This is so predictable. As things get worse and more and more people continue to die from these "vaccines," the cause will eventually become undeniable (it already is). All of the so-called leaders who mandated this poison on the population will say they had no way of knowing and did the best they could under the circumstances. They'll then tell people that there were always risks involved and that everyone should have weighed that risk become they took it. They will never take one ounce of responsibility. I guarantee you that.
Not to worry Blair. We are going to help them with that taking responsibility thing. Kind of like what my response would be to all those witnesses who "don't recall". You're failing memory is not at issue. Here in black and white is the record of your words and actions. These are what you are on trial for. The "we had no way of knowing" argument will also not wash. The scientific community they function in has known for decades that mRNA gene therapies are inherently toxic. None before covid has make approval for general market release. There is just far too much known, "in the literature" for plausible deniability to function. Now, deniability is just not plausible. That appropriate Judiciary function can be achieved is a whole different kettle of fish.
People should have 'weighed that risk' against the risk of not being able to feed their families and shelter them, and perhaps never work as doctors or police officers or firemen or teachers etc...again. Hmmm.....Sophie's choice from the regulators, and we know that is coercion and against the ethics of the Nuremburg truths. Saw one Australian health minister admit he was wrong to push the mandates, but this is not a case of ignorance, it is a character problem. Because even in cases of personal ignorance, vaccinologists like Geert Van Den Bosche know exactly how viruses work in populations with and without shots, and they spoke out and were ignored. And, these were not even vaccines, so the vaccine idea is a moot point. I was wondering when the back tracking would kick in, didn't think it would be so soon.
Whenever it becomes acceptable to criticize the current product, it means there are new products on the way, and they are paving the way so that they will not only be accepted, but celebrated.
Gates of Hell has already promised us that a new pandemic will be coming along soon and I'll sure there will be a new, improved mRNA "vaccine" to go with it.
GoH and his buddies already held a tabletop exercise charmingly called "Catastrophic Contagion" about an enterovirus with a much higher fatality rate than SARS-CoV-2...a virus that will particularly infect and kill children. In this rehearsal, the new pandemic began in 2025, but who knows, I'm sure they've got the new virus ready in biolab(s) and maybe it will leak out before the planned release date, like SARS-CoV-2 did. In any case, the battlecry won't be "Get the vax to save Grandma!" this time; it will be "Get the vax to save the Children!"
Thank you for making this point. I would imagine most folks who've got at least a semblance of a dicerning mind, would be sencing this would the most likely next move for these characteristically nefarious, slimy creature's plandemic screenplay.
He is such a fraud. He’ll NEVER accept responsibility for the harms he has caused. Fauci belongs in jail, with all assets stripped from him and donated to the injured and their families.
Who cares what Dr. Death ‘thinks’? An oxymoron, by the way. He is a serial liar as well as a serial killer, going back to the AIDS issues. Listening to this despicable creep is like listening to Hitler talk about racial policies, or Ghengis Khan rhapsodising on peaceful coexistence.
So true! He needs to be prosecuted. Instead, he’s got a professorship at a Jesuit university! Why would anyone give a voice to a murderer unless they too are happy with his multiple misdeeds?
The Pope is part of the elite. He's comfortable at Davos and having tea with Bill Gates. Catholics I know - especially in America - despair of this Pope.
Catholicism says he is infallible though, that is a problem for millions of people. I don't know his character, he maybe brainwashed on covid also, but I think Dr. Robert Malone went to the Vatican and passed on the facts to one of the cardinals there, not 100% sure, but I did read about it somewhere.
Maybe that's why flu and covid vaccine uptake is declining amongst health care workers. They see how ineffective they are, and they also see the injuries they cause. Finally, with the spectacularly awful covid shots, they're beginning to see the light.
"New CDC reports show that healthcare workers were less likely to get a flu shot during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic and were not up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines during the 2022-23 respiratory virus season."
In all such fancy anointed (aka peer-reviewed) discussions, we tend to bury an interesting aspect of this new technology: its method of operation consists in turning the body into a spike-producing factory. The same spike, with the same toxic spike properties. What it triggers or how much or whether sufficiently or not, it all appears to be pushed to the surface as a decoy to the primary mechanism.
I've been pondering something lately, during long work related drives, always a great time for thinking.
If, hypothetically, +/- 80% of a given population, (assuming uptake numbers are to be believed) accepted a "therapy" that modified/over-stressed/weakened their immune system and response, what effect would this have on the regular seasonal flus, colds etc?
Given the rapid mutation/evolution of respiratory viruses, could it mean that the "evolutionary pressure" on said seasonal bugs changes them in such way as they optimize infectivity in said overstressed immune systems, being that the majority of immune systems they'll encounter have undergone such modification?
