"I like to put forward a truism that should be easy enough to understand, which is that we can’t conduct any scientific experiments with things we haven’t shown to exist AND where they have been isolated and purified PRIOR to an experiment taking place. To claim otherwise would be to claim that we can conduct scientific experiments with elves, gnomes, fairies, and unicorns.
What should be quite evident by now, after reading and understanding this, is that everything downstream from this is by default false since everything depends on its existence. That means that all claims of “viral” genomes are false, including the various alleged diagnostic tests by default, where any treatment like injections and pills can only bring unnecessary harm."
I understand the argument. What about gain of function research? What are they working on in all of those labs all over the world? Is it really much to do about nothing? What about the claims that some can prove that the 'virus' was genetically modified? Could someone go in one of those labs, open all the vials, breathe long and deep, and come up out without a problem?
To do "gain of function" reesearch, the alleged "function" must first be proven to exist, which means of course the "thing" alleged to cause the "function" must first and foremost be proven as real. But none of this has been proven.
What are they doing in all those labs around the world, if not exxperimenting with "viruses"? Collecting big paychecks, grants, promotions and tinsley "status" (among people (some of them) who never learned to think objectively, critically and independently. )
There is a study..sorry no time to find it and link to it...wherein "coronavirus" "scientists" could not see through electron microscopy the alleged "spike protein" cliamed by virus enthusiasts to define the shell-coating of the "coronavirus". So did they declare"There's no virus to be seen..." and call it a day? No. Instead they added trypsin, which "eats" protein with the effect that ragged edges developed on some particles thereby qualifying those, to the virologists doing this study, as "coronavirus". They celebrated this development as a success in the study.
Maybe this sort of activity occupies the time and consumes the resources of (some) mad scientists performing "gain of function' research.
Asking what the labs and lab scientists are up to all around the world in gain of function activities if there is no virus, seems similar to asking "How could all those scientists and their governments be wrong about virology?"
When science is centralized, as today, it is easy and simple for powerful and wealthy entitiess and people to push particular ideas and misconceptions. John D Rockefellar, who was a business genius, was a big supproter of germ theory and as a Progressive, supported the establishment of medical licensing and accredited medical schools (and curriculum) by state legislatures in the latter decades of the nineteenth century.. That centralization and regimentation of medical science made it easy for Rockefeller and other powerful entities and people to capture the medical ideas to be taught in accredited allopath schools, which were purposefully restricted in number and curriculum. Did Rockefeller know anything about science and proper scientific epistemology? No. He and others like him held to fasionable beliefs and so used his wealth and fame to push them. That's how germ theory took hold (in part) in the USA, to be followed by the rest of the world.
Obviously they can't gain a function of something they haven't proved to exist. Whatever they do in these labs have nothing to do with any "viruses". At best they can make up some toxic injections that are then sold to the people as "solutions" for various illnesses. At worst they are just playing around with regular tissue cultures and add various toxins while starving them of nutrients where the end result is breakdown products of dead and dying tissue.
All alleged "viruses" are invented and only exist in computers and on paper but never in reality. To better understand the "genetic" side of things it is helpful to understand HOW they invent the alleged genomes of "viruses".
According to the words of Dr Stefan Lanka that is a trained "virologist":
"It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades. Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.
In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.
The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are. The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is a method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory."
To your last question: Could someone go in one of those labs, open all the vials, breathe long and deep, and come up out without a problem?
They can produce toxic vials and breathing in toxins is obviously not healthy tho I doubt toxins in a vial will cause any harm unless they aerosolize the contents where you breathe it in through a nebulizer. But there is no chance that you will be exposed to any alleged "virus".
Excellent. The whole thingy is based on software enabled sorcery. In silico means In or on a computer. Simulation or computer software. The bible for virology is a Data base called a GenBank.
“Whole-Genome Sequencing”
We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.” I repeat and say see the operative word 'designed' created from noting and compared to nothing as such.
Size matter. Can the scientific equipment extract or capture a SINGLE (most likely dead) Human or Animal skin cell from the air surrounding a body? Do these cells exist? Are they present at any given time near the body?
Guess what? These cells are the most likely carriers of the viruses OUT of the host's body.
"Viruses are transmitted through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation" not as individual semi-organic "particles" but as the content of the bodily fluids expelled from the body "through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation," aka some other (most likely dead) body cells.
What is the point of this exercise? If the Viruses aren't "real," then what?
Why don't you guys make your "ultimate" goal with all this "No-Viruses" clear?
I know hype is very addictive, but seriously?
At least tens of Billions of $$$$ are spent every year on studies and implementation of "SAFETY" protocols around viruses, ultimately to create "defenses" (the best defense is offense). A whole lot of these $$$ are funneled out into the Bioweapons programs.
