So why aren't we doing experiments on animals to determine the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Answer: Because nobody wants to know the answer.
When people understand that there never was a virus, then we can focus our attention on who is doing this to us, and why. And what we can do about it.
THERE NEVER WAS A VIRUS
Before she died the queen of England LOST a court case in Canada because this young man was charged with attending a gathering of more than ten people during lockdown. He won his case because THE CROWN COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE EVER WAS A SARS CoV2 VIRUS.
I have a question about the "live virus". How exactly does this work, since the very definition of a virus states (Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.) , that they are not alive?
Also, how can a non living thing adapt and know where to attach its self after it is excreted from the cell to transport its self to another host? That is a behaviour of a living organism, not some RNA or DNA with a protein coat.
Whether isolated are not, all illness is being pushed to Covid, long covid. I place that with big pharma advertisements. Why take a pushed drug by pharma when over half the side effects cover everyday ailments/issues people already have. May cause the runs, upset stomach, headache, dizziness etc. Use to watch and laugh. Doctors can't even decide for the patients. Criminal.
Still remaining is the question of the purpose of all those symptoms we call sickness, which all seem to help the body eliminate debris & crud it finds useless & dangerous to retain. Even if the virus is 'the cause' of those symptoms, do we want to interfere with the body's efforts to get rid of noxious stuff? Maybe helping to expedite the process (fasting, sauna, even enemas -- traditional practices in various cultures)-- rather than inhibiting, is appropriate. What attracts the (virus) to some bodies and not to others? This asks us to consider the terrain. Does the virus cause the problem or reflect the results of response to an imbalance or problem? The current (CDC et al) promoted narrative would have us believe there's one virus/germ per disease, leading to the promotion of yet another shot for every germ discovered (great business model!!). I say we need to look more at strengthening the body's efforts to rebalance itself, including thorough elimination of metabolic wastes, toxins (abundant in our civilized lifestyle) and other debris, = strengthen innate immunity, which is totally ignored by the conventional narrative. 'seems we need to clarify our assumptions about virus.
Vero CCL-81 cells were used for isolation and initial passage. Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat inactivated fetal bovine serum(5 or 10%) and antibiotic/antimyotic (GIBCO).
How is a supplementation with “heat inactivated fetal bovine serum” considered an isolation? How does one know that the alleged isolation is not contaminated with the heat inactivated fetal bovine serum?
Additionally, the alleged sequencing was done using Sanger Sequencing Software. https://bit.ly/3PM6HU5
Is this not simply the “in silico” computer aided modeling process that Dr. Kaufman refers to in his criticism of how the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus was allegedly isolated?
This is not an in vivo to even an in vitro isolation which would at least be a material rather than software generated isolation of the genome.
How does the software distinguish the input as being a pure isolate of the alleged virus genome, if the sample was supplemented with fetal bovine serum?
Seems a bit disingenuous to claim isolation of a product supplemented with bovine serum and then analyzed via software that only responds to whatever is fed to it under the assumption that it is pure isolate.
Was the pure isolate then, according to Koch’s postulates, ever then injected into a healthy subject to see if this alleged isolate (really an “in silico” model, not a material isolate) would produce the claimed COVID disease symptoms (which changed frequently over time) in the healthy person?
Then, extracted and re-isolated to prove that the same alleged virus actually caused the disease symptoms?
Even if the virus were isolated as they claim, that is only one step in the process of proving that is capable of causing the alleged COVID disease.
That alone is not a sufficient proof of cause. More is needed as described above. Was it performed or simply assumed?
Additionally, pointing to a particle and claiming it is the virus says nothing about the quantity of that alleged entity in the photograph and neither does an RT-PCR test. The RT-PCR test is used to match a genomic sequence and tells nothing about the quantity of that alleged genomic sequence in the individual.
As Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winning inventor of the test stated: The test was meant to be used under the hood. That is, in the lab, not as a diagnostic test and then for no more than 30 cycles before the results began to become meaningless.
