Just linked your substack in the article, which should have been my first thought.
I don't even know what to introduce readers to because I think of myself as an educator finding the most important topics to focus on at any time. I sort of think of this as who I am, even though most of this Substack has been plandemonium focused:
It seems that VAERS manipulates the data to fit the narrative. Can we proof it? They seem to suppress strong signals in the data by giving the signals different names or categories. That way they can perform frauds, while pretending it is not fraud.
Can we use our knowledge of the SPARS plan to break out of it?
Tip: To improve the database queries, you can add the option to connect similar words. A graph can represent words that mean the same thing. You can even use it with the same word that can mean different things depending on the context. This concept is used by Google for searches.
The Science: Read Mathew's post today. The safety signal protocol uses an equation (a ratio of ratios) which makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to reach an HR of 2.0. Not stupid, on their part; entirely intentional. Not incompetence. Actual malice. For the gallows these folks. That's how murderers were dealt with in the good ole' days. May be a time to return to frontier justice?
Liz is totally cool. What a fine, worthy thing she has done for all her fellow inhabitants of this beautiful Earth. I had no idea she had suffered so grievously for this act of citizenship. Psychopaths don't sleep? I have been on the vaccine-risk-awareness team, better known as Team Antivaxx, since 2013, thanks to Leslie Manookian, who screened her film, "The Greater Good," at the Wise Traditions conference in Atlanta, ironically the home of the Centers for Disease Creation and Propagation.
Loved the show but disagree with Liam and JJ about the level of control on FOIA releases especially in the context of court ordered disclosure.. there are plenty of insiders on our side!
Mathew, check into that economist cover more. I was questioning it because it did not have a date on the cover .When I went to the economist website to order a back issue i found out there is not that cover anywhere. I believe it is someones editorial opinion of the economist .I have seen that cover before but it is not a real issue,they have different stories and covers for that month. Go to the archives for the economist.
Also, thank you for the interview with Liz and Jessica. I'm trying to reach Liz. If you talk to her, please ask her to look out for my message, thank you.
Interesting to hear what people think about the idea that every wave of covid that we had was triggered by new release of "bioweapon" viruses.
I think the vaccine caused death, but we had waves of deaths, and I don't know if the Delta/Omicron waves line up well with a surge in new vaccinations, as you can say for the wave in Dec20/Jan21. Do we see waves in vaccine death in VAERS that match the death waves that correspond to Delta/Omicron?
The seasonality of the Delta wave was very odd. It came in the middle of the summer, but also at a time when there was a huge push for various mandates in the US and Europe.
Hi Mr. Crawford. I’ve been doing some reading up on your sub stack, I find it to be Informative but I also feel as if I don’t fully understand it. I see a lot of talk in your articles about the DMED data and it being falsely represented by people within the MFM. I guess one thing I’m confused about is,
While we know the harms are there, are they not as bad as some make it out to be? Or are they worse? If you know. It’s kind of terrifying as somebody who got 2 Pfizer jabs in early 2021 when most were falsely lead to take it. I try to listen to both sides of the debate, but I’m finding it difficult to find trust worthy actors among MFM.
It finds no significant peptide sequence overlap between spike proteins produced by the gene therapy "vaccines" and antigens linked to myocarditis which implies vaccine induced antibody and T cell binding is unlikely. Interestingly, an a throw away line at the end of the abstract and in the discussion in the paper, it is stated that it is likely that the (rare and quickly recovered from) myocarditis incidents are likely due to an innate response. Gert Vann Dem Bosche has stressed how COVID is a nothingburger for the young due to their stronger innate immune responses. Maybe that's why myocarditis mainly afflicts the young vaccinees.
Nothing to do with this interview except that Dr Rose was party to it. Great to see Liz Wheeler get some recognition for making the VAERS data easier to work with for those who aren't data experts
Can you debunk his proofs the boosters are brilliant because if this is what my relatives are reading then I’ve got no chance convincing them otherwise!