Whatever the end result of their experiments with tissue cultures is, it becomes irrelevant because they never start with a "virus", they just assume it's in the sample but they never confirm it prior to the experiment taking place. Creating an experiment based on an unproven assumption is not science, science requires an independent variable prior to an experiment taking place, not an assumed one. The pictures of particles of alleged "viruses" are taken AFTER a tissue culture experiment has taken place, not before.
"What is the point of this exercise? If the Viruses aren't "real," then what?"
The point is that people are fearing things that haven't been shown to exist much less harm us where people are currently misdiagnosed and mistreated as a result of it that leads to unnecessary harm and death in the billions. In other words, it's a matter of life and death, it is that serious of an issue. Another thing is that true prevention of illness can never occur unless the real cause or causes are being addressed that is behind their illness. Historically we can also see that various corporations have gotten away with poisoning the population where the illness been blamed on other things as a cover.
So, I guess all these images of various viruses that are readily available and were taken by very sophisticated man-made electronic microscopes some decades ago are fake?
The entire 100+ years old study of RNA/DNA and its retroviruses components is absurd?
The reason why the individual viruses not possible to “extract” from the individual cells is not because they don’t exist. It’s because they are inseparable part of the cell machinery as soon as they interact with cell’s membrane. And, before that, the virus is absorbed by whatever media it landed - one of many bodily fluids presumably. Summarily, the core issue isn’t with virology, but with the author’s lack of knowledge and understanding of basic biology and genetics.
"the virus is absorbed by whatever media it landed - one of many bodily fluids presumably"
Dr Rosenau's disgusting experiments during the Spanish flu (and many like it over the last century) slimed volunteers with the bodily fluids of sick people with the flu. The volunteers even gargled and drank the snot. They sat next to the sick and had them cough into their faces repeatedly. They inhaled their breath at close quarters. They even tried blood transfusions. And the result?
"None of them got sick in any way" - Dr Rosenau.
"So, I guess all these images of various viruses that are readily available and were taken by very sophisticated man-made electronic microscopes some decades ago are fake?"
Nobody disputes the existence of particles under EM. The point is those particles have never been shown to fulfil the definition of a 'virus' - a definition invented by virologists themselves. A definition which includes the characteristic of being contagious and pathogenic. With no proof of either, the particles must be properly defined as cellular debris, junk, blobs...... anything but 'viruses'.
They can take picture of various particles as much as they want, it doesn't tell us anything about what they actually are, especially since they are taken after their pseudo-scientific experiments with tissue cultures have been made, not before. There are also numerous problems with the procedure of taking a picture with the electron microscope. I highly recommend you read these articles by the late Harold Hillman that spent 50 years of his life highlighting the problems in cell biology which include the problems with the electron microscope and its pictures.
A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman
But for the sake of argument, let us see what other people came up with when it comes to the problems behind the use of the electron microscope and the subjective interpretation of the various images.
Misinterpreting Electron Microscope Images
"Below are numerous examples of misinterpretations of Electron Microscope images for “SARS-COV-2.” It is a long read, but you will see that there are multiple issues when trying to identify particles believed to be “SARS-COV-2.” There are many subcellular particles which are either similar or completely identical to “Coronaviruses.” Within an unpurified sample, there are guaranteed to be millions of these particles present. Attempting to identify images of this “virus” is an area fraught with subjective analysis of a predetermined idea of what a “SARS-COV-2” particle is supposed to look like and where it should be located."
The Numerous Alterations During Sample Preparation for EM Imaging
"If the cell culturing process isn’t enough to alter the sample beyond it’s original state, the destruction of the natural cell morphology caused by preparing the sample for Transmission Electron Microscope images ensures that this is the case. Highlighted below are a few sources focusing on some of the steps (fixation and embedding) an already altered cell culture sample goes through in order to be prepared for imaging:"
Nothing in there refute his critique, it's just another hit piece against the person and not against his arguments. Unless someone can prove that his critique is unfounded then his critique stands. Should be noted that there are those who work with the electron microscope that agree with his critique, even today.
"The reason why the individual viruses not possible to “extract” from the individual cells is not because they don’t exist. It’s because they are inseparable part of the cell machinery as soon as they interact with cell’s membrane."
And where are the viruses before they interact with a cell?
We are told viruses are transmitted through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation, and so doesn't that mean they are cell-free whilst travelling from one body to another? And thus, can't they be captured before they interact with a cell?
Are we clear here?
You say a thing exists and that it exists BEFORE it interacts/infects a cell, and so why isn't it captured and studied all on its own before it interacts/infects a cell?
The images that are shown all over the media are not photographs. The images are drawn by artists who take full advantage of artistic license. Besides that, even real photographs of particles do not prove WHAT the particles are, where they came from, that they cause disease or illness, or that they are “viruses.” The particles in photographs do not have tags on them telling what they are. Virologists have not proven that viruses exist - maybe because they CAN NOT do so?
I do not know of anyone who questions the existence of viruses who would not be willing to look at scientific evidence showing their existence if it were to be put forward. Thus far, there is none.
