“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”----------Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post
Do you ever give a fundamental historical factual information on how men like John D Rockefeller alone has had more influence on how allopathy, doctors, medicine, pharma, colleges/universities, Journals, science...etc...etc.... then any one or anything else???
It is not a secret and yes it is a conspiracy/crime.
I do not care the scientific information you discuss is correct or not, the fact is modern medicine, modern science is closer to being business venture than not for the 1% of the 1% who do control the majority of the wealth, money creation, hold sway and influence over all governments, are responsible for ALL Wars, 'industrial revolutions' that lead to the Industries..... Medical Industrial Complex, Media Industrial Complex, Military Industrial Complex...ect...ect.....that quite frankly has led to this country (and the world) degrading and descending into something that it was not a long time ago and i am old enough to have witnessed it so I know.
You talk your science, but science only goes as far as the money takes it.
The process of money in america would be termed 'Usury' Jesus was killed because of it.
It allows a very few to control the masses by giving people something created out of thin air and then causing the people to become in debt to that which is created out of thin air by the very few. This allows the very few over time to have control of EVERYTHING to the point that it is literally unseen to the many.....this is where you are at James.
If you think I am full of it find five quarters before 1964 and five quarters from the 1990's and later, take them to a precious metal dealer and try to sell both sets of five quarters.
The five quarters from 1964 and before will get you well over $20.00 but the later coins will get you exactly what you have $1.25.
The point is as the money inflates or becomes devalued thus People, business, industries start finding other ways to accomplish the same task with money that is not purchasing the same goods and services due to its inflationary nature of the money as it previously had.
This leads to cutting corners, corruption, finding different/new ways to make money to keep up...ALL the ills of society hinge on the inflationary nature of the money supply.
Look at the supposedly well respected Duke University that paid $112.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Related to Scientific Research Misconduct.
This is not isolated and the scope of this particular crime is massive.
How can and why should anyone ever trust anything from that University?!
....and knowing how John D Rockefeller had Abraham Flexner go around to the colleges and the dirty work of Morris Fishbein you should realize the waters you swim in James have always been polluted, slimy, creepy........
Empowering yourself with knowledge?
You are in a bubble James and you really need to start looking outside that bubble.
Thank you for taking this head on. I talk about this is in all of my presentations. We have electron microscope images of these viral particles outside human cells, inside human cells, and attached to human cells. We understand the biological mechanisms whereby they are pulled into cells, copied, and released. The problem is, we have never actually seen one do that, and we never will due to the limitations of microscopy.
Having EM pics of a tiny particle does not prove that it is an infectious, replication-competent, obligate intracellular parasite that consists of a genome and a proteinaceous shell that is encoded by the genome, that spreads from host to host causing disease via natural modes of exposure. If you have scientific proof of that... people around the world are waiting. James has none, the CDC has none, hundreds of institutions around the world have shown that they have none.
The tiny particles that no one can see are not alive, have no intelligence, no desire to attack you, nor are they parasitic. They are genetic material that constantly transmit between life forms and keeps genomes updated. They are not disease causing. Sometimes the genetic updates can be symptomatic and unpleasant depending on the condition of the immune system. The only proof of this idea is genetic material from viruses that integrates into human DNA.
Now let's go one step further. Can you provide scientific evidence that the alleged "SARS-COV-2" particle - the alleged genome surrounded by the alleged spikey protein shell, even exists? Because all of the so-called "genomes" are made-up on computers and never shown to exist intact in the physical realm.
Oh I'm well familiar with Jeremy's arguments, which fall flat every time. He cites the typical monkey cell nonsense (faux "virus isolation") and meaningless assembled in silico "genomes" that correspond to nothing in the physical realm.
I would prefer to have to go down as few rabbitholes as possible, there are already too many theories that I find plausible. So I would be glad not to have to shift my paradigm to "viruses are just exosomes" and your text helps me in this. Not only because of what you write here, but because with what you have written (and done on video and zoom) over the course of the past 2 years where I have been following you, in my "bank" you have amassed a big amount of credibility.
A thing that others said about viruses, and that has stuck with me (and that I would like to see refuted), is: That SARS CoV2 was "assembled" in the computer out of various samples which each of them were incomplete samples, so that there was some "construction" and conjecture involved to assemble those four incomplete ones into a complete one?
Also, a thing regarding the Spanish flu: It has been said that back then, experiments were made whereby sick soldiers were made to cough on healthy soldiers who however did not catch the disease. Do you see a good cause for this to happen? Maybe that these sick coughing soldiers already had a less severe variant, or that (given that they were, maybe, not on their deathbed but in reconvalescence) at the time of the experiment, the viral load had already sunken? Probably the latter? What do you think about the hypothesis (coming out of a documentary I once watched), that the people dying from the Spanish flu were dying of a virus that had been released intentionally, or that they were dying because a number of vaccinations had interacted badly with each other (and potentially the virus)?-Thank you for any response you can give.
I did address it, albeit obliquely. Next gen sequencing of your own genome would involve partial sequences that overlap that would have to be assembled via computer algorithms. One could do it "by hand" but it would take a long time (millions of reads have to be aligned and assembled". There is a ton of videos on this; one day I'll do one for IPAK-EDU Biotech lecture series. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+next+generation+sequencing+works
PS Thank you for the credibility comment, but it's always best to remain skeptical - even if only a bit. I've been known to wrong in the past (I used to promote vaccines to my family).
As far as the Spanish Flu pandemic is concerned, I have my doubts that the bulk of that disease was actually influenza. I think it may have been bacterial, and it struck more deadly to servicemen and healthy men in their 20s-30s, which is atypical for influenza strains. It clearly had a preference for military personnel and was spread via war, and probably had to do with a new meningococcal vaccine that was given to recruits/military. Also many of these men and others were taking large doses of aspirin, and there is some research to support some of the deaths are actually due to that. This is the pre antibiotic era and all syringes were reused and shared without sterilization.
Well we know that host susceptibility plays a large role in infections plus a portion of the population had prior immunity. Influenza is seasonal. But I think the bigger issue here is the Spanish Influenza pandemic is being credited with causing all death, whereas like I said, I think most deaths were bacterial, and many people poisoned themselves with high aspirin doses. But other mysteries persist, like many doctors reported victims of Spanish Flu would die very fast after onset, and their bodies would be covered in blue and black spots, or their body would turn blue just before death. Cyanide was introduced during World War 1. We just can't exclude chemicals and biological warfare from some of the sequalae attributed to Spanish Flu.
First of all, to call it "denialism" is not just an insult but it's wrong...nobody investigating the virus is in denial. We have come up with findings that all involve the use of metagenomics to construct the "virus" and/or the use of in silico, theoretical "sequences." I'm not sure how to get past this paywall-style refusal to allow that discussion. To swat people and say they are denialists has gone beyond a mere error and entered the realm of sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Those who know me know that my task and quest as a journalist was to understand the SCOV-2 PCR assay. And nearly three years in, my questions are: if there is whole live virion from a human host, why wasn't that sequenced and instead, these metagenomic things have been used? Also, why are they using metagenomics for ALL of these "sequences" and not doing denovo from uncontaminated samples of BALF? Why do we need calf and monkey cells added to the genetic broth?
Second, if there is a real sequence, why are the primers for all PCRS ALL in silico?
Third, why does CDC use terms like "mimicked clinical specimen" and "contrived virus"? That needs to be accounted for.
Finally, we have 209 responses from governments and institutions in 35 countries saying they have no evidence of a sample taken from a human host
It would seem to be that the only people in denial are pretending that this set of conditions leads to the conclusion that somebody actually as a sample of this thing.
haha...anyone who thinks I have failed to do my work, here are my notes; they back up into about 30 pounds of printed documents and all of the sources are linked. I started this on March 3, 2020 and I coordinate an international team of people who have helped me pull together, verify and enhance the many layers of this document.
Aside FWIW, I did not learn the virus issue from a Cow or a Kauf. I learned it from an Italian biochemist, and my interview subjects have included Steve Bustin, Kevin McKernan (of Mass), Bobby Malhotra, Kevin Corbett and many, many other people. I've gone as far learning the PCR as I can without actually getting into the lab and doing it myself. All reasonable invitations accepted.
Actually the original isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient was fully sequenced. Same for the first person in Washington state. We have the full genome sequence that way. And when someone denies something and you call them a denialist about that that is not meant to be offensive, so I disagree. We have to use words.
I have asked you a question — to provide your scientific references for this "isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient [that] was fully sequenced."
Even this sentence portion reveals you do not understand the process. Isolate is not pulled from the lung. In theory it MIGHT be possible **to isolate** whole intact virion from BALF, but BALF (lavage fluid) **is itself impure, containing many kinds of cellular debris** in addition to the theorized virus.