Could that then also mean they may become less effective at infecting a non modified host?
You mean the bugs get lazy, pick off the spikeshotted, and the rest of us just get 15 minutes of sniffles and one sneeze or cough (your choice) each? Seems to me that 80% of a population having weakened immune systems would *relieve* evolutionary pressure and no specific mutation would convey advantage among the weakened part of the population...but a mutation that more effectively spread among the unspikeshotted (without being very dangerous) would have the evolutionary advantage. But all this viro-stuff is complicated. Perhaps ask Geert van den Bossch (sp?)...
I would refer you to read Geert Van Den Bossche on this, he has an in-depth understanding of how all this works, often it can be counterintuitive to how we think. But, for sure the clot shots have affected T cells and weakened immunity, how that plays out in terms of viral evolution in the flu I would have to research.
Sorry, but den Bossche understands very little. How would he - for example - explain the FACT that FOI requests to 220+ government, academic, pharma research establishments for ANY paper proving the existence of the entity claimed to cause Covid resulted in zero results? ZERO! Nobody has such a paper. Why? Because virology is a pseudoscience. Viruses don’t exist. The entire virus model is a fiction created by and for Pharma. Follow the money: no virus = no vaccine = no profit. Refer to a brilliantly researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey ‘A Farewell to Virology’ with hundreds of citations you can follow. Get it from drsambailey.com
I read his paper last night. Sorry, I am unconvinced that there is no such thing as a virus. I currently subscribe to the germ-terrain notion. Koch's postulates were formulated before the discovery of viruses, so not a good yard stick. Viruses, need host cells to replicate in, so can't be isolated in the same way Koch defined with bacteria. To determine if a virus growing in the culture is really the target, genetic material is extracted from the virus in culture and its genome is sequenced. Regardless of labs etc....we know transfection occurs causing symptoms for millions simply by observing chickenpox outbreaks after a group of children attend a chickenpox party etc... In a YouTube video Dr. Bailey addressed this poorly, reinforcing to me that the idea of virus transfection was the plausible cause and not Mark's unclear reasons that sounded more like excuses. Correlation does not mean causation, but often it does.
I invite you to re-read the paper. You are interpreting the issue from the point of view that viruses exist. If they do, all you have to do to finish the argument is produce ONE paper that isolates a self-replicating entity capable of inserting itself into a healthy cell and killing or materially damaging that cell, which dead or damaged cell can then be used to extract the entity you claim is the causative factor and show it to be identical to the entity you originally isolated. You can do this for ANY condition you claim is caused by your 'virus'. The world awaits. Your non-sequiturs regarding Koch postulates being formulated before 'the discovery of viruses' can be ignored because you are assuming viruses have been discovered: and by the way, Jenner (smallpox) predates Koch, as does the Black Death. The claim that chickenpox is contagious has never been proven by controlled experiments on humans conducted using the scientific method and is refuted by ALL such experiments designed to show contagion because NONE of the experiment could do so. There is no paper proving contagion occurs. All this is not merely semantics: it matters because the virus model for disease leads to medical procedures which are (a) unscientific (b) dangerous (c) ineffective (d) but extremely profitable to Pharma. We deserve better medicine and we will NEVER get that following the refuted virus model. Pharma wants you to believe in their silver bullets (vaccines) because that ties you into their profit objectives.
I think it is semantics though, because if no labs existed and studies could not be performed children would still develop symptoms after exposure to children with measles, chickenpox, herpes simplex etc....the experiences would point to contagion.
To all those who bought the Fauci lie hook line and sinker, after they read this, what will they say to us? That includes many of the doctors I encountered during the fiasco that treated me with contempt for voicing the truth.
There is an interesting sentence in the summary of the source article:
“…Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves…”
What does it mean?
The Nature has designed both the human body and the pathogens, here referred to as the specific viruses. The Nature is the designer here - not some lab, which even with the best professional experience of its staff has a combined reliability of, say, 100 to 200 years (30 years of a fully professional expertise of a single person). The timespan of the Nature, during which it had enough opportunities to develop and optimize all beings, is incomparably longer than that.
We can safely assume that there must be a reason why the human body has not been optimized by the Nature to be “completely protected” from these viruses. Maybe… these viruses have some use for our body? Maybe they are needed for some clearing, cleansing or renewing processes in the body? Maybe the bodily reactions to these viruses make the body more resilient and stronger against other infections? Maybe we are destined to “become ill” from these pathogens for reasons which the science is not yet able to find out?