Even if viruses were shown to exist, it would then need to be shown that they cause disease/illness, but until viruses can be found, those scientific experiments can’t be done.
late 14c., "poisonous substance" (a sense now archaic), from Latin virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice," from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) "poison," which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to "poisonous fluid" (source also of Sanskrit visam "venom, poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" Latin viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Greek ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime;" Old Church Slavonic višnja "cherry;" Old Irish fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "poison").
And this interesting bit of “wisdom”(?) from Reuters: “While the word “virus” may have been a synonym for “poison” in the Middle Ages, this meaning is archaic.” https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2L23CQ/
So, according to two sources, the real, factual definition of virus is “archaic.”
I do believe in viruses, as defined by etymology. I just have issues with changing the definition, calling it archaic, making things up without scientific justification, and then claiming something exists for which there is no scientific evidence.
I’m American, but I grew up in South America in the 70s and 80s. It seemed that whenever the doctors didn’t know what was wrong with someone, they would say it was a virus. It was kind of a joke among the Americans there. If you were told you had a virus, it meant the doctor didn’t have an explanation or diagnosis.
Back then, I thought it was a third-world situation - they didn’t have the vast training and experience that American doctors would have had … but this same thing happens here in “enlightened” America today.
I worked for a woman a few years ago who had been told she had a very rare virus. She apparently came very close to dying. She was doing better by the time I met her, but was still paranoid about being exposed to anything and thought she would have to take special precautions for the rest of her life.
A search for “definition of virus” or “Latin definition of virus” is quite amusing, in a sad way. Make something up. Change it to what you want.
The claims of what a strand of disconnected, nonliving DNA can do are truly amazing.
Since the start of "virology" in the 1850's they have never been able to prove their hypothesis regardless of what the definition of a "virus" was at the time. At the beginning they used the latin word "virus" as in a noxious substance, but even from that perspective their experiments didn't prove that it was a noxious substance since their experiments lacked proper controls and proper setup where the independent variable was identified, isolated & purified. Then the idea of a "virus" evolved into a self replicated toxic protein that ended in 1952-53 due to control experiments that disproved that hypothesis. Then finally a "virus" became a RNA/DNA string wrapped in a protein coat with the ability to replicate in 1954 due to the alleged discovery of the double helix model of DNA in 1953 that ironically enough refuted itself in its first tissue culture experiment by Enders but that was conveniently ignored by all "virologists" even to this day.
The key thing here tho is that when discussing the origin of "virology" and its evolution is that they never started with A "virus", they just started with an assumption and fabricated various pseduoscientific experiments in an attempt to "prove" their hypothesis which always failed. What is a truism is that we can't experiment with things we haven't showed to exist prior to an experiment taking place and had it isolated and purified and this is the foundational problem that never got resolved in "virology".
In my view it's time to abandon the word "virus" regardless of definition because in the minds of people, the word conjure up all kinds of horror images because of the countless movies & series and real life events that is connected to the word.
I think that’s a good suggestion, but the believers will never abandon it. They will continue to redefine it to fit their latest idea, while others (“laymen”) continue to use it with some other definition, or without even understanding it at all. The whole mess is so tangled, I don’t see any rational way to use the word unless one defines how one is using it … and for each person to do that every time they use the word would be confusing and cumbersome. If the meaning of a word is this elusive, it is serving no useful purpose.
It is truly amazing that a nonliving particle can bop around indefinitely, finally accidentally finding its way into a human host, where it is apparently regally escorted to a cell where it can set up shop and take over the cell’s manufacturing capability.
Then, somehow, and for some unknown reason, this nonliving particle is ejected from the cell and out of the human, back into the air, where it again bops around for another indefinite period of time, until it once again accidentally finds itself inside another human host where it is again escorted into a cell where it takes over THAT cell’s operating mechanism …
And on and on…
Being nonliving, this particle is presumably not mobile on its own, but is completely dependent on chance and whatever it happens to encounter to move it around.
Truly amazing…. ;)
How about this? A bag of trash falls off a garbage truck and is blown around and run over, finally finding itself in a city where an Uber picks it up and delivers it to an ice cream plant. It is escorted to the factory floor by some security guards where it somehow takes over the production line for a while, causing the plant to produce trash ice cream until it makes its way back out and ends up back on the street, waiting for another opportunity to do the same thing all over again.
I suggest you look up the scientist Denis Rancourt, he has been speaking out quite a lot regarding the all cause mortality data and that there is no evidence of any pathogen spreading across the world or something that was causing death.
"A 9-minute presentation by scientist Denis Rancourt at the Christine Anderson and Eva Vlaardingerbroek “Make It Your Business” event in Ottawa on November 29, 2023 has gone viral on X formerly known as Twitter. As a scientist, Rancourt states that after three years of intense study and looking at hard data, he has been able to conclude that there was “no pandemic”, “no evidence of a particularly virulent pathogen whatsoever” and there was “nothing that was spreading that was causing death.”