The RT-PCR tests conducted to match the “in silico” (computer generated) genome provided by China via electronic transmission of the sequences claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 were all instructed to be run at 40 cycles and above which is the reason so many false positives were produced by these genome matching tests.
Exosomes have been said to be exactly the same thing as viruses , that is to say, exosomes have been proven to exist and they look exactly like viruses in pictures. But there is a big difference, virus hunting is where goes all the big research money, which comes from big pharma selling their poisons. And your scientist friends have no problem with what they are selling at 2 thousand bucks a pop, is that not similar to big pharma selling useless and dangerous snake oil for profit and power? What proof is there that so-called viruses are not actually exosomes, what proof is there of the differences between viruses and exosomes, and if they are, how would that affect germ theory and big pharma profits and power??
I read it all. It is clearly pro-"virus" propaganda. Alleged and so-called "viruses" are the basis for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in profits across the education, medical, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. The benefactors of the The Big Virus Hoax will go to great lengths to keep their money-making SCEME alive and profitable. But the sandy loose ground their HOAX is built upon is starting to slide out from under them. That's why they are now releasing numerous articles across the internet in an effort to promote the existence of "viruses" while simultaneously endeavoring to defame all who are coming out of the woodwork to expose their SCHEME. The fact that they are resorting to statements like "it is all semantics" or "it is a matter of interpretation" proves their state of panic and desperation. There are no such things as invasive, infectious, contagious, microbial creatures called "viruses." There are only toxic and poisonous chemical concoctions being created in laboratories. End of debate. End of controversy. TheBigVirusHoax.com
I have a few points. a) you can't find a virus unless you look for it. How was it known that the original 41 patients with symptoms indistinguishable from pneumonia had a new disease which must have a viral cause? b) Stefan Lanka's 'bet' was for one paper, so sticking to the original conditions is hardly a technicality. However none of the 6 papers together OR singly showed isolation according to the experts. Not a technicality. c) In the experiments showing animals get sick when 'exposed' to vials of 'virus' , none showed air borne transmission. Large amounts of fluid are injected directly into their tracheas, causing totally expected trauma. d) The PCR was primed with sequences from GenBank for expected SARS like viruses and from the crude sample from Wuhan. There where never any blinded experiments to show diagnostic specificity. It tells us nothing about anything. Thank you
According to Dr. Sam Bailey, there is no virus. I'm included to accept her conclusions. Further, Christine Massey, as is commented below, after FOIs worldwide, with no results of isolation proof, has come to the same conclusion. Dr. Sam Bailey:https://drsambailey.com/articles/
This interview with Christine Massey describes how she made FOIA requests to nearly every governmental agency in the world regarding covid virus isolation. In all cases, the governmental entities state that it has not been isolated.
Both of these references support each other in terms of exposing the adulteration of the samples by other sources of genetic material as well as the manipulation with computer modeling.
Kaufman uses a great analogy where you take a cat and put a speaker around its neck that makes a barking sound and then calling it a dog. It's not a dog just because it makes a barking sound.
This debate raises so many questions, all of which are important since time immemorial, but especially now. Germ vs. terrain theory. Biology is the most difficult and mysterious of sciences since it deals with living organisms with some form of consciousness and living essence of the Creator or Source, all of which cannot be separated out from the organism. Viruses might be real in some form but as a subset of terrain theory. My 5 year old son has sneezed smack dab in my face a hundred times and I've never gotten sick from him. I find that kind of strange. Maybe the mechanism of transmission is some sort of resonance phenomenon, as Rupert Sheldrake talks about. I think science needs a new paradigm shift - one that I guess can still include all we have now - towards an understanding of frequencies and vibrations.
Steve, I have EVERYONE AND THEIR DOG asking me for money already, but I'll definitely put your name on the list of people I need to send money to!
When people understand that there never was a virus, then we can focus our attention on who is doing this to us, and why. And what we can do about it.
THERE NEVER WAS A VIRUS
Before she died the queen of England LOST a court case in Canada because this young man was charged with attending a gathering of more than ten people during lockdown. He won his case because THE CROWN COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE EVER WAS A SARS CoV2 VIRUS.
https://rumble.com/vkorz0-freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends-masking-shots-quarantine-in-alberta.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=4
On the subject of whether or not the 'virus' 'exists', I thought you might find this interesting: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg
I have a question about the "live virus". How exactly does this work, since the very definition of a virus states (Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.) , that they are not alive?
