.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
GeoffB
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GeoffB
-
-
On 10/28/2021 at 3:57 PM, kilowon said:
There is no evidence of what is in their control.
I have already quoted from a scientist who actually does the experiments ......
"For example, this experiment finds cytopathic effects specific to SARS-CoV-2 in human cell lines and, of course, includes a mock control with the same culturing conditions that just doesn’t have the virus added (figure 1D). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17796-z
Lanka is either really bad at culturing cells himself and is too stupid to realize what he is doing wrong, or he is lying for clout. Either way, debunked.” -
On 10/28/2021 at 3:22 PM, scowie said:
meaning that the viruses (really exosomes)
NO THEY ARE NOT.
-
6 hours ago, scowie said:
The guy is saying that the cell culturing conditions are the same. I am not doubting that. It is the virus culturing, and the preparation of the control that have gone through different processes and therefore contain different ingredients.
Viruses are only evident when attached to a cell therefore cell culturing and virus culturing are the same thing with the same ingredients.
-
6 hours ago, scowie said:
Yes, you keep saying that because it is a religious mantra that you keep repeating as you are unable to admit that you are utterly wrong. The virus sample contains Amphotericin B and Gentamicin sulphate. The control contains nothing but phosphate-buffered saline. Different ingredients.
The control contains exactly the same ingredients.
It wouldn't be a control if it didn't.
Show me evidence that makes you wrongly believe they are different.
-
Scientists regard Lanka as an irrelevance and not worthy of their valuable time as viruses have been shown to exist and infectious by modern virology many, many times.
However, one scientist was shown this article on viruses and measles by Lanka.
http://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdfThis is how the scientist responded to it.
“Tissue culture is a technique that has been perfected, through trial and error, to keep eukaryotic tissue cells alive and happy in a flask. Scientists like Renato Dulbecco, David Eagle, and David Baltimore have contributed to modifying the technique to what it is today, involving media that includes all of the nutrients and growth factors that cells need in order to survive.
Scientists all over the world perform these tissue culture techniques every day. I’m one of them. We never see cytopathic effects just doing these standard techniques (unless you’re really bad at cell culture and leave your cells unattended for too long). We only see cytopathic effects in response to manipulation of the cell culture, including but not limited to the addition of certain viruses or specific drugs. And yes, these experiments involve a control (mock). For example, this experiment finds cytopathic effects specific to SARS-CoV-2 in human cell lines and, of course, includes a mock control with the same culturing conditions that just doesn’t have the virus added (figure 1D). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17796-z
Lanka is either really bad at culturing cells himself and is too stupid to realize what he is doing wrong, or he is lying for clout. Either way, debunked.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebunkThis/comments/oq857p/debunk_this_stefan_lankas_critique_of_enders/
-
19 minutes ago, scowie said:
The mock control doesn't contain Amphotericin B or Gentamicin sulphate does it? The ingredients are different.
As I keep saying the ingredients are exactly the same for the experiment and the mock control where the only thing missing is the virus.
-
5 minutes ago, scowie said:
It seems this has become a religious mantra for you. We have just established that it is false and yet here you are still repeating it.
False?????
You're having a laugh.
-
2 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:
Is that the stuff they give newborns on arrival, along with a big jab of vitamin K that will probably damage their liver?
Serioulsly Geoff.
I'm totally opposed to vaccines for babies and everyone else.
Why do you think these are toxic in these doses?
The cells are transported to the labs and they need to be alive and healthy.
What's the problem?
The same ingredients are used in the "mock control".
Gentamicin sulfate (50mg/mL) (or similar antibiotic at an appropriate
concentration to prevent bacterial contamination and growth)Amphotericin B (250µg/mL) (Fungizone) (or similar antifungal at an
appropriate concentration to prevent fungal contamination and growth) -
1 minute ago, MarcusOmouse said:
A genuine placebo would contain nothing but saline.
Any thoughts as to why they would include toxins in the placebo ?
A mock control is different to a placebo.
Mock controls use the same ingredients as the experiment minus the virus.
-
16 minutes ago, scowie said:
These statements you are making are articles of faith on your part (assuming you are not just trolling).