Displayed are age and gender stratified "differences in proportion" for every vaccine and various subcohorts of reports. Every term which proportion is significantly increased compared to the same term's proportion for other vaccines (or actually compared to an age and gender adjusted synthetic pseudo-placebo report cohort) is listed. Roughly 15k safety signals for all vaccines.
I love Liz Wheeler and her work. She does one thing, and does it very well.
However, I DON'T appreciate all of the Virus Pushers she associates herself with. These frauds and con-artists are the people promoting the CORE FRAUD of the entire paradigm. I know she just wants to promote her work, and that's fine. But these people ("Virus Pushers Against Clotshots") are not going to solve the problem. They are making things WORSE. http://apocalypticyoga.wikidot.com/virus-pushers-against-clotshots
There are problems with the narrative, but what you're doing---attacking instead of discussing---makes it hard to sort out possibilities that have gone unexamined, such as an Operation Sea Spray bacterial coinfection at scale.
Certainly not Liz, I think she's great and said so.
If you're talking about "attacking" the Virus Pushers (I'm talking about the so-called "leadership" of the "anti-vax" and "medical freedom" community), well, you have not begun to hear my scorn for this gatekeepers, liars, and frauds.
> makes it hard to sort out possibilities that have gone unexamined
The truth is very simple. We've all had 3 years to figure this out.
> such as an Operation Sea Spray bacterial coinfection at scale.
Huh? Sounds like your stuck in a 100 y/o fraudulent contagion medical model.
There is NO EVIDENCE in the scientific literature of ANY viral or bacterial infection being spread from human to human.
Are you familiar with the flu transmission studies conducted by Milton Rosenau?
I highly suggest you pay more attention to the TRUE leadership of the COVID Truth community: Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan,. Drs Mark and Sam Bailey, Christine Massey MSc, Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr Kevin Corbett, Eric Francis Coppolino, Jon Rapporport, Kate Sugak, Michael Wallach, Alec Zeck, Mike Stone (viroLIEgy), Steve Falconer (Spacebusters).
There is no evidence in the literature you'll accept, I take it.
There are problems in the literature, to be sure. But you've said nothing whatsoever about any of it---just named your champions and declared that there is no evidence ot the contrary, which is as anti-science as a conversation can get.
> There is no evidence in the literature you'll accept, I take it.
Sorry, that's not right, Here's what is right:
==> There is no evidence in the literature that viruses, i.e., "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure", exist, PERIOD.
> There are problems in the literature, to be sure. But you've said nothing whatsoever about any of it
I sure did. Maybe you missed it. I repeated it again for you just above. What is there more to say?
Do you have proof that viruses exist? How about 1 paper?
> just named your champions
I am citing my primary sources. I don't have credentials. Those people do. I'm happy to tell you what I have learned from them, and through my own independent research, under their guidance. (e.g., how to decypher the "methods" section)
> and declared that there is no evidence ot the contrary
I declared there was NO EVIDENCE. Period. Stop there.
> which is as anti-science as a conversation can get
Science is all about careful OBSERVATION, with applied REASON.
If YOU are claiming that viruses exist, then the burden of proof is on YOU not me.
I have listened to the experts. I have reviewed the published papers myself.
I am telling you there is no proof ANYWHERE in the scientific literature of biological pathogens, using blinded experiments with proper controls. Bacteria exist, but are not pathogenic or contagious. Whereas the entire hypothesis (not a theory) of viruses is fabricated out of deceit.
"Do you have proof that viruses exist? How about 1 paper?"
My wife works with them and has isolated them. But what's the point in saying that? There are many papers on isolation, and you've defined them away already and then lectured me about "OBSERVATION" and "REASON" before you've even defined "isolation" or what evidence would falsify your hypothesis.
You ask for "proof", which isn't even a word in science.
If you've reviewed the literature, I'm sure you can list the authors. I'll point out my wife's name after you do. Thanks.
