the sample will also have human, monkey (from the added vero cells), cow (from the added fetal bovine serum), and other bacteria and microflora DNA, and you don't know what you are sequencing.

Using Tabler's definition, "isolation" has never even been attempted for the alleged "Novel Corona Virus." Far from taking foreign material away from the alleged "isolate," they ADD stuff to it, including foreign DNA, and things like antibiotics and digestive enzymes. The term "isolation" and "isolate" should NEVER be used by virologists, because they aren't doing that. They should call it something like a "cultured virus sample," or "amplified virus mixture." Not secretly redefining words to mean their opposite.

EDIT- Just noticed another massive logical contradiction in that Kirsch article. When defending the "isolation" of the virus, he states the following-

I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus. Do these isolates have other stuff in them? How were they created? I don’t know because I haven’t analyzed them personally. But my scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong?

So today we have the ability to do animal experiments to assess the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and boosters.

So, companies wouldn't market a product that contaminated and useless. Got it. Meanwhile, the very next section of the article states-

A critical thinker might then ask, so why aren’t we experimenting on animals instead of humans?

The answer is simple: because nobody wants to know the answer. The FDA doesn’t and neither do the drug companies. That’s why the FDA isn’t requiring the drug companies to do it. So it doesn’t get done.

In fact, the FDA is never going to require them to do this; the top management of the FDA knows it would kill the vaccine program if they did this. That’s why they don’t ask. Because they don’t want to know.

Literally just few sentences later, he suggests that companies are marketing a product that is useless, with the blessing of regulatory agencies.

And considering any "scientists" doing research with SARS-Cov-2 are being funded by those same drug companies and/or the Federal Government, it would seem they likely wouldn't care if the "$2000 a shot" virus product is contaminated or useless. Because they are likely only to use it to market useless products, anyway.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Same with this guy. He can spout nonsense, thinking he's exposing some overlooked logical inconsistency ("Ah! But a cough can be caused by all kinds of things! How do you know it's pathogen X? Didn't think of that, did you?? *massive eye roll*). Yes: PCR tests were set to incredibly high replication levels and gave many false positives, many people diagnosed w/Covid probably didn't have it, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It's been isolated. I went down the "viruses don't exist" rabbit hole when covid first started, and I'm not going back down it.

Funny, you basically admit that the symptoms of Covid are non-specific (in fact, 100% of "Covid Symptoms" overlap with the common cold and flu), and also that the tests being used aren't effective.

Which means, even if you use the fraudulent virologist definition of "isolate," there is still no sure way to detect Covid 19 in any particular patient in the real world.

 

[Blossom]

had Covid, and it was like no illness I've ever had before. And by the time I got it, I wasn't even worried about getting Covid. I thought I'd shrug it off like a cold. But I was in bed for two weeks, and incredibly fatigued for weeks after. My blood oxygen dropped to 93. My lungs had difficulty fully expanding, it hurt to breath. I thought I might have to go to the hospital. It was almost like there was this virus, experienced by millions of people worldwide, with a certain set of characteristics including lung involvement, that had infected me..

That matches my experience. For me it was definitely more intense than any cold or flu I’d experienced.

 

[joaquin]

Why did Steve Kirsch, MIT double major, come on to the scene out of nowhere when he did?

He was no where to be found on the anti-vax scene over the last 25 years!!

He is sixty-five years old. Where was he during the early days of Dr Wakefield's tribulations?

Has Steve denounced all vaccines? Because if he won't, then he is nothing more than a pied piper.

 

[RealNeat]

Why did Steve Kirsch, MIT double major, come on to the scene out of nowhere when he did?

He was no where to be found on the anti-vax scene over the last 25 years!!

He is sixty-five years old. Where was he during the early days of Dr Wakefield's tribulations?

Has Steve denounced all vaccines? Because if he won't, then he is nothing more than a pied piper.

“Safe vaccines”