But in the cases of the ______ paper and the _____ paper, which I am asking you for, the **impure* (not purified) BALF was "cultured" in a broth of many kinds of genetic material and then "isolated" using metagenomics, which created **not a sequence but a theoretical transcript of genetic code SAID TO BE a virus.**
No part of that transcript (falsely called a "sequence" has ever been shown to match a virus, come from a virus, or cause disease.
However, for your claim of "isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient [that] was fully sequenced," tell me **what paper you are talking about; what patient by AGE and sex**, as well as the name of the principal author on the paper. All of this is in the published and widely discussed scientific literature.
I am not asking you for anything more than you should be able to EASILY verify if you are claiming expertise or existence of SARS-CoV-2.
You might also cite the PCR design in question. The two primary designs — WHO (Corsten) and CDC both cite one of those accession numbers for in silico transcripts and in fact Drosten uses six of them in the WHO design. But two are essential to this discussion, particularly if you are referencing a specific patient.
Yes I can read your question. Sorry I was unloading groceries from my car and loading them into my house and then unpacking them and loading them into my kitchen cabinets and refrigerator and freezer downstairs. I'll get to your question when I am able. But you can also search PubMed for the Wuhan sequence that came first, if you know how the very first record.
Please provide the details of the study, the patient (by age and sex) and the accession number. I will show you that the BALF was mixed with other RNA. The two primary studies are metagenomics meaning MIXED cell cultures, NOT BALF, which is itself an impure sample.
Your turn. What papers and what accession numbers?
By "sequenced" James means that meaningless, fraudulent, strictly in silico sequences labelled as "genomes" were created computers - never found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences that were never even shown to have come from any particular particle let alone something that fits the definition of a "virus". Everyone needs to read the Methods sections in the papers for themselves. So-called "isolates" are monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixtures - never shown to have anything to do with any alleged "virus" - not purified particles from fluid that was pulled from anyone's lung. When someone lies and you call them a liar....
There is one other problem with his claim of isolate from the lung — where is it shown to cause disease? I know the answer to this. But let's see if James can respond to my questions without claiming that I am guilty of something other than asking a question that he cannot answer.
Sequencing, done correctly identifies regions of overlap what have a vanishingly small chance of being 'random'. Those are then confirmed by independent labs.
Example:
Fragment 1: "By "sequenced" James means that meaningless, fraudulent, strictly in silico sequences labelled as "genomes" were created computers - never found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences"
Fragment 2: "found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences that were never even shown to have come from any particular particle let alone something that fits the definition of a "virus". "
That 63 character overlap shows the two fragments belong to the same paragraph, with an infinitesmal chance of coming from random sentences.
That's how gene sequencing works. It's not a synthetic code generated in a computer. It's not random.
Maybe take into account that the only way to arrange short (`150 nt) RNA 'reads' into a contiguous sequence of a virus is first to be in possession of the sequence of the virus to use as the in silico template upon which to arrange ('in silico alignment') the overlapping short RNA reads.
So this begs the question of the origin of the template sequence for the particular virus being assembled from overlapping reads.
We're told that the template used for the in silico assembly was the SARS-1 virus. Well, how was the sequence for SARS-1 determined? And so on.
Then there is the issue of the number and variety and origin of RNA and DNA present in the biological sample from the original patients who were arbitrarily diagnosed as 'SARS-type pneumonia'.
There are no markings on RNA and DNA fragments that specify that they come from a virus. Ultimately, the millions of RNA reads generated for the alignment process arise from not only the patient's own human genome and transcriptome, but also from the patient's diverse microbiome of bacteria, phages, fungi, mycoplasma, spirochetes, etc, etc. When in vitro culture is involved - as it was - then even more sources of RNA and DNA must be taken into account, namely, the nucleic acid of the cancerous mammalian cells comprising the tissue culture, and as well, the nucleic acids from the cow broth added as a growth factor. So would it be surprising to find that with such a diverse collection of 'lego pieces', the in silico alignment process of RNA 'lego pieces' would succeed to generate any virus sequence template fed into the computer program as the template to assemble?
It's also worth noting that the original patients were somewhat arbitrarily diagnosed as suffering from a 'SARS-type' pneumonia based upon certain unusual features in the chest CT scan; yet these same features are NOT pathognomonic for the 'SARS-type' or 'MERS-type' that first appeared on the scene in 2002; rather these same CT chest scan features have been observed in other seasonal pneumonias, and in chemical poisoning situations as well.
1. What you are describing is NOT "sequencing" but assembly. 2. There are 26 letters in the alphabet but only 4 that represent the nucleic acids. 3. Not all of the sequences that are used to assemble the hypothetical "genomes" were even detected in a reliable fashion (PCR with many cycles is used in some cases). 4. There is no logical reason why an intact genome could not be found and sequenced (instead of a hypothetical "genome" being assembled), if the fake virus actually existed. 5. The sequences used to assemble the hypothetical "genomes" have never been shown to come from any specific particle, let alone from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure. No one has shown any "virus" to exist. Slightly important detail, making all the so-called "viral genomes" utterly meaningless, irrelevant and fraudulent.
Why did you lie and lie and lie for 50 years about "Isolation of the Virus", and as a direct consequence of your horrible lies, billions of children were injected with rotting cancerous monkey cell poo?
SV40 - a harrowing issue. But there are problems with this whole line of work as well; I have not looked into the claims of sequencing of SV40. Has anyone here?
Growth and purification of SV40 virus for biochemical studies
B H Rosenberg, J F Deutsch, G E Ungers
PMID: 6271800 DOI: 10.1016/0166-0934(81)90051-3
doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(81)90051-3.
Abstract
A detailed growth and purification scheme suitable for producing relatively large quantities of fully active, pure SV40 is presented together with data on recovery and purity at each step of the procedure. The scheme was designed to prevent the initial binding of virus to cell components as well as contamination of the extracted virus by cellular DNA.
Re: GROWTH AND PURIFICATION OF SV40 VIRUS FOR BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES
So if this 'double detergent' trick really works, then where's the virus?
No images of analysis by light and electron microscopy and by gel electrophoresis are included. Why would they go through all this trouble and not show the pictures of the cells and of the gels and of the 'purified thing'?
Especially since they even bought a commercial sample of 'purified SV40' for comparison - but then the authors proceeded NOT TO SHOW any side-by-side comparison of their 'SAV40' stuff and the 'SV40' stuff they paid money for. They didn't want to brag that that by using their 'double detergent' method, one can obtain a sample of 'even more pure' virus? Maybe they could get their money back!
Didn't they want to encourage other people to replicate their techniques? Another reason authors routinely include images.
Why doesn't anybody still use today these 'double detergent' steps to obtain a purified, sample of any 'viruses' that 'grow' in cell culture? It's the same cancerous green monkey kidney cells used here for SV40 as are used 'to grow' the coronavirus.
Without sequencing anything, how did they know that the radioactivity wasn't taken up by mitochondria and/or by contaminating microorganisms like mycoplasmas?
Same rules in chemistry, biochemistry, and computing: junk data in = junk data out
The authors even admit that it's junky:
"Gel electrophoresis
Virus samples were lysed in 1% Sarkosyl for 5 min at SO”C, cooled, and treated with
0.4 mg/ml pronase for 1 h at 37°C. A volume of SO-200 fl was layered on a 1.4%
agarose column 6 X 145 mm and run for 16 h at 40 V, 20°C in pH 7.9 buffer as described
previously (Rosenberg et al., 1976). The gels were stained with ethidium bromide, photographed and subjected to densitometry (Rosenberg et al., 1976). They were then replaced in the same tubes by suction under buffer and minced in a Gilson gel mincer (2 mm fractions). Hydrogen peroxide (0.5 ml, 307) o was added immediately and the fractions
incubated at 70°C for 1 h, then cooled and counted in a cocktail composed of 333 ml
Triton X-100, 666 ml toluene, 8.25 g PPO and 0.25 g dimethyl POPOP. Cellular DNA
migrated more slowly than form II SV40 DNA, which ran more slowly than form I
SV40 DNA."
This last sentence -
"Cellular DNA migrated more slowly than form II SV40 DNA, which ran more slowly than form I SV40 DNA" -
means, in other words: 'the products are so junky we're too ashamed to publish the picture of the messy gel electrophoresis results'.
At least they know enough to be ashamed.
All this work with expensive radioactive, cell-toxic thymidine, and even having a commercially 'pure SV40' to do side-by-side comparison - and yet NO IMAGES from light and electron microscopy and no sequencing and images even of the smears they ADMITTEDLY got on gel electrophoresis.
Nobody knows what they actually made and 'purified'. Maybe they made cytotoxic baby spirochetes - who really knows.
How was this garbage with not even the bare minimum of control experiments even accepted for publication?
Why did they even bother to pretend to purify anything, if they didn't check what they got in the end ?