Please do not reply if you aren't going to define "isolate". I'm guessing that you've taken a flawed conception of the idea without understanding the need for definition. If your definition is, "separated from anything else definable," then nothing has ever or can ever be isolated, and we're just talking nonsense. But if you accept the obvious notion that nothing exists in a vaccum, and that isolation can involve a medium, then you've accepted at least some of the literature.
There are important conversations to be had, and there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in The Science. But you won't get there with rhetorical games.
Put your wife on the line and let me ask her some questions.
e.g,, 1: Does your so-called "isolation" step involve CONTAMINATING the sample with foreign DNA, like Vero Cells, A549 Cells, Viral Transport Medium, Viral Growth Medium, Fetal Bovine Serum?
> before you've even defined "isolation"
Isolation means exactly what it denotes: SEPARATION and PURIFICATION like things from unlike things.
"Virus Isolation" CERTAINLY cannot me, "CONTAMINATION" with foreign DNA. This is the central "question of provenance" that Dr. Mark Bailey discusses often.
Once you have CONTAMINATED the sample with your witches brew of A549 human lung cancer cells, fetal bovine serum, monkey kidney cells, "viral transport medium", etc. etc., HOW CAN YOU EVER BE SURE about the origins of whatever DNA or RNA fragments that you find in said contaminated sample?
A: You CANNOT.
Furthermore, this so-called "viral isolation" stage has never been confirmed using a proper blinded study with proper controls. The best we have is that done by Dr. Stefan Lanka, and self-published (as the journals won't touch something so radical).
This bogus "virus isolation" stage, performed WITHOUT controls, is perhaps THE core pillar of virology. The full list is a) isolation, b) SEM photography, c) proof of pathogenicity/cause of disease, d) proof of host-to-host transmission.
It turns that that NONE of these have been properly validated using common, sound scientific principles in use for 100 years. The entire scheme is based in fraud and pseudoscience.
>then nothing has ever or can ever be isolated,
Wrong. People have isolated and purifed bacteria all day long for 100 years using commonly available lab equipment. People have isolated structures SMALLER than a virus (e.g., proteins).
So why can't they isolate "viruses" the same way?
A: Because they DO NOT EXIST.
Those vesicles seen on SEM photographs with the corona-like globules-- Those photographs are HIGHLY CONTRIVED, and do not bear any resemblance to anything in a real, living system. Those structures only show up AFTER the CONTAMINATED sample is repeatedly starved, poisoned by antibiotics and chemical stains, passaged, and subjected to freeze/thaw cycles.
C'mon, man.
>But you won't get there with rhetorical games.
The only people playing games are the Virus Pushers.
I don't have time for games. I'm getting old.
I try to speak factually, with authority, and in the most compact way possible.
With respect of "isolation," Cowan and Kaufman et al say "isolation and purification" use informal definitions, such as "separate from everything else", and use the example of isolating and purifying the alkaloid caffeine from all the other components of a coffee bean, using standard chemical procedures.
I concede, and I speak for myself, that it may be possible that complex organic structures (more complex than a molecule) like the organelles and a virus (or a stranded rna molecule) cannot be isolated and purified in the same way that a simpler chemical is isolated and purified, because they would decompose.
Which brings me to my particular critique of the public teaching of experts like Judy Mikovitz, and many others: why don't you explain exactly how the lab procedures used to handle complex organic structures are different from the procedures employed for dealing with simpler structures.
This is very difficult to understand to lay people like myself. Why is it that complex structures like the ribosome, the Golgi apparatus, the mitochondria, the cytoskeleton cannot be isolated like simple pieces of a machine: we take apart this motorbike, like Yeadon would do, and in this box we put the nuts, in this other box the washers, another for the bolts, another for the rubber gaskets, and so on, for all the pieces, the smallest and the biggest.