As I see it, the only thing that spread across the world was pseudoscience, lunacy and changed medical protocols where various old diseases got falsely reclassified as "COVID".
Do you mean the deaths caused by Remdesivir and ventilators? Or the unusually high number of deaths we have right now of children and working- aged people?
Where is the study proving those variants have been removed from a sick person and given to a healthy person who then came down with the expected symptoms?
You can claim you sell a hand grenade that can bring down a 12 story building, but before buying it, wouldn't you expect a demonstration?
So where has it been demonstrated that the variant for sale actually causes an illness or disease?
And if such a variant could be sold, wouldn't that be selling a bioweapon? Can I buy some of your variant and use it to make people sick? Really? Do you honestly think that's possible? What if I, as a teacher, make a spray out of it and spray a classroom full of wittle children in it whilst telling them I am spraying them with magic water to make them smarter?
i'm on your side, homie. I just want to see if anyone knows more details about how ATCC produces these 'variants', which researchers then use to get very similar genomic 'sequences', according to NCBI Blast searches. The researchers then say they have isolated and sequenced a 'virus' using these purchased 'strains', so i wanted to know how they can produce such similar 'strains'.
Here is an example of where I tracked down the origin of a "SARS-COV-2 isolate" (which is sold by BEI and was used in a study that someone was claiming showed "the virus":
MUC-1 aka MUC-IMB1: Corman/Drosten monkey business
Plus the supplier typically states in their product description that they are actually selling cell culture supernatant (and that it supposedly contains "the virus").
"i wanted to know how they can produce such similar 'strains'."
Wouldn't their answer just be complicated sounding pseudoscience?
Are you kind of in the weeds on this topic? I mean no disrespect. But if there is no virus to begin with, then the genetic sequencing topic is upstream from the original source of the fraud that there is no virus to begin with -- no virus from which to obtain genetic material of any kind. So therefore the specifics -- any specifics about the genetic sequencing of something never proven to exist, is deep in the weeds & bramble. It's a distraction. It's a snipe hunt. It's a ghost story in front of a campfire.
You seem like you do research. Have you come across anyone questioning the tests for cancer? Is it absurd to wonder aloud if some or many or most tests for cancer are as fake as the HIV tests? What if most cancer deaths are actually deaths from the treatments? And what if you took a fake test for cancer and submitted to treatments and died from the treatments but not by any actual cancer?
Everyone knows cancer is listed as the #2 cause of death in the 21st century when it wasn't even in the Top 10 back in 1900. I don't dispute the likelihood that actual cancer has been caused by pharmaceuticals & vaccines and other synthetic chemical what-nots for the past 120 years, but I do know, based on the HIV/AZT scam, that it would not be implausible to find out that many of the tests for cancer are somehow fake or scientifically unsound.
whether there is such thing as a natural virus or not, i'm also interested in understanding how 'virologists' come up with very similar sequences as well as 'virus' patents like Ralph Baric's or so-called 'bioweapons', whatever those could be. These things could be psyops, or they could be very advanced DARPA type technologies.
According to the words of Dr Stefan Lanka that is a trained "virologist":
"It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades. Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.
In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.
The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are. The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is a method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory."
"I like to put forward a truism that should be easy enough to understand, which is that we can’t conduct any scientific experiments with things we haven’t shown to exist AND where they have been isolated and purified PRIOR to an experiment taking place. To claim otherwise would be to claim that we can conduct scientific experiments with elves, gnomes, fairies, and unicorns.
What should be quite evident by now, after reading and understanding this, is that everything downstream from this is by default false since everything depends on its existence. That means that all claims of “viral” genomes are false, including the various alleged diagnostic tests by default, where any treatment like injections and pills can only bring unnecessary harm."
Exactly John Blaid well stated
I understand the argument. What about gain of function research? What are they working on in all of those labs all over the world? Is it really much to do about nothing? What about the claims that some can prove that the 'virus' was genetically modified? Could someone go in one of those labs, open all the vials, breathe long and deep, and come up out without a problem?
"What are they working on in all of those labs all over the world? "
Viral narratives.
Highly profitable gain of function viral narratives, for when the normal narrative loses its potency.
To do "gain of function" reesearch, the alleged "function" must first be proven to exist, which means of course the "thing" alleged to cause the "function" must first and foremost be proven as real. But none of this has been proven.
What are they doing in all those labs around the world, if not exxperimenting with "viruses"? Collecting big paychecks, grants, promotions and tinsley "status" (among people (some of them) who never learned to think objectively, critically and independently. )
There is a study..sorry no time to find it and link to it...wherein "coronavirus" "scientists" could not see through electron microscopy the alleged "spike protein" cliamed by virus enthusiasts to define the shell-coating of the "coronavirus". So did they declare"There's no virus to be seen..." and call it a day? No. Instead they added trypsin, which "eats" protein with the effect that ragged edges developed on some particles thereby qualifying those, to the virologists doing this study, as "coronavirus". They celebrated this development as a success in the study.