Aren’t some scientists trying to be smarter than the Nature? What are the consequences? (check VAERS, the official, state-approved system monitoring what the science does…)
Right, we live in a soup of viruses, only a small percentage can cause illness. Viruses tend to evolve to become less lethal, because if the host dies, they virus will too. If the symptoms are less severe, the virus can infect others, and follow the prime directive to propagate. Some viruses protect against cancer, one virus keeps AIDS symptoms at bay, at least 8% of our genome is derived from viral genetic material. Viruses keep ocean microbes in check, so plankton have more nutrients, resulting in more oxygen for us. Hubris is the problem, compared to what we don't know, we know hardly anything, and scientists and doctors have that backwards.
1) We don’t know how much of “viruses” we have in our body. They certainly are not in billions or trillions, if at all, because no space would be left for our physically visible organs.
2) We don’t know how much (many?) of them cause what we call illness. Is it a big or large percentage? We don’t know because so far nobody has made a science-based inventory of the virus contents of the human body.
In short, all statements about our viral contents is only an unscientific opinion, a guess at the best, a fantasy in the true analysis of what we hear.
How little we (the science, scientists) know about viruses has been clearly shown with parking-lot swabs - done by non-trained ad hoc hired people who knew nothing about what they were doing - supposedly “collecting” samples of THIS “virus”. How come we sample THIS virus only in the nose/larynx, where it is least dangerous, and we make doomsday conclusions on the basis of this? We were told that the life (symptomacity) cycle of THIS virus is about 2 weeks - how come ANY conclusion can be made about its presence in a particular person when the “sample” is a 1-second snapshot out of (14 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds =) 1,209,600 seconds?... The equivalent of 0,000083% of this 14-day breeding cycle… After one second more, the viral contents of your nasal area may change dramatically (increase or decrease or disappear), but the “science” labeled you “threateningly sick” on the basis of this statistically insignificant 1-second moment…
3) We don’t know how viruses evolve - because the whole virus science is based on laboratory work. Not a single case of virus effect has ever been studied in a living person. Therefore - it’s all a theory, guesswork. The “dead host bad for the virus” story is just another theory, not proven with living persons. It’s only our mind demanding a logical explanation, but in terms of “our” logic, not that of the virus.
4) For the same reason, we don’t know what roles viruses play, defending or not, against what and how - we don’t know. We only can observe tangible results. Like when you throw out your nasal contents every 10 minutes in the time of a bad cold or flu, and your cold/flu is gone within 24 hours. Nobody has ever scientifically analyzed such a procedure in a living person.
5) Finally, you need to read at least a few peer-reviewed published studies which openly disprove viral transmissibility (in other words: infectivity or contagiousness). There are hundreds of these studies, and their conclusion (based on experimental work) is that the very fundamental attribute of the virus (contagion-capacity) has not been scientifically observed.
This comment by Dan has so much truth in it. "We don’t know how viruses evolve - because virus science is based on laboratory work." Firstly, 'virus science' is a contradiction. Virology does not follow the scientific method. It presupposes a 'virus' exists, without ever isolating the entity claimed to be able to infect healthy cells, reproduce itself and go onto kill or damage the cells and spread to other cells. There are NO papers anywhere showing the isolation of any entity claimed to cause measles, AIDS, smallpox, polio, Covid.. none of them. Refer to a brilliantly researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey 'A Farewell to Virology' with hundreds of citations you can look up yourself. You can get it at drsambailey.com
I would like to clarify my position as regards the “exists / doesn’t exist” issue: I don’t know.
When I went into details how electron microscopy works, the information from tier 1 resources immediately invalidated the method of observation - not the virus or no-virus, but the method as such cannot be used in a scientific way. What they are looking at is irrelevant. You can check it for yourself, but make sure you use the documentation provided by manufacturers of the equipment and detailed descriptions published by authors using EM.
The “exists / doesn’t exist” approach requires a basic understanding of a number of bio-chemical-physical processes. What most of people commenting online use are catchwords and abbreviated statements borrowed from other people. It’s not enough. If you (the reader) want to have a balanced opinion, you need to read source documents. Peer-reviewed papers, product specs, user manuals, lab reports, clinical trial guidelines, and so on. I have been doing it for some time, and it really is eye-opening and worth your effort. But - if you truly want to go deeper - it won’t give you a 100% conviction “ah, no, they don’t exist”.
The reason is outside of the scope of virology. Our perception (and observation) is based on a minute section of the electromagnetic spectrum (see explanation here: ).
We cannot see 99.99999% of the world in which we live. Therefore, we cannot simply state that “viruses” (or anything else like ghosts, UFOs, and a lot of stuff which we consider “weird”) do not exist, because we cannot cover 100% of the information available in this world.