Everyone is used to the analogy of the cell as a machine. But it is not a machine in the sense that it can be taken apart and every component placed in different test tubes, and all components are more or less interchangeable (for instance, a ribosome of a heart cell could be exchanged with a ribosome from a liver cell, because they are exactly the same?)
I think part of our problem is that the analogy fails, like all analogies, and the communication breaks down.
I'm willing to go back to the yes-virus side if I can learn exactly why the evidence that most scientists "believe" (sorry) to support the thesis that viruses exist is better than the refutations of the leaders of the no-virus side. That is because I'm not a fanatic and I want the "truth" or as close as possible.
Bill, that attitude would not have helped me to move to the no-virus side back when I still believed in vruses. If you wish to be more persuasive, then change your style. Be less confrontational, please.
And I don't think the people who believe in viruses in general are making our current situation worse, that's a bad argument. I also said the same a few months ago, when I still believed in viruses, when I read and heard a few smart individuals saying that virus deniers were making things worse. The truth is this situation is being managed by a number of professionals who have a firm grasp on the whole enchilada, and the critics are very well censored and controlled, localized and contained. People will come to Kennedy's side or to Cowan's side only one by one, and with much effort to overcome all the distractions. Removing control from the enemy's hands is extremely difficult regardless the what the message, in my opinion. So if you want to make more no-vorus people, please focus on removing the obstacles.
As far as "attitude" goes, well, we all have different styles.
You don't have to like mine. That's fine.
I don't think you can predict who will be moved by what style.
I don't think you can say, universally, my style is ineffective.
>And I don't think the people who believe in viruses in general are making our current situation worse
I don't generally talk about "virus believers". I realize most are victims of a highly effective propaganda programme.
I usually talk about Virus PUSHERS. I mean the big "leaders" (self-appointed, most are millionaires), like Del Bigtree, RFK Jr, and to some extent, Reiner Fuellmich. Those are the big ones. Then the stable of the rest, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Steve Kirsh, Meryl Nass, Joe Mercola, etc. et.c etc. ad nauseum.
They are most definitely part of the problem, I would argue, since they are promoting the CORE LIE.
Now if your real identity is someone I respect and admire, like Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan, or Christine Massey, and you are asking me to tone it down, I'd be quite inclined to snap to attention. (email me privately if so!!!)
But as "Cosmos Agent Roger 23", you're just another anon internet dude, with an opinion. You know what they say about opinions.... "Everybody's got one.".
Endogenous viruses exist. Do exogenous (infectious) viruses exist? Perhaps they do but we simply lack the technology to truly discern fully intact ones and sequence their genomes i.e. the virus genomes, which are cobbled together from genetic debris of unknown origin in cell cultures are fake.
Thanks for saving me from another 4 hours on VARBPAC auditions; way more interesting thing to hear!
I did not realize you were on Substack!
RTE readers [who read the comments] now know.
Note: It was only brought to my attention by OpenVAET later that OpenVAET is not Liz, but a separate project born out of the same need.
Thanks, it's fresh, planted my tent to translate important articles for the French readers and encourage them to get a deeper look to English writers.
If you have one to suggest so they are introduced to RTE; it'll be my honor, you have too many good ones in stock for an easy choice.
The Stew 4 parts perhaps, so they learn a bit of sane caution ?
Just linked your substack in the article, which should have been my first thought.
I don't even know what to introduce readers to because I think of myself as an educator finding the most important topics to focus on at any time. I sort of think of this as who I am, even though most of this Substack has been plandemonium focused:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/why-the-star-trek-future-isnt-what
Broke my DND rule & sent you a DM on the censorbird.
Thank-you for your extremely important work!
Yes, thank all of you!
So grateful!
Thanks so much for the incredible Open VAERS system and fantastic show!! <3
That was great. Two questions + Tip.
It seems that VAERS manipulates the data to fit the narrative. Can we proof it? They seem to suppress strong signals in the data by giving the signals different names or categories. That way they can perform frauds, while pretending it is not fraud.