Using a 'does-it-kill-the-cells' test is totally ludicrous. It could all be mycoplasmas and fungus, or some toxic RNA sequence, and who knows what else is in the brew they don't show pictures of.
Again - where's this SV40 virus they speak of? The title is "GROWTH AND PURIFICATION OF SV40 VIRUS FOR BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES". So where's the virus?
Just more evidence for how this vrilogy pseudoscience is a bizarre Tower of Babels.
Thank you, James. As usual, you nailed it. And, as you say, Cowan etc will ignore everything you pointed out. He keeps beating a dead horse, becoming increasingly smug and arrogant as he does so.
Instead of wasting our time, could please someone from the virus pushers side just publish a study? Or explain why the officials deny the ability to do so? Are they too dumb, too poor, what is the problem? This debate that never even was a debate - because virology is shitting their pants instead of debating - could long be over.
This pseudoscientific theatre is such an embarrassment.
I do not deny the virus. I just don't fear any seasonal virus, because I live as healthy a life as I can. This ensures me the best chance of survival across time. The problem is that so many people live unhealthy lives (70% of us are overweight and 40% are obese) that they do fear seasonal viruses and subsequently want us to baby proof the world for them. Worse yet, they want us to cower in our homes just because they are afraid. Then they insist that we all take a vaccine, even if our personal form of prevention is to eat right and exercise, using aquired immunity to adapt to seasonal colds and flus, thus allowing the strong to lead the way into the future. This is the path to glory. The weak are insisting that we follow them. This is a dead end. Society was never built on such weakness. You can protect the weak, but it does not help to coddle them and stop the healthy from living their lives. They are not only weak of body, but weak of spirit. When it is our time to die, we should not want everyone else to stop living their lives. Everyone has to die. When it is our time, we should get out of the way and not insist that the whole world come to a grinding halt. The purpose of seasonal viruses is to cull the herd, allowing the strong to lead the way forward. When we attempt to stop the process, as we have seen, it just makes things worse in a different way. Better to let nature take its course. It is not like shutting down the economy and hiding in our houses saved any lives. The virus still found its way into every nook and cranny. All we accomplished was destroying supply lines and causing all kinds of collateral damage. I just wish that we would learn our lesson, but I am pretty sure that we have not.
I think it's worth noting that Western governments were the original 'virus deniers' - failing to take early action & close borders etc. - UK policy was to 'do nothing', initially.
Around this same period - claims that it was 'only flu' were boosted on social media, & early mask users etc. were censored & ridiculed... Perhaps the 'no virus' movement was a PSYOP that backfired, or to enure maximum fatalities to assist jab programs & covid passes....
The policies you referred to certainly aided with broad international transmission in the first month or so. I'm inclined to think that there was indeed an international lockstep change a few weeks in, almost as if they switched to 'going live' with their long-rehearsed full-on pandemic response. Including the 'no going back to normal until we have a vaccine' injunction.
It would appear that Aus and NZ did indeed manage to keep out the virus for several further months, which I think leads a small amount of additional credence that the virus is indeed a 'thing'. I recall Gates commenting (somewhat ruefully) that they had achieved this.
Ultimately their 'Zero Covid' policy was doomed to failure of course. As to China, it is difficult to make sense of what they are continuing to do right up until now, without wondering why. Unless they know something about the virus and its longer-term pathogenic potential, that the rest of the world doesn't....
If there wasn't a virus, then why did 'they' spend so long engineering something with all those previously unseen 'features' (FCS, HIV inserts etc.).
Polio, however, is a different kettle of fish. I remain fairly sure that was largely a result of environmental toxins (most obviously DDT).
And even Spanish Flu may well have been primarily an infectious bacteria.
But even well into the lockdowns, the WHO guidance was all wrong - they treated the virus as being spread by droplets, or touch, rather than aerosolised.
Here in the UK, there was a gold rush for hand gel, classrooms were doing 'deep cleans' every time a pupil tested positive... & shops still have plastic screens everywhere - which are pretty useless against an indoor 'viral cloud'... So when the mitigations failed to slow down spread - the public were blamed for not following 'the rules' to the letter...
China may be just showing that they are better organised & prepared than the West (especially if there was another bioattack/lab-leak...). Or maybe they are concerned about the long-term debilitating effects of covid:
Thank you so much for giving a thoughtful response to the whole topic of whether virus' are a thing or not. I've read Dr Cowan's book and found it all very interesting but not convinced. The main reason I thought there may be something to his theory is because I had not seen anybody take it on and face the argument. Rather, only dismissive brief comments which doesn't wash. So thank you so much for addressing it. Well done.
I think it's important though, not to belittle other people's opinions or paradigms or theories. This is a healthy forum to debate. We need open debate and not muzzle others opinions as mainstream media would prefer to see us do. Rather than arguments, healthy debates will get us through these times. Eventually. Thank you.
Jennifer, as I described in my article I actually literally debated them there is a video out there of the debate. When you went to debate hands down as I did although there was no objective third independent arbiter of the truth involved and the next day they are repeating the same false claims you very quickly realize that you are wasting your time with debate. All I did in this article was present the facts and the appearance or impression of smugness is not to be taken on.
Further, not that I'm bothered by it but Cowan in his video said that it was wrong for me to call for experimental data when I quote "call myself a scientist".
You can't debate people who are so ignorant they can't comprehend the validity of your explanation, unfortunately. You see brief comments because those who engage in these debates become weary of the repetitive misunderstandings continually represented. It is not beneficial or respectful to expect actual biologists who are trying to fix the corruption of virology, to also educate the populace on fundamentals they should have learned in high school. It is time consuming, difficult, and requires nuance specific to each individual, sometimes to the extent of days or weeks of legitimate fundamental education (not pseudoscientific misinterpretations of what controls and variables are, or what matter/animo acids/RNA are actually composed of, something the virus denial camp is rife with). I do nothing but belittle them these days, because as this very article stated, they do not accept evidence provided to them (because they are either too stupid or too ignorant to comprehend it, and I no longer care which). Debating the psychos trying to shut down the world for cold like viruses with flu equivalent IFRs is hard enough without having to deal with this at every corner. But alas, here it now is at every corner. Touché CIA and co., you've ruined another resistance through complete and total retardation
Np, sorry about the curt attitude. You seem like a nice person, so I apologize if I offended you, and sorry for venting on your question. I however try to be completely honest rather than sugar coat anything. I have never gotten anywhere providing evidence to anyone in the no virus brigade. It becomes incredibly tiring.
Yes, I'm very fucking nice. Working on that though.
Your name is different than the one who posted the original article is that correct? I don't often dialogue in sub stack so maybe as you comment it's different from the original post? Anyways I'm assuming you're a different person.
I thoroughly enjoy the article and will read it again and put more focus on the links which are greatly appreciated.
In my opinion, we need more informative open honest discussion and far less politeness. Apologizing for offending me though, is not conducive to insightful discussions. (Unless of course you were unnecessarily vengeful which I didn't pick that up) I'm not saying to insult each other, that behavior is just self-exposure of stupidity, I'm saying don't be frightened to share your honest views. (not you in particular just people in general.) This business of not saying what's on your mind in the fear of hurting someone's feelings will ruin us as a society if it hasn't already. It's actually dangerous because you don't know where you stand. My first rant on substack! 🤣
Lovely to meet another fellow struggling NICE person.
Haha, well that is one of the few opinions I've read on the internet that I can agree with 100%. Sometimes I feel regret if I think I was too honest with someone who wasn't being malicious or disingenuous, hence the damage control. Thanks for being real and being an adult about my unfiltered reaction. I am a different person, I don't even know who the person that wrote the original article is, however I did read a bunch of it and it's very accurate. It's also synonymous with my personal experiences when it comes to trying to argue against these intellectually bankrupt thoughts, hence the incredible irritation and lashing out. You are certainly right though. Catering to the feelings of others rather than being true about your thoughts and feelings, is leading civilization down a dark path. Your rant is respected.
All the virologists do for isolating the 'virus', is they poison some monkey kidney cells or bovine fetal cells in a test tube, and when those cells die, they say it's the 'virus' (hint: it's not, it's cell debris from a dying cell).
But that doesn't tell you anything, you don't know if those particles are infectious in nature or if they cause any kind of disease.
Moreover, Stefan Lanka did the control experiment where he poisoned the same cells without any Infectious material whatsoever, and observed the cells die exactly same way.. so it's the conditions of the experiment killing the cells, not a supposed 'virus'..
Virology as a field is a hoax, and many doctors and scientists started noticing.
Check out videos from Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka or Dr Sam Bailey, they explain in great detail what's going on.
I think the obsession with "The only way to prove a virus exists is to isolate it" is a flawed agenda. I guess my question is, if the virus is some genetic material (RNA or DNA) with a protein coat, and it's composed of the person before's you cells, and it allegedly enters your cells, replicates, bursts the cell, and so on, what exactly is there to isolate? By definition, if the virus is in a sick person, we are looking for potentially something that could be foreign RNA or DNA? Because everything else is "them".