We can conclude that certain scientific statements do not follow such and such scientific rules or habits - in other words, you can challenge how faithfully scientists do their work when measured against their own rules. But it won’t be decisive about existence or non-existence of anything.
The impact: learning the limitations of the science is much more fascinating (and useful) than shutting down conversation by denying or affirming anything.
Yes, such numbers make me always ask another question: “How do you count this?”
This thing is generally invisible, thus impossible to measure or weigh or count. If we manage to observe a limited volume of space (like 1^-100 ml), how do you force these things to stay in one place until you complete the count? Even if we could count them, how certain can we be that their density throughout the product or (even better) throughout the body is the same? The answer to the last question is simple and does not require any scientific knowledge: we can’t be certain at all - because there are too many variables in play beyond our capacity to track and coordinate them.
The story gets more interesting when we accept the official published scenario that active substances in vaccines are manufactured in quite voluminous containers (200 liters) and in a fully biological process - which means that every batch drawn from the container is different and unique by nature. Zero repeatability. We simply don’t know what is there in the container and what we then distribute into vials. We could be sure if we “counted” or measured every single 1^-100 ml flowing out of the manufacturing cauldron - which we don’t and which is impossible per se.
So far, I have not found any reliable description from where authors take these “count” numbers.
Kevin McKernan has been doing this work for decades. He has nothing to gain by sharing this information with the public and in fact much to lose. I think his math would be correct in approximation, which is all we need to know. He is testing for the SV40 viral fragments or plasmids, I don't think he is making this up, but I know you don't believe in the existence of a virus, so SV40 fragments are a moot point from your perspective, but not from mine, I lean into what McKernan says, I think he is a reputable scientist and again nothing to gain with exposing Pfizer.
I am not interested in particular people. Whether they are right or wrong, honest or not, is not for me to decide.
The point is about methods, numbers, algorithms, procedures, technologies. Are they credible? How far? Is the information based on the actual work by this or that person? Or is it blind copying some article published 80 years go and never verified in a lab? Are the numbers actual or approximated? Real or estimated?
What kind of approximation are we talking about? If the number is 2 billion, what order of approximation would be “reasonable”? 1 particle? One millions particles? Why this number?
I don’t mind 2 billion or 200 or a trillion, but where is the evidence for it? Did they physically count these things? Obviously not. If they didn’t make the count, the number - any number they give - is a made-up figure. It is irrelevant what algorithms they used, it is fantasy.
Why is it important? Because these numbers, 2 billion, will be used to terrorize people, bully, force into submission, or provide an incentive for scientific career. Maybe not intentionally. But all other scientists will memorize 2 billion and will quote it blindly in the next thousand years.
If I were a lab scientist, I would never have courage to say an exact number based on a 0.01 ml sample which I used in my experiments. The count has not been done. It’s all a theory, and it has not been verified - or we don’t know about it. The question is what kind of “new” science are we going to create based on theoretical assumptions or expectations?
Again, I don’t undermine any particular person. I am only saying that if someone is saying “2 billion”, they should have done the count in the first place. Otherwise, the whole story is just another scientific gossip - which no-one can verify, debunk or prove right.
If the count is impossible (because of this or that), why don’t they say it openly? If the biology or medicine or physiology depends more on made-up mathematics than on physical access to the sample, why not rename it to something proper and true to the facts, like “mathematical virology”?
That's what JJ Couey has been saying.....Check out JJ Couey....our humanity depends on it..... he spoke a few months back at the NCI....... he explains the fraud of COVID......
This is so predictable. As things get worse and more and more people continue to die from these "vaccines," the cause will eventually become undeniable (it already is). All of the so-called leaders who mandated this poison on the population will say they had no way of knowing and did the best they could under the circumstances. They'll then tell people that there were always risks involved and that everyone should have weighed that risk become they took it. They will never take one ounce of responsibility. I guarantee you that.
"before they took it"
Not to worry Blair. We are going to help them with that taking responsibility thing. Kind of like what my response would be to all those witnesses who "don't recall". You're failing memory is not at issue. Here in black and white is the record of your words and actions. These are what you are on trial for. The "we had no way of knowing" argument will also not wash. The scientific community they function in has known for decades that mRNA gene therapies are inherently toxic. None before covid has make approval for general market release. There is just far too much known, "in the literature" for plausible deniability to function. Now, deniability is just not plausible. That appropriate Judiciary function can be achieved is a whole different kettle of fish.
Well said, Dennis.