Also, how can a non living thing adapt and know where to attach its self after it is excreted from the cell to transport its self to another host? That is a behaviour of a living organism, not some RNA or DNA with a protein coat.
Whether isolated are not, all illness is being pushed to Covid, long covid. I place that with big pharma advertisements. Why take a pushed drug by pharma when over half the side effects cover everyday ailments/issues people already have. May cause the runs, upset stomach, headache, dizziness etc. Use to watch and laugh. Doctors can't even decide for the patients. Criminal.
Still remaining is the question of the purpose of all those symptoms we call sickness, which all seem to help the body eliminate debris & crud it finds useless & dangerous to retain. Even if the virus is 'the cause' of those symptoms, do we want to interfere with the body's efforts to get rid of noxious stuff? Maybe helping to expedite the process (fasting, sauna, even enemas -- traditional practices in various cultures)-- rather than inhibiting, is appropriate. What attracts the (virus) to some bodies and not to others? This asks us to consider the terrain. Does the virus cause the problem or reflect the results of response to an imbalance or problem? The current (CDC et al) promoted narrative would have us believe there's one virus/germ per disease, leading to the promotion of yet another shot for every germ discovered (great business model!!). I say we need to look more at strengthening the body's efforts to rebalance itself, including thorough elimination of metabolic wastes, toxins (abundant in our civilized lifestyle) and other debris, = strengthen innate immunity, which is totally ignored by the conventional narrative. 'seems we need to clarify our assumptions about virus.
Cell culture, limiting dilution, and isolation
Vero CCL-81 cells were used for isolation and initial passage. Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat inactivated fetal bovine serum(5 or 10%) and antibiotic/antimyotic (GIBCO).
How is a supplementation with “heat inactivated fetal bovine serum” considered an isolation? How does one know that the alleged isolation is not contaminated with the heat inactivated fetal bovine serum?
Additionally, the alleged sequencing was done using Sanger Sequencing Software. https://bit.ly/3PM6HU5
Is this not simply the “in silico” computer aided modeling process that Dr. Kaufman refers to in his criticism of how the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus was allegedly isolated?
This is not an in vivo to even an in vitro isolation which would at least be a material rather than software generated isolation of the genome.
How does the software distinguish the input as being a pure isolate of the alleged virus genome, if the sample was supplemented with fetal bovine serum?
Seems a bit disingenuous to claim isolation of a product supplemented with bovine serum and then analyzed via software that only responds to whatever is fed to it under the assumption that it is pure isolate.
Was the pure isolate then, according to Koch’s postulates, ever then injected into a healthy subject to see if this alleged isolate (really an “in silico” model, not a material isolate) would produce the claimed COVID disease symptoms (which changed frequently over time) in the healthy person?
Then, extracted and re-isolated to prove that the same alleged virus actually caused the disease symptoms?
Even if the virus were isolated as they claim, that is only one step in the process of proving that is capable of causing the alleged COVID disease.
That alone is not a sufficient proof of cause. More is needed as described above. Was it performed or simply assumed?
Additionally, pointing to a particle and claiming it is the virus says nothing about the quantity of that alleged entity in the photograph and neither does an RT-PCR test. The RT-PCR test is used to match a genomic sequence and tells nothing about the quantity of that alleged genomic sequence in the individual.
As Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winning inventor of the test stated: The test was meant to be used under the hood. That is, in the lab, not as a diagnostic test and then for no more than 30 cycles before the results began to become meaningless.
The RT-PCR tests conducted to match the “in silico” (computer generated) genome provided by China via electronic transmission of the sequences claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 were all instructed to be run at 40 cycles and above which is the reason so many false positives were produced by these genome matching tests.