Can we use our knowledge of the SPARS plan to break out of it?
Tip: To improve the database queries, you can add the option to connect similar words. A graph can represent words that mean the same thing. You can even use it with the same word that can mean different things depending on the context. This concept is used by Google for searches.
The Science: Read Mathew's post today. The safety signal protocol uses an equation (a ratio of ratios) which makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to reach an HR of 2.0. Not stupid, on their part; entirely intentional. Not incompetence. Actual malice. For the gallows these folks. That's how murderers were dealt with in the good ole' days. May be a time to return to frontier justice?
Liz is totally cool. What a fine, worthy thing she has done for all her fellow inhabitants of this beautiful Earth. I had no idea she had suffered so grievously for this act of citizenship. Psychopaths don't sleep? I have been on the vaccine-risk-awareness team, better known as Team Antivaxx, since 2013, thanks to Leslie Manookian, who screened her film, "The Greater Good," at the Wise Traditions conference in Atlanta, ironically the home of the Centers for Disease Creation and Propagation.
Excellent talk. Thank you all three of you!
Loved the show but disagree with Liam and JJ about the level of control on FOIA releases especially in the context of court ordered disclosure.. there are plenty of insiders on our side!
Nice to hear!
Mathew, check into that economist cover more. I was questioning it because it did not have a date on the cover .When I went to the economist website to order a back issue i found out there is not that cover anywhere. I believe it is someones editorial opinion of the economist .I have seen that cover before but it is not a real issue,they have different stories and covers for that month. Go to the archives for the economist.
One of the great joys in life is to listen to honesty being spoken
Whoa! What they did doxxing and harassing Liz Willner! The funding of the AI company, ooooh wow.
Here is the link to Toby's post you mentioned and the study of zero efficacy flu vax at University of Michigan.
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/the-fdas-proposed-future-framework
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7049e1-H.pdf
Also, thank you for the interview with Liz and Jessica. I'm trying to reach Liz. If you talk to her, please ask her to look out for my message, thank you.
Interesting to hear what people think about the idea that every wave of covid that we had was triggered by new release of "bioweapon" viruses.
I think the vaccine caused death, but we had waves of deaths, and I don't know if the Delta/Omicron waves line up well with a surge in new vaccinations, as you can say for the wave in Dec20/Jan21. Do we see waves in vaccine death in VAERS that match the death waves that correspond to Delta/Omicron?
The seasonality of the Delta wave was very odd. It came in the middle of the summer, but also at a time when there was a huge push for various mandates in the US and Europe.
Hi Mr. Crawford. I’ve been doing some reading up on your sub stack, I find it to be Informative but I also feel as if I don’t fully understand it. I see a lot of talk in your articles about the DMED data and it being falsely represented by people within the MFM. I guess one thing I’m confused about is,
While we know the harms are there, are they not as bad as some make it out to be? Or are they worse? If you know. It’s kind of terrifying as somebody who got 2 Pfizer jabs in early 2021 when most were falsely lead to take it. I try to listen to both sides of the debate, but I’m finding it difficult to find trust worthy actors among MFM.
I just read through this paper that Dr Jessica Rose linked to on one of her substacks (actually, she linked to the abstract)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733122/
It finds no significant peptide sequence overlap between spike proteins produced by the gene therapy "vaccines" and antigens linked to myocarditis which implies vaccine induced antibody and T cell binding is unlikely. Interestingly, an a throw away line at the end of the abstract and in the discussion in the paper, it is stated that it is likely that the (rare and quickly recovered from) myocarditis incidents are likely due to an innate response. Gert Vann Dem Bosche has stressed how COVID is a nothingburger for the young due to their stronger innate immune responses. Maybe that's why myocarditis mainly afflicts the young vaccinees.