People should have 'weighed that risk' against the risk of not being able to feed their families and shelter them, and perhaps never work as doctors or police officers or firemen or teachers etc...again. Hmmm.....Sophie's choice from the regulators, and we know that is coercion and against the ethics of the Nuremburg truths. Saw one Australian health minister admit he was wrong to push the mandates, but this is not a case of ignorance, it is a character problem. Because even in cases of personal ignorance, vaccinologists like Geert Van Den Bosche know exactly how viruses work in populations with and without shots, and they spoke out and were ignored. And, these were not even vaccines, so the vaccine idea is a moot point. I was wondering when the back tracking would kick in, didn't think it would be so soon.
Is he trying to cover his A--?
So now $$$ for R&D on inhalable vaccines, already in the pipeline, will be boosted (sorry)?! And we thought shedding was a problem...
Inhalable and delivered by chemtrail.
No mandates needed or apologies for them needed then.
Whenever it becomes acceptable to criticize the current product, it means there are new products on the way, and they are paving the way so that they will not only be accepted, but celebrated.
Gates of Hell has already promised us that a new pandemic will be coming along soon and I'll sure there will be a new, improved mRNA "vaccine" to go with it.
GoH and his buddies already held a tabletop exercise charmingly called "Catastrophic Contagion" about an enterovirus with a much higher fatality rate than SARS-CoV-2...a virus that will particularly infect and kill children. In this rehearsal, the new pandemic began in 2025, but who knows, I'm sure they've got the new virus ready in biolab(s) and maybe it will leak out before the planned release date, like SARS-CoV-2 did. In any case, the battlecry won't be "Get the vax to save Grandma!" this time; it will be "Get the vax to save the Children!"
Right, a bigger and better gravy train on its way.
Thank you for making this point. I would imagine most folks who've got at least a semblance of a dicerning mind, would be sencing this would the most likely next move for these characteristically nefarious, slimy creature's plandemic screenplay.
He is such a fraud. He’ll NEVER accept responsibility for the harms he has caused. Fauci belongs in jail, with all assets stripped from him and donated to the injured and their families.
Don’t forget all the victims of his HIV/AIDS hoax via AZT poisoning.
Fauci was just warming up with HIV/AIDS patients. Such a travesty. :(
Who cares what Dr. Death ‘thinks’? An oxymoron, by the way. He is a serial liar as well as a serial killer, going back to the AIDS issues. Listening to this despicable creep is like listening to Hitler talk about racial policies, or Ghengis Khan rhapsodising on peaceful coexistence.
It is one thing to lie perhaps in a relationship that you were faithful etc....but these lies have killed millions and hurt children, OMG.
So true! He needs to be prosecuted. Instead, he’s got a professorship at a Jesuit university! Why would anyone give a voice to a murderer unless they too are happy with his multiple misdeeds?
The Pope was very pro the shots. I wonder does he still think it is the Christian thing to do, now that Fauci has done a back flip.
The Pope is part of the elite. He's comfortable at Davos and having tea with Bill Gates. Catholics I know - especially in America - despair of this Pope.
Catholicism says he is infallible though, that is a problem for millions of people. I don't know his character, he maybe brainwashed on covid also, but I think Dr. Robert Malone went to the Vatican and passed on the facts to one of the cardinals there, not 100% sure, but I did read about it somewhere.
"Suboptimal"
Maybe that's why flu and covid vaccine uptake is declining amongst health care workers. They see how ineffective they are, and they also see the injuries they cause. Finally, with the spectacularly awful covid shots, they're beginning to see the light.
"New CDC reports show that healthcare workers were less likely to get a flu shot during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic and were not up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines during the 2022-23 respiratory virus season."
https://blogs.cdc.gov/safehealthcare/hcw-vaccination-respiratory-virus-season/
In all such fancy anointed (aka peer-reviewed) discussions, we tend to bury an interesting aspect of this new technology: its method of operation consists in turning the body into a spike-producing factory. The same spike, with the same toxic spike properties. What it triggers or how much or whether sufficiently or not, it all appears to be pushed to the surface as a decoy to the primary mechanism.
100%
I've been pondering something lately, during long work related drives, always a great time for thinking.
If, hypothetically, +/- 80% of a given population, (assuming uptake numbers are to be believed) accepted a "therapy" that modified/over-stressed/weakened their immune system and response, what effect would this have on the regular seasonal flus, colds etc?
Given the rapid mutation/evolution of respiratory viruses, could it mean that the "evolutionary pressure" on said seasonal bugs changes them in such way as they optimize infectivity in said overstressed immune systems, being that the majority of immune systems they'll encounter have undergone such modification?
Could that then also mean they may become less effective at infecting a non modified host?