If the virus is an entity which can travel from human to human and infect another human, it should be easy to isolate from a sample of a diseased individual. There should plenty of those particles in that sample - otherwise, how can it infect another person?
In fact, we have isolated and characterized other particles similar in size (such as exozomes), why would viruses by any different?
I have a friend who is a virus denier. A denier of a number of other world realities as well unfortunately.
When I came down with Covid for almost 3 weeks of fever/sore throat /body aches/fatigue, I am not sure how she realigned her virus denier paradigm as my symptom emergence and resolution correlated exactly with my covid testing results.
PCR tests are more likely to be positive with people who are sick or ill (not necessarily having Covid). They are non-specific to Covid, although they pretend that the test diagnoses Covid. So, it is no surprise that when you were sick the test came out positive.
In the scientific paper describing PCR for Covid (the Corman-Drosten paper) they admit that they had no samples of the "novel" virus to use to devise the test. If interested, I'll find the link to the paper.
The RT-PCR associated with virus diagnosis is pseudo-validated: the measurement is only claimed to be analytically-validated, which means that given a recombinant (synthetic, artificial, made-in-the-lab) sample of RNA bearing sequence(s) of the so-called virus, the PCR machine will register a positive.
More importantly, the RT-PCR to diagnose coronavirus infection was never clinically-validated for a specific pathogen, as this would require an absolutely purified sample of the presumed pathogen obtained from a natural source.
That the RT-PCR machine prints out 'positive' more often for a sample from a person suffering from an acute illness can not be taken as evidence of a coronavirus infection. At best, the RT-PCR is a non-specific test for physiological stress, roughly akin to the use of lab tests such as body temperature, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Complete Blood Count (CBC), etc.
Not knowing the real - presumably naturally-occurring - source of the RNA sequence(s) chosen to represent the so-called aerodynamic coronavirus pathogen has probably resulted in an atrocious number of medical misdiagnoses as, for example, both a case of unbalanced diabetes with a chest cold and an acute MI with pulmonary edema became the same 'deadly flying AIDS-like virus' to be treated by medical staff encumbered with PPE, isolation wards, and fears for their personal safety.
Not knowing also makes it impossible to guess if the nasopharyngeal cytology swab sampling for the PCR 'covid' diagnosis machine was designed to provide only a laboratory marker for estimating physiological or psychological stress, or if the swabbing en masse is wedded to a broader campaign for obtaining full genome and transcriptome sequences from billions of individuals.
I’m bewildered by the ongoing ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, and I do not have the expertise to engage in this argument.
However, it seems clear, that whatever was going on with ‘SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19’, it was not a serious threat to most people, so how did we end up with a ‘vaccine solution’ being pressed upon mass populations, and voluntary informed consent for Covid-19 vaccination being trashed?
In regard to the ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, what do you think about this human challenge study? A lot to consider here, particularly from an ethical perspective…
Killingley, B., Mann, A.J., Kalinova, M. et al. Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Nat Med 28, 1031–1041 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9
The paper states:
“Participants were inoculated intranasally by pipette with 10 TCID50 of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (100 µl per naris) between both nostrils, with an initial sentinel group (n = 3) followed by the remaining individuals in the cohort.”
See this section re the challenge virus:
QUOTE
The SARS-CoV-2 challenge virus (full formal name: SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) was obtained with consent from a nose/throat swab taken from a patient in the UK with COVID-19, facilitated by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C)52 using their study protocol (study registry ISRCTN66726260) approved by the South Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028).
The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line with the clinical sample. Sequence analysis showed this to be from the 20A clade of the B.1 lineage and possessed the D614G mutation. A seed virus stock was then generated by a further passage on the same cGMP Vero cell line. The seed virus stock was then used to manufacture the challenge virus in accordance with cGMP at the Zayed Centre for Research GMP manufacturing facility of Great Ormond Street Hospital, and a challenge virus master virus bank (MVB) was produced. Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests). This included whole-genome sequencing for confirmation that the GMP virus was unaltered compared to the original clinical isolate. The sequence of the challenge virus has been deposited in GenBank (accession number OM294022). In the UK, because they are not medicinal products, challenge viruses are not regulated by the MHRA. However, the challenge virus was manufactured according to GMP, and the supporting paperwork was reviewed by the MHRA, which confirmed that the manufacture was suitable for the challenge agent to be used in future efficacy studies of investigational medicinal products. Therefore, in future clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product, the challenge virus will be reviewed as part of the clinical trial application to the MHRA. The challenge virus was stored in a secure –80 °C freezer (normal temperature range, −60 °C to −90 °C) until use. The SARS-CoV-2 inoculum dose (101 TCID50) was selected as the lowest infectious dose that could be reliably quantified by viral culture.
In short, Koch didn't discover asymptomatic transmission. Rather, he postulated it in order to maintain his belief in germs as the cause of disease.
I had always wondered how such a blatant part of the Convid fraud as asymptomatic infection (or transmission) could have got so quickly established in the medical profession, within a period of weeks it seemed. I'd mistakenly attributed it to the selection process for medical school favoring obedience to constituted authority. Maybe the selection process is guilty as charged, but now I see that the asymptomatic fraud was 100+ years old.
"The reality is that fighting against the totalitarian oligarchy with virus denialism is like binding one's own hands behind one's back after gagging yourself."
Exactly. And this benefits totalitarian oligarchy, which is likely why there are probably 1 or 2 moles with some charisma tasked to manipulate people, and then a large number of usefuls who got fooled, will never comprehend, or aren't capable of letting go of the excitement of there never having been a virus at all. To some extent, the totalitarian oligarchy will make these people up themselves, if they don't already exist, to present to the world to discredit everyone rejecting their narrative, but it's highly useful to take up all the time of anyone making a difference.
So it's important to make a strong response, like you just did (in part so you can simply reference it with a link in the future), and then move on, or you risk getting caught in the endless cycle of being bound and gagged as they take up more and more of your time. The detractors will be the same people who are sure that secret military weapons from space destroyed the WTC on 9/11, that the earth is actually flat, etc. And you ultimately have to break free of them with simple tools (links, bullet points) to avoid turning to tread water every time you've moved forward.
Liar. I told you - go read the paper and get the details of the analysis straight.
You didn't read my last post, where I gave the reason why.
Just like you can't read or understand the details of the analysis.
"keeping daily copies". You genius of a sleuth you. Oooooooooooooh.
Why should you actually read and be able to understand a study before you critique it? That's a question for YOU, not me.
"board certified "... what a fucking joke...the criminal bullshit "boards" are all bought like all of conventional "medicine"...
Hickie is the epitome of an unprofessional whatever-he-is.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”----------Dr. Marcia Angell, a former long-time editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) resigned in June of 2000 after twenty years in the post
Lanka is also a disinfo troll because we know how viruses, specifically Sasrs-Cov-2 are pathogenic.
We know the molecular mechanisms. Well some of us do.
Your 'controlled experiment' would yield uncontrolled bacterial growth in the nutrient medium.
I'm not writing for your benefit but for that of others. What you call a "control experiment" is idiocy.
It's not a controlled experiment, it's an uncontrolled experiment. It cannot tell you anything.
Keep trying to shill your lies, I'll be around to call you out.
Thank you, Scott. This is part of the reason why I created IPAK-EDU.
It's not difficult for me to give lectures on the fundamentals, just time-consuming.
I have no reason to baffle anyone with bullshit (I'm not taking your comment that way).
IPAK-EDU Biotech Lecture Series will launch to educate the public on the fundamentals. BioA and BioB will be recommended prerequisites.
Empowering yourself with knowledge!
Do you ever give a fundamental historical factual information on how men like John D Rockefeller alone has had more influence on how allopathy, doctors, medicine, pharma, colleges/universities, Journals, science...etc...etc.... then any one or anything else???
It is not a secret and yes it is a conspiracy/crime.
I do not care the scientific information you discuss is correct or not, the fact is modern medicine, modern science is closer to being business venture than not for the 1% of the 1% who do control the majority of the wealth, money creation, hold sway and influence over all governments, are responsible for ALL Wars, 'industrial revolutions' that lead to the Industries..... Medical Industrial Complex, Media Industrial Complex, Military Industrial Complex...ect...ect.....that quite frankly has led to this country (and the world) degrading and descending into something that it was not a long time ago and i am old enough to have witnessed it so I know.
You talk your science, but science only goes as far as the money takes it.
The process of money in america would be termed 'Usury' Jesus was killed because of it.
It allows a very few to control the masses by giving people something created out of thin air and then causing the people to become in debt to that which is created out of thin air by the very few. This allows the very few over time to have control of EVERYTHING to the point that it is literally unseen to the many.....this is where you are at James.