Exosomes have been said to be exactly the same thing as viruses , that is to say, exosomes have been proven to exist and they look exactly like viruses in pictures. But there is a big difference, virus hunting is where goes all the big research money, which comes from big pharma selling their poisons. And your scientist friends have no problem with what they are selling at 2 thousand bucks a pop, is that not similar to big pharma selling useless and dangerous snake oil for profit and power? What proof is there that so-called viruses are not actually exosomes, what proof is there of the differences between viruses and exosomes, and if they are, how would that affect germ theory and big pharma profits and power??
I read it all. It is clearly pro-"virus" propaganda. Alleged and so-called "viruses" are the basis for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in profits across the education, medical, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. The benefactors of the The Big Virus Hoax will go to great lengths to keep their money-making SCEME alive and profitable. But the sandy loose ground their HOAX is built upon is starting to slide out from under them. That's why they are now releasing numerous articles across the internet in an effort to promote the existence of "viruses" while simultaneously endeavoring to defame all who are coming out of the woodwork to expose their SCHEME. The fact that they are resorting to statements like "it is all semantics" or "it is a matter of interpretation" proves their state of panic and desperation. There are no such things as invasive, infectious, contagious, microbial creatures called "viruses." There are only toxic and poisonous chemical concoctions being created in laboratories. End of debate. End of controversy. TheBigVirusHoax.com
This is great explanation by Dr. Kaufman. His response to Jeremy Hammond.
https://truthcomestolight.com/virus-isolation-is-it-real-andrew-kaufman-md-responds-to-jeremy-hammond/
Does the ends ever justify the means? A critical thinker would say no. Never ever. Animal (or human) testing is never justified.
I have a few points. a) you can't find a virus unless you look for it. How was it known that the original 41 patients with symptoms indistinguishable from pneumonia had a new disease which must have a viral cause? b) Stefan Lanka's 'bet' was for one paper, so sticking to the original conditions is hardly a technicality. However none of the 6 papers together OR singly showed isolation according to the experts. Not a technicality. c) In the experiments showing animals get sick when 'exposed' to vials of 'virus' , none showed air borne transmission. Large amounts of fluid are injected directly into their tracheas, causing totally expected trauma. d) The PCR was primed with sequences from GenBank for expected SARS like viruses and from the crude sample from Wuhan. There where never any blinded experiments to show diagnostic specificity. It tells us nothing about anything. Thank you
According to Dr. Sam Bailey, there is no virus. I'm included to accept her conclusions. Further, Christine Massey, as is commented below, after FOIs worldwide, with no results of isolation proof, has come to the same conclusion. Dr. Sam Bailey:https://drsambailey.com/articles/
Viruses exist because we believe they exist. After all, why do people get sick?
I am not convinced that any organization has isolated the virus based upon at least two references.
This first reference is Andrew Kaufman explaining the fraud that is "isolation" techniques.
https://odysee.com/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Virus_Isolation_Is_It_Real_Andrew_Kaufman_Responds_To_Jeremy-Hammond:9
This interview with Christine Massey describes how she made FOIA requests to nearly every governmental agency in the world regarding covid virus isolation. In all cases, the governmental entities state that it has not been isolated.
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/10/07/the-non-existent-virus-explosive-interview-with-christine-massey/
Both of these references support each other in terms of exposing the adulteration of the samples by other sources of genetic material as well as the manipulation with computer modeling.
Kaufman uses a great analogy where you take a cat and put a speaker around its neck that makes a barking sound and then calling it a dog. It's not a dog just because it makes a barking sound.
This debate raises so many questions, all of which are important since time immemorial, but especially now. Germ vs. terrain theory. Biology is the most difficult and mysterious of sciences since it deals with living organisms with some form of consciousness and living essence of the Creator or Source, all of which cannot be separated out from the organism. Viruses might be real in some form but as a subset of terrain theory. My 5 year old son has sneezed smack dab in my face a hundred times and I've never gotten sick from him. I find that kind of strange. Maybe the mechanism of transmission is some sort of resonance phenomenon, as Rupert Sheldrake talks about. I think science needs a new paradigm shift - one that I guess can still include all we have now - towards an understanding of frequencies and vibrations.