Maybe this sort of activity occupies the time and consumes the resources of (some) mad scientists performing "gain of function' research.
Asking what the labs and lab scientists are up to all around the world in gain of function activities if there is no virus, seems similar to asking "How could all those scientists and their governments be wrong about virology?"
When science is centralized, as today, it is easy and simple for powerful and wealthy entitiess and people to push particular ideas and misconceptions. John D Rockefellar, who was a business genius, was a big supproter of germ theory and as a Progressive, supported the establishment of medical licensing and accredited medical schools (and curriculum) by state legislatures in the latter decades of the nineteenth century.. That centralization and regimentation of medical science made it easy for Rockefeller and other powerful entities and people to capture the medical ideas to be taught in accredited allopath schools, which were purposefully restricted in number and curriculum. Did Rockefeller know anything about science and proper scientific epistemology? No. He and others like him held to fasionable beliefs and so used his wealth and fame to push them. That's how germ theory took hold (in part) in the USA, to be followed by the rest of the world.
Obviously they can't gain a function of something they haven't proved to exist. Whatever they do in these labs have nothing to do with any "viruses". At best they can make up some toxic injections that are then sold to the people as "solutions" for various illnesses. At worst they are just playing around with regular tissue cultures and add various toxins while starving them of nutrients where the end result is breakdown products of dead and dying tissue.
All alleged "viruses" are invented and only exist in computers and on paper but never in reality. To better understand the "genetic" side of things it is helpful to understand HOW they invent the alleged genomes of "viruses".
According to the words of Dr Stefan Lanka that is a trained "virologist":
"It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades. Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.
In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.
The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are. The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is a method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory."
https://truthseeker.se/the-virus-misconception-part-1-measles-as-an-example-by-dr-stefan-lanka/
To your last question: Could someone go in one of those labs, open all the vials, breathe long and deep, and come up out without a problem?
They can produce toxic vials and breathing in toxins is obviously not healthy tho I doubt toxins in a vial will cause any harm unless they aerosolize the contents where you breathe it in through a nebulizer. But there is no chance that you will be exposed to any alleged "virus".
Excellent. The whole thingy is based on software enabled sorcery. In silico means In or on a computer. Simulation or computer software. The bible for virology is a Data base called a GenBank.
“Whole-Genome Sequencing”
We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.” I repeat and say see the operative word 'designed' created from noting and compared to nothing as such.
Size matter. Can the scientific equipment extract or capture a SINGLE (most likely dead) Human or Animal skin cell from the air surrounding a body? Do these cells exist? Are they present at any given time near the body?
Guess what? These cells are the most likely carriers of the viruses OUT of the host's body.
"Viruses are transmitted through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation" not as individual semi-organic "particles" but as the content of the bodily fluids expelled from the body "through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation," aka some other (most likely dead) body cells.
What is the point of this exercise? If the Viruses aren't "real," then what?
Why don't you guys make your "ultimate" goal with all this "No-Viruses" clear?
I know hype is very addictive, but seriously?
At least tens of Billions of $$$$ are spent every year on studies and implementation of "SAFETY" protocols around viruses, ultimately to create "defenses" (the best defense is offense). A whole lot of these $$$ are funneled out into the Bioweapons programs.
All that is a scheme?
RE: Harold Hillman
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/good-scientists-bad-science-clinging-to-a-dubious-position-can-destroy-a-career-62809
Whatever the end result of their experiments with tissue cultures is, it becomes irrelevant because they never start with a "virus", they just assume it's in the sample but they never confirm it prior to the experiment taking place. Creating an experiment based on an unproven assumption is not science, science requires an independent variable prior to an experiment taking place, not an assumed one. The pictures of particles of alleged "viruses" are taken AFTER a tissue culture experiment has taken place, not before.
"What is the point of this exercise? If the Viruses aren't "real," then what?"
The point is that people are fearing things that haven't been shown to exist much less harm us where people are currently misdiagnosed and mistreated as a result of it that leads to unnecessary harm and death in the billions. In other words, it's a matter of life and death, it is that serious of an issue. Another thing is that true prevention of illness can never occur unless the real cause or causes are being addressed that is behind their illness. Historically we can also see that various corporations have gotten away with poisoning the population where the illness been blamed on other things as a cover.
So, I guess all these images of various viruses that are readily available and were taken by very sophisticated man-made electronic microscopes some decades ago are fake?
The entire 100+ years old study of RNA/DNA and its retroviruses components is absurd?
The reason why the individual viruses not possible to “extract” from the individual cells is not because they don’t exist. It’s because they are inseparable part of the cell machinery as soon as they interact with cell’s membrane. And, before that, the virus is absorbed by whatever media it landed - one of many bodily fluids presumably. Summarily, the core issue isn’t with virology, but with the author’s lack of knowledge and understanding of basic biology and genetics.