If you think I am full of it find five quarters before 1964 and five quarters from the 1990's and later, take them to a precious metal dealer and try to sell both sets of five quarters.
The five quarters from 1964 and before will get you well over $20.00 but the later coins will get you exactly what you have $1.25.
The point is as the money inflates or becomes devalued thus People, business, industries start finding other ways to accomplish the same task with money that is not purchasing the same goods and services due to its inflationary nature of the money as it previously had.
This leads to cutting corners, corruption, finding different/new ways to make money to keep up...ALL the ills of society hinge on the inflationary nature of the money supply.
Look at the supposedly well respected Duke University that paid $112.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Related to Scientific Research Misconduct.
This is not isolated and the scope of this particular crime is massive.
How can and why should anyone ever trust anything from that University?!
....and knowing how John D Rockefeller had Abraham Flexner go around to the colleges and the dirty work of Morris Fishbein you should realize the waters you swim in James have always been polluted, slimy, creepy........
Empowering yourself with knowledge?
You are in a bubble James and you really need to start looking outside that bubble.
Very useful actually. Thank you. Sharing it with the (few) people who read my links.
I doubt your job as a spammer pulls in that much.
Thank you for taking this head on. I talk about this is in all of my presentations. We have electron microscope images of these viral particles outside human cells, inside human cells, and attached to human cells. We understand the biological mechanisms whereby they are pulled into cells, copied, and released. The problem is, we have never actually seen one do that, and we never will due to the limitations of microscopy.
Having EM pics of a tiny particle does not prove that it is an infectious, replication-competent, obligate intracellular parasite that consists of a genome and a proteinaceous shell that is encoded by the genome, that spreads from host to host causing disease via natural modes of exposure. If you have scientific proof of that... people around the world are waiting. James has none, the CDC has none, hundreds of institutions around the world have shown that they have none.
The tiny particles that no one can see are not alive, have no intelligence, no desire to attack you, nor are they parasitic. They are genetic material that constantly transmit between life forms and keeps genomes updated. They are not disease causing. Sometimes the genetic updates can be symptomatic and unpleasant depending on the condition of the immune system. The only proof of this idea is genetic material from viruses that integrates into human DNA.
Now let's go one step further. Can you provide scientific evidence that the alleged "SARS-COV-2" particle - the alleged genome surrounded by the alleged spikey protein shell, even exists? Because all of the so-called "genomes" are made-up on computers and never shown to exist intact in the physical realm.
Other than electron microscope images, I can't. But this guy takes a stab at it:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/10/17/answering-tom-cowans-five-simple-questions-for-virologists/
Oh I'm well familiar with Jeremy's arguments, which fall flat every time. He cites the typical monkey cell nonsense (faux "virus isolation") and meaningless assembled in silico "genomes" that correspond to nothing in the physical realm.
I would prefer to have to go down as few rabbitholes as possible, there are already too many theories that I find plausible. So I would be glad not to have to shift my paradigm to "viruses are just exosomes" and your text helps me in this. Not only because of what you write here, but because with what you have written (and done on video and zoom) over the course of the past 2 years where I have been following you, in my "bank" you have amassed a big amount of credibility.
A thing that others said about viruses, and that has stuck with me (and that I would like to see refuted), is: That SARS CoV2 was "assembled" in the computer out of various samples which each of them were incomplete samples, so that there was some "construction" and conjecture involved to assemble those four incomplete ones into a complete one?
Also, a thing regarding the Spanish flu: It has been said that back then, experiments were made whereby sick soldiers were made to cough on healthy soldiers who however did not catch the disease. Do you see a good cause for this to happen? Maybe that these sick coughing soldiers already had a less severe variant, or that (given that they were, maybe, not on their deathbed but in reconvalescence) at the time of the experiment, the viral load had already sunken? Probably the latter? What do you think about the hypothesis (coming out of a documentary I once watched), that the people dying from the Spanish flu were dying of a virus that had been released intentionally, or that they were dying because a number of vaccinations had interacted badly with each other (and potentially the virus)?-Thank you for any response you can give.
I did address it, albeit obliquely. Next gen sequencing of your own genome would involve partial sequences that overlap that would have to be assembled via computer algorithms. One could do it "by hand" but it would take a long time (millions of reads have to be aligned and assembled". There is a ton of videos on this; one day I'll do one for IPAK-EDU Biotech lecture series. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+next+generation+sequencing+works
PS Thank you for the credibility comment, but it's always best to remain skeptical - even if only a bit. I've been known to wrong in the past (I used to promote vaccines to my family).
Re: Spanish Flu, Kevin Barry did a series - it was primarily bacterial pneumonia - but read on for yourself here -
https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/did-a-vaccine-experiment-on-us-soliders-cause-the-spanish-flu-epidemic.html
As far as the Spanish Flu pandemic is concerned, I have my doubts that the bulk of that disease was actually influenza. I think it may have been bacterial, and it struck more deadly to servicemen and healthy men in their 20s-30s, which is atypical for influenza strains. It clearly had a preference for military personnel and was spread via war, and probably had to do with a new meningococcal vaccine that was given to recruits/military. Also many of these men and others were taking large doses of aspirin, and there is some research to support some of the deaths are actually due to that. This is the pre antibiotic era and all syringes were reused and shared without sterilization.
Well we know that host susceptibility plays a large role in infections plus a portion of the population had prior immunity. Influenza is seasonal. But I think the bigger issue here is the Spanish Influenza pandemic is being credited with causing all death, whereas like I said, I think most deaths were bacterial, and many people poisoned themselves with high aspirin doses. But other mysteries persist, like many doctors reported victims of Spanish Flu would die very fast after onset, and their bodies would be covered in blue and black spots, or their body would turn blue just before death. Cyanide was introduced during World War 1. We just can't exclude chemicals and biological warfare from some of the sequalae attributed to Spanish Flu.
First of all, to call it "denialism" is not just an insult but it's wrong...nobody investigating the virus is in denial. We have come up with findings that all involve the use of metagenomics to construct the "virus" and/or the use of in silico, theoretical "sequences." I'm not sure how to get past this paywall-style refusal to allow that discussion. To swat people and say they are denialists has gone beyond a mere error and entered the realm of sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Those who know me know that my task and quest as a journalist was to understand the SCOV-2 PCR assay. And nearly three years in, my questions are: if there is whole live virion from a human host, why wasn't that sequenced and instead, these metagenomic things have been used? Also, why are they using metagenomics for ALL of these "sequences" and not doing denovo from uncontaminated samples of BALF? Why do we need calf and monkey cells added to the genetic broth?
Second, if there is a real sequence, why are the primers for all PCRS ALL in silico?
Third, why does CDC use terms like "mimicked clinical specimen" and "contrived virus"? That needs to be accounted for.
Finally, we have 209 responses from governments and institutions in 35 countries saying they have no evidence of a sample taken from a human host
It would seem to be that the only people in denial are pretending that this set of conditions leads to the conclusion that somebody actually as a sample of this thing.
haha...anyone who thinks I have failed to do my work, here are my notes; they back up into about 30 pounds of printed documents and all of the sources are linked. I started this on March 3, 2020 and I coordinate an international team of people who have helped me pull together, verify and enhance the many layers of this document.
Aside FWIW, I did not learn the virus issue from a Cow or a Kauf. I learned it from an Italian biochemist, and my interview subjects have included Steve Bustin, Kevin McKernan (of Mass), Bobby Malhotra, Kevin Corbett and many, many other people. I've gone as far learning the PCR as I can without actually getting into the lab and doing it myself. All reasonable invitations accepted.
https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/covid-chronology-5.1.3.pdf
Actually the original isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient was fully sequenced. Same for the first person in Washington state. We have the full genome sequence that way. And when someone denies something and you call them a denialist about that that is not meant to be offensive, so I disagree. We have to use words.
May I say "Guilty as charged"?
I have asked you a question — to provide your scientific references for this "isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient [that] was fully sequenced."
Even this sentence portion reveals you do not understand the process. Isolate is not pulled from the lung. In theory it MIGHT be possible **to isolate** whole intact virion from BALF, but BALF (lavage fluid) **is itself impure, containing many kinds of cellular debris** in addition to the theorized virus.
But in the cases of the ______ paper and the _____ paper, which I am asking you for, the **impure* (not purified) BALF was "cultured" in a broth of many kinds of genetic material and then "isolated" using metagenomics, which created **not a sequence but a theoretical transcript of genetic code SAID TO BE a virus.**
No part of that transcript (falsely called a "sequence" has ever been shown to match a virus, come from a virus, or cause disease.
However, for your claim of "isolate pulled from the lung of the first patient [that] was fully sequenced," tell me **what paper you are talking about; what patient by AGE and sex**, as well as the name of the principal author on the paper. All of this is in the published and widely discussed scientific literature.
I am not asking you for anything more than you should be able to EASILY verify if you are claiming expertise or existence of SARS-CoV-2.