Nothing to do with this interview except that Dr Rose was party to it. Great to see Liz Wheeler get some recognition for making the VAERS data easier to work with for those who aren't data experts
Unrelated…..here is Eric Topol’s latest
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-bivalent-vaccine-booster-outperforms?utm_medium=email
Can you debunk his proofs the boosters are brilliant because if this is what my relatives are reading then I’ve got no chance convincing them otherwise!
I present all safety signals on my website, updated weekly.
https://pervaers.com
Displayed are age and gender stratified "differences in proportion" for every vaccine and various subcohorts of reports. Every term which proportion is significantly increased compared to the same term's proportion for other vaccines (or actually compared to an age and gender adjusted synthetic pseudo-placebo report cohort) is listed. Roughly 15k safety signals for all vaccines.
That conversation was very informative. I knew about Liz' work but I didn't know her story. She seems a very helpful individual.
These things are very complicated for the untrained eye (most of us) and we need to go over the material a few times.
Thank you all four for everything.
I love Liz Wheeler and her work. She does one thing, and does it very well.
However, I DON'T appreciate all of the Virus Pushers she associates herself with. These frauds and con-artists are the people promoting the CORE FRAUD of the entire paradigm. I know she just wants to promote her work, and that's fine. But these people ("Virus Pushers Against Clotshots") are not going to solve the problem. They are making things WORSE. http://apocalypticyoga.wikidot.com/virus-pushers-against-clotshots
There are problems with the narrative, but what you're doing---attacking instead of discussing---makes it hard to sort out possibilities that have gone unexamined, such as an Operation Sea Spray bacterial coinfection at scale.
Sorry, whom are you claiming I "attacked"?
Certainly not Liz, I think she's great and said so.
If you're talking about "attacking" the Virus Pushers (I'm talking about the so-called "leadership" of the "anti-vax" and "medical freedom" community), well, you have not begun to hear my scorn for this gatekeepers, liars, and frauds.
> makes it hard to sort out possibilities that have gone unexamined
The truth is very simple. We've all had 3 years to figure this out.
> such as an Operation Sea Spray bacterial coinfection at scale.
Huh? Sounds like your stuck in a 100 y/o fraudulent contagion medical model.
There is NO EVIDENCE in the scientific literature of ANY viral or bacterial infection being spread from human to human.
Are you familiar with the flu transmission studies conducted by Milton Rosenau?
I highly suggest you pay more attention to the TRUE leadership of the COVID Truth community: Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan,. Drs Mark and Sam Bailey, Christine Massey MSc, Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr Kevin Corbett, Eric Francis Coppolino, Jon Rapporport, Kate Sugak, Michael Wallach, Alec Zeck, Mike Stone (viroLIEgy), Steve Falconer (Spacebusters).
There is no evidence in the literature you'll accept, I take it.
There are problems in the literature, to be sure. But you've said nothing whatsoever about any of it---just named your champions and declared that there is no evidence ot the contrary, which is as anti-science as a conversation can get.
> There is no evidence in the literature you'll accept, I take it.
Sorry, that's not right, Here's what is right:
==> There is no evidence in the literature that viruses, i.e., "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure", exist, PERIOD.
> There are problems in the literature, to be sure. But you've said nothing whatsoever about any of it
I sure did. Maybe you missed it. I repeated it again for you just above. What is there more to say?
Do you have proof that viruses exist? How about 1 paper?
> just named your champions
I am citing my primary sources. I don't have credentials. Those people do. I'm happy to tell you what I have learned from them, and through my own independent research, under their guidance. (e.g., how to decypher the "methods" section)
> and declared that there is no evidence ot the contrary
I declared there was NO EVIDENCE. Period. Stop there.
> which is as anti-science as a conversation can get
Science is all about careful OBSERVATION, with applied REASON.
If YOU are claiming that viruses exist, then the burden of proof is on YOU not me.
I have listened to the experts. I have reviewed the published papers myself.
I am telling you there is no proof ANYWHERE in the scientific literature of biological pathogens, using blinded experiments with proper controls. Bacteria exist, but are not pathogenic or contagious. Whereas the entire hypothesis (not a theory) of viruses is fabricated out of deceit.