"the virus is absorbed by whatever media it landed - one of many bodily fluids presumably"
Dr Rosenau's disgusting experiments during the Spanish flu (and many like it over the last century) slimed volunteers with the bodily fluids of sick people with the flu. The volunteers even gargled and drank the snot. They sat next to the sick and had them cough into their faces repeatedly. They inhaled their breath at close quarters. They even tried blood transfusions. And the result?
"None of them got sick in any way" - Dr Rosenau.
"So, I guess all these images of various viruses that are readily available and were taken by very sophisticated man-made electronic microscopes some decades ago are fake?"
Nobody disputes the existence of particles under EM. The point is those particles have never been shown to fulfil the definition of a 'virus' - a definition invented by virologists themselves. A definition which includes the characteristic of being contagious and pathogenic. With no proof of either, the particles must be properly defined as cellular debris, junk, blobs...... anything but 'viruses'.
The images aren't fake, they are misinterpretations because of lack of evidence.
In order for these to be "retroviruses components" there needs to be proof that retroviruses exist, but there is none.
If viruses are not separable from the cell machinery, how can you say they are viruses?
How can you say viruses are absorbed by whatever media if you have not proven the existence of the virus first?
You cannot make assumptions and then try to validate them, this is not science.
They can take picture of various particles as much as they want, it doesn't tell us anything about what they actually are, especially since they are taken after their pseudo-scientific experiments with tissue cultures have been made, not before. There are also numerous problems with the procedure of taking a picture with the electron microscope. I highly recommend you read these articles by the late Harold Hillman that spent 50 years of his life highlighting the problems in cell biology which include the problems with the electron microscope and its pictures.
A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman
https://big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/a-serious-indictment-of-modern-cell-biology.pdf
Cell Biology is Currently in Dire Straits by Harold Hillman
http://pro-decizii-informate.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Prof-Harold-Hillman-Cell-biology-at-the-beginning-of-the-21st-century-is-in-dire-straits-2011.pdf
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/good-scientists-bad-science-clinging-to-a-dubious-position-can-destroy-a-career-62809
But for the sake of argument, let us see what other people came up with when it comes to the problems behind the use of the electron microscope and the subjective interpretation of the various images.
Misinterpreting Electron Microscope Images
"Below are numerous examples of misinterpretations of Electron Microscope images for “SARS-COV-2.” It is a long read, but you will see that there are multiple issues when trying to identify particles believed to be “SARS-COV-2.” There are many subcellular particles which are either similar or completely identical to “Coronaviruses.” Within an unpurified sample, there are guaranteed to be millions of these particles present. Attempting to identify images of this “virus” is an area fraught with subjective analysis of a predetermined idea of what a “SARS-COV-2” particle is supposed to look like and where it should be located."
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/14/misinterpreting-electron-microscope-images/
The Numerous Alterations During Sample Preparation for EM Imaging
"If the cell culturing process isn’t enough to alter the sample beyond it’s original state, the destruction of the natural cell morphology caused by preparing the sample for Transmission Electron Microscope images ensures that this is the case. Highlighted below are a few sources focusing on some of the steps (fixation and embedding) an already altered cell culture sample goes through in order to be prepared for imaging:"
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/12/the-alterations-during-sample-preparation-for-em-imaging/
Nothing in there refute his critique, it's just another hit piece against the person and not against his arguments. Unless someone can prove that his critique is unfounded then his critique stands. Should be noted that there are those who work with the electron microscope that agree with his critique, even today.
"The reason why the individual viruses not possible to “extract” from the individual cells is not because they don’t exist. It’s because they are inseparable part of the cell machinery as soon as they interact with cell’s membrane."
And where are the viruses before they interact with a cell?
We are told viruses are transmitted through sneezing, coughing, and exhalation, and so doesn't that mean they are cell-free whilst travelling from one body to another? And thus, can't they be captured before they interact with a cell?
Are we clear here?
You say a thing exists and that it exists BEFORE it interacts/infects a cell, and so why isn't it captured and studied all on its own before it interacts/infects a cell?
The images that are shown all over the media are not photographs. The images are drawn by artists who take full advantage of artistic license. Besides that, even real photographs of particles do not prove WHAT the particles are, where they came from, that they cause disease or illness, or that they are “viruses.” The particles in photographs do not have tags on them telling what they are. Virologists have not proven that viruses exist - maybe because they CAN NOT do so?
I do not know of anyone who questions the existence of viruses who would not be willing to look at scientific evidence showing their existence if it were to be put forward. Thus far, there is none.
Even if viruses were shown to exist, it would then need to be shown that they cause disease/illness, but until viruses can be found, those scientific experiments can’t be done.
Perhaps I should add…
From etymonline.com, the Latin definition of virus -
late 14c., "poisonous substance" (a sense now archaic), from Latin virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice," from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) "poison," which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to "poisonous fluid" (source also of Sanskrit visam "venom, poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" Latin viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Greek ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime;" Old Church Slavonic višnja "cherry;" Old Irish fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "poison").