You might also cite the PCR design in question. The two primary designs — WHO (Corsten) and CDC both cite one of those accession numbers for in silico transcripts and in fact Drosten uses six of them in the WHO design. But two are essential to this discussion, particularly if you are referencing a specific patient.
This is all covered in my chronology.
https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/covid-chronology-5.1.3.pdf
Yes I can read your question. Sorry I was unloading groceries from my car and loading them into my house and then unpacking them and loading them into my kitchen cabinets and refrigerator and freezer downstairs. I'll get to your question when I am able. But you can also search PubMed for the Wuhan sequence that came first, if you know how the very first record.
Please provide the details of the study, the patient (by age and sex) and the accession number. I will show you that the BALF was mixed with other RNA. The two primary studies are metagenomics meaning MIXED cell cultures, NOT BALF, which is itself an impure sample.
Your turn. What papers and what accession numbers?
By "sequenced" James means that meaningless, fraudulent, strictly in silico sequences labelled as "genomes" were created computers - never found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences that were never even shown to have come from any particular particle let alone something that fits the definition of a "virus". Everyone needs to read the Methods sections in the papers for themselves. So-called "isolates" are monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixtures - never shown to have anything to do with any alleged "virus" - not purified particles from fluid that was pulled from anyone's lung. When someone lies and you call them a liar....
Here is the CDC study, everyone read it for themselves:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
Here is the Wu study, everyone read it for themselves:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3
There is one other problem with his claim of isolate from the lung — where is it shown to cause disease? I know the answer to this. But let's see if James can respond to my questions without claiming that I am guilty of something other than asking a question that he cannot answer.
Exactly.
Sequencing, done correctly identifies regions of overlap what have a vanishingly small chance of being 'random'. Those are then confirmed by independent labs.
Example:
Fragment 1: "By "sequenced" James means that meaningless, fraudulent, strictly in silico sequences labelled as "genomes" were created computers - never found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences"
Fragment 2: "found in the physical realm, but made up from smaller sequences that were never even shown to have come from any particular particle let alone something that fits the definition of a "virus". "
That 63 character overlap shows the two fragments belong to the same paragraph, with an infinitesmal chance of coming from random sentences.
That's how gene sequencing works. It's not a synthetic code generated in a computer. It's not random.
Hi bongoben!!
Maybe take into account that the only way to arrange short (`150 nt) RNA 'reads' into a contiguous sequence of a virus is first to be in possession of the sequence of the virus to use as the in silico template upon which to arrange ('in silico alignment') the overlapping short RNA reads.
So this begs the question of the origin of the template sequence for the particular virus being assembled from overlapping reads.
We're told that the template used for the in silico assembly was the SARS-1 virus. Well, how was the sequence for SARS-1 determined? And so on.
Then there is the issue of the number and variety and origin of RNA and DNA present in the biological sample from the original patients who were arbitrarily diagnosed as 'SARS-type pneumonia'.
There are no markings on RNA and DNA fragments that specify that they come from a virus. Ultimately, the millions of RNA reads generated for the alignment process arise from not only the patient's own human genome and transcriptome, but also from the patient's diverse microbiome of bacteria, phages, fungi, mycoplasma, spirochetes, etc, etc. When in vitro culture is involved - as it was - then even more sources of RNA and DNA must be taken into account, namely, the nucleic acid of the cancerous mammalian cells comprising the tissue culture, and as well, the nucleic acids from the cow broth added as a growth factor. So would it be surprising to find that with such a diverse collection of 'lego pieces', the in silico alignment process of RNA 'lego pieces' would succeed to generate any virus sequence template fed into the computer program as the template to assemble?
It's also worth noting that the original patients were somewhat arbitrarily diagnosed as suffering from a 'SARS-type' pneumonia based upon certain unusual features in the chest CT scan; yet these same features are NOT pathognomonic for the 'SARS-type' or 'MERS-type' that first appeared on the scene in 2002; rather these same CT chest scan features have been observed in other seasonal pneumonias, and in chemical poisoning situations as well.
Well if you're so interested in it, how about you study it?
1. What you are describing is NOT "sequencing" but assembly. 2. There are 26 letters in the alphabet but only 4 that represent the nucleic acids. 3. Not all of the sequences that are used to assemble the hypothetical "genomes" were even detected in a reliable fashion (PCR with many cycles is used in some cases). 4. There is no logical reason why an intact genome could not be found and sequenced (instead of a hypothetical "genome" being assembled), if the fake virus actually existed. 5. The sequences used to assemble the hypothetical "genomes" have never been shown to come from any specific particle, let alone from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure. No one has shown any "virus" to exist. Slightly important detail, making all the so-called "viral genomes" utterly meaningless, irrelevant and fraudulent.
Everything you have typed is wrong. That is a kind of achievement in itself.
Why did you lie and lie and lie for 50 years about "Isolation of the Virus", and as a direct consequence of your horrible lies, billions of children were injected with rotting cancerous monkey cell poo?
SV40 - a harrowing issue. But there are problems with this whole line of work as well; I have not looked into the claims of sequencing of SV40. Has anyone here?
Maybe it's in here, if you can find a copy -
J Virol Methods 1981 Oct;3(3):167-76.
Growth and purification of SV40 virus for biochemical studies
B H Rosenberg, J F Deutsch, G E Ungers
PMID: 6271800 DOI: 10.1016/0166-0934(81)90051-3
doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(81)90051-3.
Abstract
A detailed growth and purification scheme suitable for producing relatively large quantities of fully active, pure SV40 is presented together with data on recovery and purity at each step of the procedure. The scheme was designed to prevent the initial binding of virus to cell components as well as contamination of the extracted virus by cellular DNA.
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/0166-0934(81)90051-3
Re: GROWTH AND PURIFICATION OF SV40 VIRUS FOR BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES
So if this 'double detergent' trick really works, then where's the virus?
No images of analysis by light and electron microscopy and by gel electrophoresis are included. Why would they go through all this trouble and not show the pictures of the cells and of the gels and of the 'purified thing'?
Especially since they even bought a commercial sample of 'purified SV40' for comparison - but then the authors proceeded NOT TO SHOW any side-by-side comparison of their 'SAV40' stuff and the 'SV40' stuff they paid money for. They didn't want to brag that that by using their 'double detergent' method, one can obtain a sample of 'even more pure' virus? Maybe they could get their money back!
Didn't they want to encourage other people to replicate their techniques? Another reason authors routinely include images.
Why doesn't anybody still use today these 'double detergent' steps to obtain a purified, sample of any 'viruses' that 'grow' in cell culture? It's the same cancerous green monkey kidney cells used here for SV40 as are used 'to grow' the coronavirus.
Without sequencing anything, how did they know that the radioactivity wasn't taken up by mitochondria and/or by contaminating microorganisms like mycoplasmas?
Same rules in chemistry, biochemistry, and computing: junk data in = junk data out
The authors even admit that it's junky:
"Gel electrophoresis
Virus samples were lysed in 1% Sarkosyl for 5 min at SO”C, cooled, and treated with
0.4 mg/ml pronase for 1 h at 37°C. A volume of SO-200 fl was layered on a 1.4%
agarose column 6 X 145 mm and run for 16 h at 40 V, 20°C in pH 7.9 buffer as described
previously (Rosenberg et al., 1976). The gels were stained with ethidium bromide, photographed and subjected to densitometry (Rosenberg et al., 1976). They were then replaced in the same tubes by suction under buffer and minced in a Gilson gel mincer (2 mm fractions). Hydrogen peroxide (0.5 ml, 307) o was added immediately and the fractions
incubated at 70°C for 1 h, then cooled and counted in a cocktail composed of 333 ml
Triton X-100, 666 ml toluene, 8.25 g PPO and 0.25 g dimethyl POPOP. Cellular DNA
migrated more slowly than form II SV40 DNA, which ran more slowly than form I
SV40 DNA."
This last sentence -
"Cellular DNA migrated more slowly than form II SV40 DNA, which ran more slowly than form I SV40 DNA" -
means, in other words: 'the products are so junky we're too ashamed to publish the picture of the messy gel electrophoresis results'.
At least they know enough to be ashamed.
All this work with expensive radioactive, cell-toxic thymidine, and even having a commercially 'pure SV40' to do side-by-side comparison - and yet NO IMAGES from light and electron microscopy and no sequencing and images even of the smears they ADMITTEDLY got on gel electrophoresis.
Nobody knows what they actually made and 'purified'. Maybe they made cytotoxic baby spirochetes - who really knows.
How was this garbage with not even the bare minimum of control experiments even accepted for publication?
Why did they even bother to pretend to purify anything, if they didn't check what they got in the end ?
Using a 'does-it-kill-the-cells' test is totally ludicrous. It could all be mycoplasmas and fungus, or some toxic RNA sequence, and who knows what else is in the brew they don't show pictures of.