You mean the bugs get lazy, pick off the spikeshotted, and the rest of us just get 15 minutes of sniffles and one sneeze or cough (your choice) each? Seems to me that 80% of a population having weakened immune systems would *relieve* evolutionary pressure and no specific mutation would convey advantage among the weakened part of the population...but a mutation that more effectively spread among the unspikeshotted (without being very dangerous) would have the evolutionary advantage. But all this viro-stuff is complicated. Perhaps ask Geert van den Bossch (sp?)...
I would refer you to read Geert Van Den Bossche on this, he has an in-depth understanding of how all this works, often it can be counterintuitive to how we think. But, for sure the clot shots have affected T cells and weakened immunity, how that plays out in terms of viral evolution in the flu I would have to research.
Sorry, but den Bossche understands very little. How would he - for example - explain the FACT that FOI requests to 220+ government, academic, pharma research establishments for ANY paper proving the existence of the entity claimed to cause Covid resulted in zero results? ZERO! Nobody has such a paper. Why? Because virology is a pseudoscience. Viruses don’t exist. The entire virus model is a fiction created by and for Pharma. Follow the money: no virus = no vaccine = no profit. Refer to a brilliantly researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey ‘A Farewell to Virology’ with hundreds of citations you can follow. Get it from drsambailey.com
I read his paper last night. Sorry, I am unconvinced that there is no such thing as a virus. I currently subscribe to the germ-terrain notion. Koch's postulates were formulated before the discovery of viruses, so not a good yard stick. Viruses, need host cells to replicate in, so can't be isolated in the same way Koch defined with bacteria. To determine if a virus growing in the culture is really the target, genetic material is extracted from the virus in culture and its genome is sequenced. Regardless of labs etc....we know transfection occurs causing symptoms for millions simply by observing chickenpox outbreaks after a group of children attend a chickenpox party etc... In a YouTube video Dr. Bailey addressed this poorly, reinforcing to me that the idea of virus transfection was the plausible cause and not Mark's unclear reasons that sounded more like excuses. Correlation does not mean causation, but often it does.
I invite you to re-read the paper. You are interpreting the issue from the point of view that viruses exist. If they do, all you have to do to finish the argument is produce ONE paper that isolates a self-replicating entity capable of inserting itself into a healthy cell and killing or materially damaging that cell, which dead or damaged cell can then be used to extract the entity you claim is the causative factor and show it to be identical to the entity you originally isolated. You can do this for ANY condition you claim is caused by your 'virus'. The world awaits. Your non-sequiturs regarding Koch postulates being formulated before 'the discovery of viruses' can be ignored because you are assuming viruses have been discovered: and by the way, Jenner (smallpox) predates Koch, as does the Black Death. The claim that chickenpox is contagious has never been proven by controlled experiments on humans conducted using the scientific method and is refuted by ALL such experiments designed to show contagion because NONE of the experiment could do so. There is no paper proving contagion occurs. All this is not merely semantics: it matters because the virus model for disease leads to medical procedures which are (a) unscientific (b) dangerous (c) ineffective (d) but extremely profitable to Pharma. We deserve better medicine and we will NEVER get that following the refuted virus model. Pharma wants you to believe in their silver bullets (vaccines) because that ties you into their profit objectives.
I think it is semantics though, because if no labs existed and studies could not be performed children would still develop symptoms after exposure to children with measles, chickenpox, herpes simplex etc....the experiences would point to contagion.
We tried to get this into the legacy media - "Is Fauci a Covid vaccine skeptic now too?", by Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics | Feb 27, 2023, https://troymedia.com/health/is-fauci-a-covid-vaccine-skeptic-now-too/.
To all those who bought the Fauci lie hook line and sinker, after they read this, what will they say to us? That includes many of the doctors I encountered during the fiasco that treated me with contempt for voicing the truth.
You have to laugh at the nerve of the man!
My only conclusion is Fauci is trying to stay out of jail.
Can’t blame him as he can’t have too many years left to spend his ill gotten gains.
Mucosal immunity? Who knew? 🤨🙄
There is an interesting sentence in the summary of the source article:
“…Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves…”
What does it mean?
The Nature has designed both the human body and the pathogens, here referred to as the specific viruses. The Nature is the designer here - not some lab, which even with the best professional experience of its staff has a combined reliability of, say, 100 to 200 years (30 years of a fully professional expertise of a single person). The timespan of the Nature, during which it had enough opportunities to develop and optimize all beings, is incomparably longer than that.
We can safely assume that there must be a reason why the human body has not been optimized by the Nature to be “completely protected” from these viruses. Maybe… these viruses have some use for our body? Maybe they are needed for some clearing, cleansing or renewing processes in the body? Maybe the bodily reactions to these viruses make the body more resilient and stronger against other infections? Maybe we are destined to “become ill” from these pathogens for reasons which the science is not yet able to find out?