And this interesting bit of “wisdom”(?) from Reuters: “While the word “virus” may have been a synonym for “poison” in the Middle Ages, this meaning is archaic.” https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2L23CQ/
So, according to two sources, the real, factual definition of virus is “archaic.”
I do believe in viruses, as defined by etymology. I just have issues with changing the definition, calling it archaic, making things up without scientific justification, and then claiming something exists for which there is no scientific evidence.
I’m American, but I grew up in South America in the 70s and 80s. It seemed that whenever the doctors didn’t know what was wrong with someone, they would say it was a virus. It was kind of a joke among the Americans there. If you were told you had a virus, it meant the doctor didn’t have an explanation or diagnosis.
Back then, I thought it was a third-world situation - they didn’t have the vast training and experience that American doctors would have had … but this same thing happens here in “enlightened” America today.
I worked for a woman a few years ago who had been told she had a very rare virus. She apparently came very close to dying. She was doing better by the time I met her, but was still paranoid about being exposed to anything and thought she would have to take special precautions for the rest of her life.
A search for “definition of virus” or “Latin definition of virus” is quite amusing, in a sad way. Make something up. Change it to what you want.
The claims of what a strand of disconnected, nonliving DNA can do are truly amazing.
Since the start of "virology" in the 1850's they have never been able to prove their hypothesis regardless of what the definition of a "virus" was at the time. At the beginning they used the latin word "virus" as in a noxious substance, but even from that perspective their experiments didn't prove that it was a noxious substance since their experiments lacked proper controls and proper setup where the independent variable was identified, isolated & purified. Then the idea of a "virus" evolved into a self replicated toxic protein that ended in 1952-53 due to control experiments that disproved that hypothesis. Then finally a "virus" became a RNA/DNA string wrapped in a protein coat with the ability to replicate in 1954 due to the alleged discovery of the double helix model of DNA in 1953 that ironically enough refuted itself in its first tissue culture experiment by Enders but that was conveniently ignored by all "virologists" even to this day.
The key thing here tho is that when discussing the origin of "virology" and its evolution is that they never started with A "virus", they just started with an assumption and fabricated various pseduoscientific experiments in an attempt to "prove" their hypothesis which always failed. What is a truism is that we can't experiment with things we haven't showed to exist prior to an experiment taking place and had it isolated and purified and this is the foundational problem that never got resolved in "virology".
In my view it's time to abandon the word "virus" regardless of definition because in the minds of people, the word conjure up all kinds of horror images because of the countless movies & series and real life events that is connected to the word.
I think that’s a good suggestion, but the believers will never abandon it. They will continue to redefine it to fit their latest idea, while others (“laymen”) continue to use it with some other definition, or without even understanding it at all. The whole mess is so tangled, I don’t see any rational way to use the word unless one defines how one is using it … and for each person to do that every time they use the word would be confusing and cumbersome. If the meaning of a word is this elusive, it is serving no useful purpose.
“U SUCK”! And your Grammar isn’t Correct!
Watch your language. No need for ad hominem attacks.
I am well aware that my grammar is anything but good and it's because English is my second language. I've tried to correct some of the errors now.
A song about the fraud of Virology. Watch THE DISH. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/new-music-video-the-dish
It is truly amazing that a nonliving particle can bop around indefinitely, finally accidentally finding its way into a human host, where it is apparently regally escorted to a cell where it can set up shop and take over the cell’s manufacturing capability.
Then, somehow, and for some unknown reason, this nonliving particle is ejected from the cell and out of the human, back into the air, where it again bops around for another indefinite period of time, until it once again accidentally finds itself inside another human host where it is again escorted into a cell where it takes over THAT cell’s operating mechanism …
And on and on…
Being nonliving, this particle is presumably not mobile on its own, but is completely dependent on chance and whatever it happens to encounter to move it around.
Truly amazing…. ;)
How about this? A bag of trash falls off a garbage truck and is blown around and run over, finally finding itself in a city where an Uber picks it up and delivers it to an ice cream plant. It is escorted to the factory floor by some security guards where it somehow takes over the production line for a while, causing the plant to produce trash ice cream until it makes its way back out and ends up back on the street, waiting for another opportunity to do the same thing all over again.
How About...the Deaths?
I suggest you look up the scientist Denis Rancourt, he has been speaking out quite a lot regarding the all cause mortality data and that there is no evidence of any pathogen spreading across the world or something that was causing death.
"A 9-minute presentation by scientist Denis Rancourt at the Christine Anderson and Eva Vlaardingerbroek “Make It Your Business” event in Ottawa on November 29, 2023 has gone viral on X formerly known as Twitter. As a scientist, Rancourt states that after three years of intense study and looking at hard data, he has been able to conclude that there was “no pandemic”, “no evidence of a particularly virulent pathogen whatsoever” and there was “nothing that was spreading that was causing death.”
https://expose-news.com/2024/01/01/let-a-scientist-speak-presentation-goes-viral-because-its-true/
As I see it, the only thing that spread across the world was pseudoscience, lunacy and changed medical protocols where various old diseases got falsely reclassified as "COVID".