Again - where's this SV40 virus they speak of? The title is "GROWTH AND PURIFICATION OF SV40 VIRUS FOR BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES". So where's the virus?
Just more evidence for how this vrilogy pseudoscience is a bizarre Tower of Babels.
Thank you for wading through it for the rest of us!
I've known pseudosciences to which I now give more credence than I do to virology.
It's all monkey business.
Glycoproteins from monkey cancer cells have the glycosylation patterns for monkey cancer cells.
Glycoproteins from fertilized chicken eggs will have the glycosylation patterns for chicken embryos.
Injecting glycoproteins from even a sister or a brother is probably bad advice, in general, as there are inter-individual differences.
A century of injecting our children with highly suspicious, foreign glycoproteins...
an idea that's about as 'advanced' as blood-letting combined with voodoo .
Thank you, James. As usual, you nailed it. And, as you say, Cowan etc will ignore everything you pointed out. He keeps beating a dead horse, becoming increasingly smug and arrogant as he does so.
Instead of wasting our time, could please someone from the virus pushers side just publish a study? Or explain why the officials deny the ability to do so? Are they too dumb, too poor, what is the problem? This debate that never even was a debate - because virology is shitting their pants instead of debating - could long be over.
This pseudoscientific theatre is such an embarrassment.
I do not deny the virus. I just don't fear any seasonal virus, because I live as healthy a life as I can. This ensures me the best chance of survival across time. The problem is that so many people live unhealthy lives (70% of us are overweight and 40% are obese) that they do fear seasonal viruses and subsequently want us to baby proof the world for them. Worse yet, they want us to cower in our homes just because they are afraid. Then they insist that we all take a vaccine, even if our personal form of prevention is to eat right and exercise, using aquired immunity to adapt to seasonal colds and flus, thus allowing the strong to lead the way into the future. This is the path to glory. The weak are insisting that we follow them. This is a dead end. Society was never built on such weakness. You can protect the weak, but it does not help to coddle them and stop the healthy from living their lives. They are not only weak of body, but weak of spirit. When it is our time to die, we should not want everyone else to stop living their lives. Everyone has to die. When it is our time, we should get out of the way and not insist that the whole world come to a grinding halt. The purpose of seasonal viruses is to cull the herd, allowing the strong to lead the way forward. When we attempt to stop the process, as we have seen, it just makes things worse in a different way. Better to let nature take its course. It is not like shutting down the economy and hiding in our houses saved any lives. The virus still found its way into every nook and cranny. All we accomplished was destroying supply lines and causing all kinds of collateral damage. I just wish that we would learn our lesson, but I am pretty sure that we have not.
The purpose of life is to live it as best you can.
Have fun storming the castle!
I think it's worth noting that Western governments were the original 'virus deniers' - failing to take early action & close borders etc. - UK policy was to 'do nothing', initially.
Around this same period - claims that it was 'only flu' were boosted on social media, & early mask users etc. were censored & ridiculed... Perhaps the 'no virus' movement was a PSYOP that backfired, or to enure maximum fatalities to assist jab programs & covid passes....
The policies you referred to certainly aided with broad international transmission in the first month or so. I'm inclined to think that there was indeed an international lockstep change a few weeks in, almost as if they switched to 'going live' with their long-rehearsed full-on pandemic response. Including the 'no going back to normal until we have a vaccine' injunction.
It would appear that Aus and NZ did indeed manage to keep out the virus for several further months, which I think leads a small amount of additional credence that the virus is indeed a 'thing'. I recall Gates commenting (somewhat ruefully) that they had achieved this.
Ultimately their 'Zero Covid' policy was doomed to failure of course. As to China, it is difficult to make sense of what they are continuing to do right up until now, without wondering why. Unless they know something about the virus and its longer-term pathogenic potential, that the rest of the world doesn't....
If there wasn't a virus, then why did 'they' spend so long engineering something with all those previously unseen 'features' (FCS, HIV inserts etc.).
Polio, however, is a different kettle of fish. I remain fairly sure that was largely a result of environmental toxins (most obviously DDT).
And even Spanish Flu may well have been primarily an infectious bacteria.
But even well into the lockdowns, the WHO guidance was all wrong - they treated the virus as being spread by droplets, or touch, rather than aerosolised.
Here in the UK, there was a gold rush for hand gel, classrooms were doing 'deep cleans' every time a pupil tested positive... & shops still have plastic screens everywhere - which are pretty useless against an indoor 'viral cloud'... So when the mitigations failed to slow down spread - the public were blamed for not following 'the rules' to the letter...
China may be just showing that they are better organised & prepared than the West (especially if there was another bioattack/lab-leak...). Or maybe they are concerned about the long-term debilitating effects of covid:
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/a-new-study-showing-lungs-age-15?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://philipmcmillan.substack.com/p/chinese-zero-covid-policy-gamble
Thank you so much for giving a thoughtful response to the whole topic of whether virus' are a thing or not. I've read Dr Cowan's book and found it all very interesting but not convinced. The main reason I thought there may be something to his theory is because I had not seen anybody take it on and face the argument. Rather, only dismissive brief comments which doesn't wash. So thank you so much for addressing it. Well done.
I think it's important though, not to belittle other people's opinions or paradigms or theories. This is a healthy forum to debate. We need open debate and not muzzle others opinions as mainstream media would prefer to see us do. Rather than arguments, healthy debates will get us through these times. Eventually. Thank you.
Jennifer, as I described in my article I actually literally debated them there is a video out there of the debate. When you went to debate hands down as I did although there was no objective third independent arbiter of the truth involved and the next day they are repeating the same false claims you very quickly realize that you are wasting your time with debate. All I did in this article was present the facts and the appearance or impression of smugness is not to be taken on.
Further, not that I'm bothered by it but Cowan in his video said that it was wrong for me to call for experimental data when I quote "call myself a scientist".
You can't debate people who are so ignorant they can't comprehend the validity of your explanation, unfortunately. You see brief comments because those who engage in these debates become weary of the repetitive misunderstandings continually represented. It is not beneficial or respectful to expect actual biologists who are trying to fix the corruption of virology, to also educate the populace on fundamentals they should have learned in high school. It is time consuming, difficult, and requires nuance specific to each individual, sometimes to the extent of days or weeks of legitimate fundamental education (not pseudoscientific misinterpretations of what controls and variables are, or what matter/animo acids/RNA are actually composed of, something the virus denial camp is rife with). I do nothing but belittle them these days, because as this very article stated, they do not accept evidence provided to them (because they are either too stupid or too ignorant to comprehend it, and I no longer care which). Debating the psychos trying to shut down the world for cold like viruses with flu equivalent IFRs is hard enough without having to deal with this at every corner. But alas, here it now is at every corner. Touché CIA and co., you've ruined another resistance through complete and total retardation
Fair enough. Thank you.
Jennifer
Np, sorry about the curt attitude. You seem like a nice person, so I apologize if I offended you, and sorry for venting on your question. I however try to be completely honest rather than sugar coat anything. I have never gotten anywhere providing evidence to anyone in the no virus brigade. It becomes incredibly tiring.
Bioanon:
Yes, I'm very fucking nice. Working on that though.
Your name is different than the one who posted the original article is that correct? I don't often dialogue in sub stack so maybe as you comment it's different from the original post? Anyways I'm assuming you're a different person.
I thoroughly enjoy the article and will read it again and put more focus on the links which are greatly appreciated.
In my opinion, we need more informative open honest discussion and far less politeness. Apologizing for offending me though, is not conducive to insightful discussions. (Unless of course you were unnecessarily vengeful which I didn't pick that up) I'm not saying to insult each other, that behavior is just self-exposure of stupidity, I'm saying don't be frightened to share your honest views. (not you in particular just people in general.) This business of not saying what's on your mind in the fear of hurting someone's feelings will ruin us as a society if it hasn't already. It's actually dangerous because you don't know where you stand. My first rant on substack! 🤣
Lovely to meet another fellow struggling NICE person.
Cheers!
Jennifer
Haha, well that is one of the few opinions I've read on the internet that I can agree with 100%. Sometimes I feel regret if I think I was too honest with someone who wasn't being malicious or disingenuous, hence the damage control. Thanks for being real and being an adult about my unfiltered reaction. I am a different person, I don't even know who the person that wrote the original article is, however I did read a bunch of it and it's very accurate. It's also synonymous with my personal experiences when it comes to trying to argue against these intellectually bankrupt thoughts, hence the incredible irritation and lashing out. You are certainly right though. Catering to the feelings of others rather than being true about your thoughts and feelings, is leading civilization down a dark path. Your rant is respected.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we ...try to please.
My apologies Sir Walter!
Happy Sunday,
Jennifer
'we need to be able to use our own senses to know something exists'
This is not true. I know for a fact that tardigrades exist, yet they can't be seen by the naked eye.