There is nothing more that I can say.
If you have proof of the contrary, then show me.
"Do you have proof that viruses exist? How about 1 paper?"
My wife works with them and has isolated them. But what's the point in saying that? There are many papers on isolation, and you've defined them away already and then lectured me about "OBSERVATION" and "REASON" before you've even defined "isolation" or what evidence would falsify your hypothesis.
You ask for "proof", which isn't even a word in science.
If you've reviewed the literature, I'm sure you can list the authors. I'll point out my wife's name after you do. Thanks.
Please do not reply if you aren't going to define "isolate". I'm guessing that you've taken a flawed conception of the idea without understanding the need for definition. If your definition is, "separated from anything else definable," then nothing has ever or can ever be isolated, and we're just talking nonsense. But if you accept the obvious notion that nothing exists in a vaccum, and that isolation can involve a medium, then you've accepted at least some of the literature.
There are important conversations to be had, and there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in The Science. But you won't get there with rhetorical games.
> My wife works with them and has isolated them.
Put your wife on the line and let me ask her some questions.
e.g,, 1: Does your so-called "isolation" step involve CONTAMINATING the sample with foreign DNA, like Vero Cells, A549 Cells, Viral Transport Medium, Viral Growth Medium, Fetal Bovine Serum?
> before you've even defined "isolation"
Isolation means exactly what it denotes: SEPARATION and PURIFICATION like things from unlike things.
"Virus Isolation" CERTAINLY cannot me, "CONTAMINATION" with foreign DNA. This is the central "question of provenance" that Dr. Mark Bailey discusses often.
Once you have CONTAMINATED the sample with your witches brew of A549 human lung cancer cells, fetal bovine serum, monkey kidney cells, "viral transport medium", etc. etc., HOW CAN YOU EVER BE SURE about the origins of whatever DNA or RNA fragments that you find in said contaminated sample?
A: You CANNOT.
Furthermore, this so-called "viral isolation" stage has never been confirmed using a proper blinded study with proper controls. The best we have is that done by Dr. Stefan Lanka, and self-published (as the journals won't touch something so radical).
This is the purpose of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, aka, the "Virus Challenge". https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
This bogus "virus isolation" stage, performed WITHOUT controls, is perhaps THE core pillar of virology. The full list is a) isolation, b) SEM photography, c) proof of pathogenicity/cause of disease, d) proof of host-to-host transmission.
It turns that that NONE of these have been properly validated using common, sound scientific principles in use for 100 years. The entire scheme is based in fraud and pseudoscience.
>then nothing has ever or can ever be isolated,
Wrong. People have isolated and purifed bacteria all day long for 100 years using commonly available lab equipment. People have isolated structures SMALLER than a virus (e.g., proteins).
So why can't they isolate "viruses" the same way?
A: Because they DO NOT EXIST.
Those vesicles seen on SEM photographs with the corona-like globules-- Those photographs are HIGHLY CONTRIVED, and do not bear any resemblance to anything in a real, living system. Those structures only show up AFTER the CONTAMINATED sample is repeatedly starved, poisoned by antibiotics and chemical stains, passaged, and subjected to freeze/thaw cycles.
C'mon, man.
>But you won't get there with rhetorical games.
The only people playing games are the Virus Pushers.
I don't have time for games. I'm getting old.
I try to speak factually, with authority, and in the most compact way possible.
With respect of "isolation," Cowan and Kaufman et al say "isolation and purification" use informal definitions, such as "separate from everything else", and use the example of isolating and purifying the alkaloid caffeine from all the other components of a coffee bean, using standard chemical procedures.
I concede, and I speak for myself, that it may be possible that complex organic structures (more complex than a molecule) like the organelles and a virus (or a stranded rna molecule) cannot be isolated and purified in the same way that a simpler chemical is isolated and purified, because they would decompose.