There were not excess deaths during 2020. Only after the toxic shots were available did excess deaths start to occur. (See coquien de chien substack)
But when people got the flu in 2020, I would suggest the following possibilities for “the deaths.”
Medical malpractice.
Sending people home to get sicker before treating them.
Giving people toxic medications instead of helping them detox.
Putting people on ventilators.
Putting financial kickbacks over people’s health.
Implementing CDC-recommended “standard of care.”
Caving to peer pressure instead of doctors using their own brains to determine the best way to help sick people.
Allowing hospital administrators to dictate medical treatments to maximize financial incentives offered by the government.
What deaths?
Huh?
Do you mean the deaths caused by Remdesivir and ventilators? Or the unusually high number of deaths we have right now of children and working- aged people?
Spot on.
What do you make of these 'variants' that you can purchase from ATCC in Manassas, VA? https://www.atcc.org/products/vr-3347hk
Where is the study proving those variants have been removed from a sick person and given to a healthy person who then came down with the expected symptoms?
You can claim you sell a hand grenade that can bring down a 12 story building, but before buying it, wouldn't you expect a demonstration?
So where has it been demonstrated that the variant for sale actually causes an illness or disease?
And if such a variant could be sold, wouldn't that be selling a bioweapon? Can I buy some of your variant and use it to make people sick? Really? Do you honestly think that's possible? What if I, as a teacher, make a spray out of it and spray a classroom full of wittle children in it whilst telling them I am spraying them with magic water to make them smarter?
Sincerely.
i'm on your side, homie. I just want to see if anyone knows more details about how ATCC produces these 'variants', which researchers then use to get very similar genomic 'sequences', according to NCBI Blast searches. The researchers then say they have isolated and sequenced a 'virus' using these purchased 'strains', so i wanted to know how they can produce such similar 'strains'.
Here is an example of where I tracked down the origin of a "SARS-COV-2 isolate" (which is sold by BEI and was used in a study that someone was claiming showed "the virus":
MUC-1 aka MUC-IMB1: Corman/Drosten monkey business
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/muc-1-aka-muc-imb1-just-more-corman-drosten-monkey-business-fraud/
If enough details are given by the supplier, you could trace the origins of other such products.
Plus the supplier typically states in their product description that they are actually selling cell culture supernatant (and that it supposedly contains "the virus").
And so can I use that virus to make someone sick? LOL
Or do I have to sign a waiver promising I won't use it for nefarious purposes?
Of course, "we" know there's no virus there, but wouldn't it be unethical to sell the virus to just anyone?
I wish someone would ask Dr. Debunk Wilson that question. I'm blocked.
So how do you predict they will wiggle out of that one?
Will they say something like the virus has been neutralized or some such shite?
Because if it hasn't, then you're telling me that I can buy biological agents of illness & disease and be trusted not to use them in an evil way?
Really?
They don't sell to just anyone. Not sure exactly how it works.
Cheers.
"i wanted to know how they can produce such similar 'strains'."
Wouldn't their answer just be complicated sounding pseudoscience?
Are you kind of in the weeds on this topic? I mean no disrespect. But if there is no virus to begin with, then the genetic sequencing topic is upstream from the original source of the fraud that there is no virus to begin with -- no virus from which to obtain genetic material of any kind. So therefore the specifics -- any specifics about the genetic sequencing of something never proven to exist, is deep in the weeds & bramble. It's a distraction. It's a snipe hunt. It's a ghost story in front of a campfire.
You seem like you do research. Have you come across anyone questioning the tests for cancer? Is it absurd to wonder aloud if some or many or most tests for cancer are as fake as the HIV tests? What if most cancer deaths are actually deaths from the treatments? And what if you took a fake test for cancer and submitted to treatments and died from the treatments but not by any actual cancer?
Everyone knows cancer is listed as the #2 cause of death in the 21st century when it wasn't even in the Top 10 back in 1900. I don't dispute the likelihood that actual cancer has been caused by pharmaceuticals & vaccines and other synthetic chemical what-nots for the past 120 years, but I do know, based on the HIV/AZT scam, that it would not be implausible to find out that many of the tests for cancer are somehow fake or scientifically unsound.
Know any likeminded critics or enquiring minds?
whether there is such thing as a natural virus or not, i'm also interested in understanding how 'virologists' come up with very similar sequences as well as 'virus' patents like Ralph Baric's or so-called 'bioweapons', whatever those could be. These things could be psyops, or they could be very advanced DARPA type technologies.
According to the words of Dr Stefan Lanka that is a trained "virologist":
"It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades. Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.
In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.
The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are. The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is a method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory."
https://truthseeker.se/the-virus-misconception-part-1-measles-as-an-example-by-dr-stefan-lanka/
They contain the breakdown products of a tissue culture that been exposed to various toxins and starvation.