The elusive 'virus' hasn't been isolated from a sick person.. ever.
Christine Massey has over 200 FOI's from various institutions in over 40 countries, and no one has isolated the 'virus' from a sick person. No one.
https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/p/christine-massey-200?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
All the virologists do for isolating the 'virus', is they poison some monkey kidney cells or bovine fetal cells in a test tube, and when those cells die, they say it's the 'virus' (hint: it's not, it's cell debris from a dying cell).
But that doesn't tell you anything, you don't know if those particles are infectious in nature or if they cause any kind of disease.
Moreover, Stefan Lanka did the control experiment where he poisoned the same cells without any Infectious material whatsoever, and observed the cells die exactly same way.. so it's the conditions of the experiment killing the cells, not a supposed 'virus'..
Virology as a field is a hoax, and many doctors and scientists started noticing.
Check out videos from Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka or Dr Sam Bailey, they explain in great detail what's going on.
You can start with this interview
https://jermwarfare.com/podcast/andrew-kaufman-viruses
I think the obsession with "The only way to prove a virus exists is to isolate it" is a flawed agenda. I guess my question is, if the virus is some genetic material (RNA or DNA) with a protein coat, and it's composed of the person before's you cells, and it allegedly enters your cells, replicates, bursts the cell, and so on, what exactly is there to isolate? By definition, if the virus is in a sick person, we are looking for potentially something that could be foreign RNA or DNA? Because everything else is "them".
If the virus is an entity which can travel from human to human and infect another human, it should be easy to isolate from a sample of a diseased individual. There should plenty of those particles in that sample - otherwise, how can it infect another person?
In fact, we have isolated and characterized other particles similar in size (such as exozomes), why would viruses by any different?
I'm not saying we can't, you are.
Well, the 200+ institutions which responded to FOI's are saying that, not me.
You'd have to ask them why they cannot isolate the virus from a patient, but instead, they have to poison cells in a test tube .
And you're just misinformed or lying that they cannot isolate virus from a patient.
Please present ONE study where they isolated the virus from a patient sample directly - without 'culturing' the virus in a test tube.
Christine Massey's FOIA's couldn't find one instance, and she queried over 200 institutions in 40+ countries.
I'll wait..
Everything you claim is false. HAND
You're a mindless troll, a religious nut.
Your religion is virology.
I have a friend who is a virus denier. A denier of a number of other world realities as well unfortunately.
When I came down with Covid for almost 3 weeks of fever/sore throat /body aches/fatigue, I am not sure how she realigned her virus denier paradigm as my symptom emergence and resolution correlated exactly with my covid testing results.
PCR tests are more likely to be positive with people who are sick or ill (not necessarily having Covid). They are non-specific to Covid, although they pretend that the test diagnoses Covid. So, it is no surprise that when you were sick the test came out positive.
In the scientific paper describing PCR for Covid (the Corman-Drosten paper) they admit that they had no samples of the "novel" virus to use to devise the test. If interested, I'll find the link to the paper.
They took as given that the published sequence was correct.
That alone does not invalidate Corman-Drosten.
The RT-PCR associated with virus diagnosis is pseudo-validated: the measurement is only claimed to be analytically-validated, which means that given a recombinant (synthetic, artificial, made-in-the-lab) sample of RNA bearing sequence(s) of the so-called virus, the PCR machine will register a positive.
More importantly, the RT-PCR to diagnose coronavirus infection was never clinically-validated for a specific pathogen, as this would require an absolutely purified sample of the presumed pathogen obtained from a natural source.
That the RT-PCR machine prints out 'positive' more often for a sample from a person suffering from an acute illness can not be taken as evidence of a coronavirus infection. At best, the RT-PCR is a non-specific test for physiological stress, roughly akin to the use of lab tests such as body temperature, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Complete Blood Count (CBC), etc.
Not knowing the real - presumably naturally-occurring - source of the RNA sequence(s) chosen to represent the so-called aerodynamic coronavirus pathogen has probably resulted in an atrocious number of medical misdiagnoses as, for example, both a case of unbalanced diabetes with a chest cold and an acute MI with pulmonary edema became the same 'deadly flying AIDS-like virus' to be treated by medical staff encumbered with PPE, isolation wards, and fears for their personal safety.
Not knowing also makes it impossible to guess if the nasopharyngeal cytology swab sampling for the PCR 'covid' diagnosis machine was designed to provide only a laboratory marker for estimating physiological or psychological stress, or if the swabbing en masse is wedded to a broader campaign for obtaining full genome and transcriptome sequences from billions of individuals.
Ah the 'no virus' crowd. You know where you can go.
Try reframing. It's a win-win.
G-D Bless!
I’m bewildered by the ongoing ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, and I do not have the expertise to engage in this argument.
However, it seems clear, that whatever was going on with ‘SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19’, it was not a serious threat to most people, so how did we end up with a ‘vaccine solution’ being pressed upon mass populations, and voluntary informed consent for Covid-19 vaccination being trashed?
In regard to the ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, what do you think about this human challenge study? A lot to consider here, particularly from an ethical perspective…
Killingley, B., Mann, A.J., Kalinova, M. et al. Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Nat Med 28, 1031–1041 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9
The paper states:
“Participants were inoculated intranasally by pipette with 10 TCID50 of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (100 µl per naris) between both nostrils, with an initial sentinel group (n = 3) followed by the remaining individuals in the cohort.”
See this section re the challenge virus:
QUOTE
The SARS-CoV-2 challenge virus (full formal name: SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) was obtained with consent from a nose/throat swab taken from a patient in the UK with COVID-19, facilitated by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C)52 using their study protocol (study registry ISRCTN66726260) approved by the South Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028).
The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line with the clinical sample. Sequence analysis showed this to be from the 20A clade of the B.1 lineage and possessed the D614G mutation. A seed virus stock was then generated by a further passage on the same cGMP Vero cell line. The seed virus stock was then used to manufacture the challenge virus in accordance with cGMP at the Zayed Centre for Research GMP manufacturing facility of Great Ormond Street Hospital, and a challenge virus master virus bank (MVB) was produced. Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests). This included whole-genome sequencing for confirmation that the GMP virus was unaltered compared to the original clinical isolate. The sequence of the challenge virus has been deposited in GenBank (accession number OM294022). In the UK, because they are not medicinal products, challenge viruses are not regulated by the MHRA. However, the challenge virus was manufactured according to GMP, and the supporting paperwork was reviewed by the MHRA, which confirmed that the manufacture was suitable for the challenge agent to be used in future efficacy studies of investigational medicinal products. Therefore, in future clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product, the challenge virus will be reviewed as part of the clinical trial application to the MHRA. The challenge virus was stored in a secure –80 °C freezer (normal temperature range, −60 °C to −90 °C) until use. The SARS-CoV-2 inoculum dose (101 TCID50) was selected as the lowest infectious dose that could be reliably quantified by viral culture.
END OF QUOTE
Here are 10 other reasons to question Corman-Drosten, and therefore any PCR results:
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
Yes, that's a good link.
How did Koch discover asymptomatic transmission?
On that question, the following analysis is very worthwhile:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/10/10/kochs-postulates-and-the-great-asymptomatic-escape/
In short, Koch didn't discover asymptomatic transmission. Rather, he postulated it in order to maintain his belief in germs as the cause of disease.
I had always wondered how such a blatant part of the Convid fraud as asymptomatic infection (or transmission) could have got so quickly established in the medical profession, within a period of weeks it seemed. I'd mistakenly attributed it to the selection process for medical school favoring obedience to constituted authority. Maybe the selection process is guilty as charged, but now I see that the asymptomatic fraud was 100+ years old.
"The reality is that fighting against the totalitarian oligarchy with virus denialism is like binding one's own hands behind one's back after gagging yourself."
Exactly. And this benefits totalitarian oligarchy, which is likely why there are probably 1 or 2 moles with some charisma tasked to manipulate people, and then a large number of usefuls who got fooled, will never comprehend, or aren't capable of letting go of the excitement of there never having been a virus at all. To some extent, the totalitarian oligarchy will make these people up themselves, if they don't already exist, to present to the world to discredit everyone rejecting their narrative, but it's highly useful to take up all the time of anyone making a difference.
So it's important to make a strong response, like you just did (in part so you can simply reference it with a link in the future), and then move on, or you risk getting caught in the endless cycle of being bound and gagged as they take up more and more of your time. The detractors will be the same people who are sure that secret military weapons from space destroyed the WTC on 9/11, that the earth is actually flat, etc. And you ultimately have to break free of them with simple tools (links, bullet points) to avoid turning to tread water every time you've moved forward.
Bingo. This troll campaign is exactly the announced tactic (by Sunstein and others) to seed bullshit counter-narratives and fracture their opposition.
The goal is to shield the plandemic manufactureres.
Show a study with robust method to prove virus existence. Otherwise you are wasting people's time.