Aren’t some scientists trying to be smarter than the Nature? What are the consequences? (check VAERS, the official, state-approved system monitoring what the science does…)
Right, we live in a soup of viruses, only a small percentage can cause illness. Viruses tend to evolve to become less lethal, because if the host dies, they virus will too. If the symptoms are less severe, the virus can infect others, and follow the prime directive to propagate. Some viruses protect against cancer, one virus keeps AIDS symptoms at bay, at least 8% of our genome is derived from viral genetic material. Viruses keep ocean microbes in check, so plankton have more nutrients, resulting in more oxygen for us. Hubris is the problem, compared to what we don't know, we know hardly anything, and scientists and doctors have that backwards.
No, no, I haven’t said anything like this.
1) We don’t know how much of “viruses” we have in our body. They certainly are not in billions or trillions, if at all, because no space would be left for our physically visible organs.
2) We don’t know how much (many?) of them cause what we call illness. Is it a big or large percentage? We don’t know because so far nobody has made a science-based inventory of the virus contents of the human body.
In short, all statements about our viral contents is only an unscientific opinion, a guess at the best, a fantasy in the true analysis of what we hear.
How little we (the science, scientists) know about viruses has been clearly shown with parking-lot swabs - done by non-trained ad hoc hired people who knew nothing about what they were doing - supposedly “collecting” samples of THIS “virus”. How come we sample THIS virus only in the nose/larynx, where it is least dangerous, and we make doomsday conclusions on the basis of this? We were told that the life (symptomacity) cycle of THIS virus is about 2 weeks - how come ANY conclusion can be made about its presence in a particular person when the “sample” is a 1-second snapshot out of (14 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds =) 1,209,600 seconds?... The equivalent of 0,000083% of this 14-day breeding cycle… After one second more, the viral contents of your nasal area may change dramatically (increase or decrease or disappear), but the “science” labeled you “threateningly sick” on the basis of this statistically insignificant 1-second moment…
3) We don’t know how viruses evolve - because the whole virus science is based on laboratory work. Not a single case of virus effect has ever been studied in a living person. Therefore - it’s all a theory, guesswork. The “dead host bad for the virus” story is just another theory, not proven with living persons. It’s only our mind demanding a logical explanation, but in terms of “our” logic, not that of the virus.
4) For the same reason, we don’t know what roles viruses play, defending or not, against what and how - we don’t know. We only can observe tangible results. Like when you throw out your nasal contents every 10 minutes in the time of a bad cold or flu, and your cold/flu is gone within 24 hours. Nobody has ever scientifically analyzed such a procedure in a living person.
5) Finally, you need to read at least a few peer-reviewed published studies which openly disprove viral transmissibility (in other words: infectivity or contagiousness). There are hundreds of these studies, and their conclusion (based on experimental work) is that the very fundamental attribute of the virus (contagion-capacity) has not been scientifically observed.
This comment by Dan has so much truth in it. "We don’t know how viruses evolve - because virus science is based on laboratory work." Firstly, 'virus science' is a contradiction. Virology does not follow the scientific method. It presupposes a 'virus' exists, without ever isolating the entity claimed to be able to infect healthy cells, reproduce itself and go onto kill or damage the cells and spread to other cells. There are NO papers anywhere showing the isolation of any entity claimed to cause measles, AIDS, smallpox, polio, Covid.. none of them. Refer to a brilliantly researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey 'A Farewell to Virology' with hundreds of citations you can look up yourself. You can get it at drsambailey.com
I would like to clarify my position as regards the “exists / doesn’t exist” issue: I don’t know.
When I went into details how electron microscopy works, the information from tier 1 resources immediately invalidated the method of observation - not the virus or no-virus, but the method as such cannot be used in a scientific way. What they are looking at is irrelevant. You can check it for yourself, but make sure you use the documentation provided by manufacturers of the equipment and detailed descriptions published by authors using EM.
The “exists / doesn’t exist” approach requires a basic understanding of a number of bio-chemical-physical processes. What most of people commenting online use are catchwords and abbreviated statements borrowed from other people. It’s not enough. If you (the reader) want to have a balanced opinion, you need to read source documents. Peer-reviewed papers, product specs, user manuals, lab reports, clinical trial guidelines, and so on. I have been doing it for some time, and it really is eye-opening and worth your effort. But - if you truly want to go deeper - it won’t give you a 100% conviction “ah, no, they don’t exist”.