Which brings me to my particular critique of the public teaching of experts like Judy Mikovitz, and many others: why don't you explain exactly how the lab procedures used to handle complex organic structures are different from the procedures employed for dealing with simpler structures.
This is very difficult to understand to lay people like myself. Why is it that complex structures like the ribosome, the Golgi apparatus, the mitochondria, the cytoskeleton cannot be isolated like simple pieces of a machine: we take apart this motorbike, like Yeadon would do, and in this box we put the nuts, in this other box the washers, another for the bolts, another for the rubber gaskets, and so on, for all the pieces, the smallest and the biggest.
Everyone is used to the analogy of the cell as a machine. But it is not a machine in the sense that it can be taken apart and every component placed in different test tubes, and all components are more or less interchangeable (for instance, a ribosome of a heart cell could be exchanged with a ribosome from a liver cell, because they are exactly the same?)
I think part of our problem is that the analogy fails, like all analogies, and the communication breaks down.
I'm willing to go back to the yes-virus side if I can learn exactly why the evidence that most scientists "believe" (sorry) to support the thesis that viruses exist is better than the refutations of the leaders of the no-virus side. That is because I'm not a fanatic and I want the "truth" or as close as possible.
Milton Rosenau, not J.J. Rousseau.
https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/03/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-1-the-rosenau-spanish-flu-experiments-1918/
Bill, that attitude would not have helped me to move to the no-virus side back when I still believed in vruses. If you wish to be more persuasive, then change your style. Be less confrontational, please.
And I don't think the people who believe in viruses in general are making our current situation worse, that's a bad argument. I also said the same a few months ago, when I still believed in viruses, when I read and heard a few smart individuals saying that virus deniers were making things worse. The truth is this situation is being managed by a number of professionals who have a firm grasp on the whole enchilada, and the critics are very well censored and controlled, localized and contained. People will come to Kennedy's side or to Cowan's side only one by one, and with much effort to overcome all the distractions. Removing control from the enemy's hands is extremely difficult regardless the what the message, in my opinion. So if you want to make more no-vorus people, please focus on removing the obstacles.
Thank you.
> Milton Rosenau, not J.J. Rousseau.
Yikes, that's a big error. Thank you. (corrected)
As far as "attitude" goes, well, we all have different styles.
You don't have to like mine. That's fine.
I don't think you can predict who will be moved by what style.
I don't think you can say, universally, my style is ineffective.
>And I don't think the people who believe in viruses in general are making our current situation worse
I don't generally talk about "virus believers". I realize most are victims of a highly effective propaganda programme.
I usually talk about Virus PUSHERS. I mean the big "leaders" (self-appointed, most are millionaires), like Del Bigtree, RFK Jr, and to some extent, Reiner Fuellmich. Those are the big ones. Then the stable of the rest, Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Steve Kirsh, Meryl Nass, Joe Mercola, etc. et.c etc. ad nauseum.
They are most definitely part of the problem, I would argue, since they are promoting the CORE LIE.
Now if your real identity is someone I respect and admire, like Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan, or Christine Massey, and you are asking me to tone it down, I'd be quite inclined to snap to attention. (email me privately if so!!!)
But as "Cosmos Agent Roger 23", you're just another anon internet dude, with an opinion. You know what they say about opinions.... "Everybody's got one.".
No offense. Appreciate the factual correction. :)
LOL!
I'm just another random anon dude.
Truth will out, whatever the truth may be. But Politics is a very complicated issue, far removed from truth.
Some days I like to think of myself as a heretic librarian. I invite you to read this little fantasy gem:
https://genius.com/Jorge-luis-borges-the-library-of-babel-annotated
Endogenous viruses exist. Do exogenous (infectious) viruses exist? Perhaps they do but we simply lack the technology to truly discern fully intact ones and sequence their genomes i.e. the virus genomes, which are cobbled together from genetic debris of unknown origin in cell cultures are fake.