The reason is outside of the scope of virology. Our perception (and observation) is based on a minute section of the electromagnetic spectrum (see explanation here: ).
We cannot see 99.99999% of the world in which we live. Therefore, we cannot simply state that “viruses” (or anything else like ghosts, UFOs, and a lot of stuff which we consider “weird”) do not exist, because we cannot cover 100% of the information available in this world.
We can conclude that certain scientific statements do not follow such and such scientific rules or habits - in other words, you can challenge how faithfully scientists do their work when measured against their own rules. But it won’t be decisive about existence or non-existence of anything.
The impact: learning the limitations of the science is much more fascinating (and useful) than shutting down conversation by denying or affirming anything.
Kevin McKernan estimates about 2 BILLION SV40 plasmids per Pfizer shot, they take up little space.
Yes, such numbers make me always ask another question: “How do you count this?”
This thing is generally invisible, thus impossible to measure or weigh or count. If we manage to observe a limited volume of space (like 1^-100 ml), how do you force these things to stay in one place until you complete the count? Even if we could count them, how certain can we be that their density throughout the product or (even better) throughout the body is the same? The answer to the last question is simple and does not require any scientific knowledge: we can’t be certain at all - because there are too many variables in play beyond our capacity to track and coordinate them.
The story gets more interesting when we accept the official published scenario that active substances in vaccines are manufactured in quite voluminous containers (200 liters) and in a fully biological process - which means that every batch drawn from the container is different and unique by nature. Zero repeatability. We simply don’t know what is there in the container and what we then distribute into vials. We could be sure if we “counted” or measured every single 1^-100 ml flowing out of the manufacturing cauldron - which we don’t and which is impossible per se.
So far, I have not found any reliable description from where authors take these “count” numbers.
Kevin McKernan has been doing this work for decades. He has nothing to gain by sharing this information with the public and in fact much to lose. I think his math would be correct in approximation, which is all we need to know. He is testing for the SV40 viral fragments or plasmids, I don't think he is making this up, but I know you don't believe in the existence of a virus, so SV40 fragments are a moot point from your perspective, but not from mine, I lean into what McKernan says, I think he is a reputable scientist and again nothing to gain with exposing Pfizer.
I am not interested in particular people. Whether they are right or wrong, honest or not, is not for me to decide.
The point is about methods, numbers, algorithms, procedures, technologies. Are they credible? How far? Is the information based on the actual work by this or that person? Or is it blind copying some article published 80 years go and never verified in a lab? Are the numbers actual or approximated? Real or estimated?
What kind of approximation are we talking about? If the number is 2 billion, what order of approximation would be “reasonable”? 1 particle? One millions particles? Why this number?
I don’t mind 2 billion or 200 or a trillion, but where is the evidence for it? Did they physically count these things? Obviously not. If they didn’t make the count, the number - any number they give - is a made-up figure. It is irrelevant what algorithms they used, it is fantasy.
Why is it important? Because these numbers, 2 billion, will be used to terrorize people, bully, force into submission, or provide an incentive for scientific career. Maybe not intentionally. But all other scientists will memorize 2 billion and will quote it blindly in the next thousand years.
If I were a lab scientist, I would never have courage to say an exact number based on a 0.01 ml sample which I used in my experiments. The count has not been done. It’s all a theory, and it has not been verified - or we don’t know about it. The question is what kind of “new” science are we going to create based on theoretical assumptions or expectations?
Again, I don’t undermine any particular person. I am only saying that if someone is saying “2 billion”, they should have done the count in the first place. Otherwise, the whole story is just another scientific gossip - which no-one can verify, debunk or prove right.
If the count is impossible (because of this or that), why don’t they say it openly? If the biology or medicine or physiology depends more on made-up mathematics than on physical access to the sample, why not rename it to something proper and true to the facts, like “mathematical virology”?
.
The Ones That Die Quickly
Are My Favorite Deaths.
Because They Are The Ones
That Show What Morons You Are
For Being So Polite About This.
.
That's what JJ Couey has been saying.....Check out JJ Couey....our humanity depends on it..... he spoke a few months back at the NCI....... he explains the fraud of COVID......
rumble.com/v2kzyiq-jjcouey-dr.-jj-couey
...he starts talking at 24 min mark.....
Exactly. I immediately thought it should be “Morons, et al,” then “he’s been watching JJ.” Can’t make this stuff up.
THE MOST DEADLY PRODUCT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND - DR. ANA MIHALCEA
https://open.substack.com/pub/sgtreport/p/the-most-deadly-product-in-the-history?r=1qpmbr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The rampant, weird, respiratory illnesses became evident after various vaccines came into being in the 1900s.