Covid virus samples are put into a viral transport medium that contains toxins like Gentamicin sulfate + Amphotericin B, hence these toxins and possibly others used in the process of cultivating virus, like lysing agents, are in the virus sample but not in the controls. When treatment = toxic soup and control = saline, concluding virus is responsible for disease in treated test animals = bad science.
Gentamicin Sulphate is so toxic it is used for children's eye drops.
Amphotericin B is an antifungal.
The same ingredients are used for the experiment and the mock control.
-
39 minutes ago, kilowon said:
Please show me the plenty of papers of scientific experiment which showed contagion through human to human contact. Not interested in what you have to say until i see those papers. However, i do sense a lot anger within you young padwan. Might i suggest a cold bath
Human cells are used.
There is an ethical dimension with experiments through human to human contagion.
Liars, cheats and charlatans make me angry.
-
17 minutes ago, scowie said:
Virologists are poisoning animals with a toxic soup and then claiming a virus did the damage.
Mock controls use the same ingredients minus the virus.
They would have used PBS with the virus experiment.
Define toxic soup?
-
2 hours ago, kilowon said:
So should we discredit Pasteur, Enders and jenners because they were from the past. Should we discredit Zhou et al papers because it was two years ago. Should we discredit Germ theory because it is from the past. You know why there are no newer contagion experiment like those i posted, because virologist knows that if they carry out of those experiment on real life subjects as opposed to in silico/ in vitro, every time contagion would be shown to be impossible. Now about those actual experiment, what is your opinion on the fact that every single one of them failed to show any evidence of contagion?
You are pathetic.
Modern virology has shown the existence of viruses and there are plenty of scientific papers showing contagion.
-
2 hours ago, kilowon said:
Do not care what you think about the lab, no one does. What we want is your so called expert opinion on the actual control experiment. First you claimed there were no papers, now that i have shown you the papers, suddenly your issue is with the lab name. You keep moving the goalpost as all shill do when cornered. You are a joke.
It's not a real paper.
An un-named scientist.
Lanka probably made it all up.
The experiment has been done many, many times by real scientists in real scientific papers which have been scrutinised by other scientists and they have clearly shown that measles viruses exist and they are contagious.
-
4 hours ago, kilowon said:
Here is the control experiment done by an independent lab for Lanka in his Measles case. I would have post the PDF but it is not allowed. https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Measles-Control-Experiment-told-by-the-head-of-an-independent-laboratory-in-Germany.pdf
A supposed un-named head of a lab supposedly writing in April 2017 in a virus denying magazine owned by Lanka hasn't made much of a ripple in the scientific community and is laughable if you think it is proof that viruses do not exist.
-
3 hours ago, kilowon said:
Once again for you. Measles Virus: A Summary of Experiments Concerned with Isolation, Properties, and Behavior – 1947. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.47.3.275. Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles – 1945. https://pubmedinfo.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/propagation-in-tissue-cultures-of-cytopathogenic-agents-from-patients-with-measles.pdf. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/221687. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30082102? . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/ https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102609951. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/. https://academic.oup.com/…/article…/34/4/400/832936….
There you go living in the past again.
These were experiments from 1945 and 1947.
Modern virology has advanced so much even in the last 10 years.
Viruses have been proved to exist.
Viruses have been proved to infect another cell.
Get over it.
Your belief in a discredited, nonsense 19th century theory that viruses do not exist is embarrassing.
-
2 hours ago, kilowon said:
Now about those contagion experiment?
What contagion experiment?
You post so much rubbish.
-
3 hours ago, kilowon said:
did you read the papers. Until you do i will ignore your conclusion since you are talking out your arse. BTW, any comment on those experiment where they tried to proved contagion and failed? I have noticed that you have ignore that little nugget
You are a serial liar.
The expert and the judges agreed that the 6 papers showed the existence of the measles virus and it's diameter.
I don't need to read those papers as experts and judges already have.
I'm sure I would agree with their conclusions.
-
2 hours ago, kilowon said:
none of the papers actually showed any proof that measles exist.
You are a liar.
The court papers clearly show that the expert and the judges stated that the 6 papers showed the existence of the measles virus and it's diameter.
104 “The assessment of the evidence by the regional court to the effect that the expert opinion obtained has proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff in their entirety provide evidence of the existence and the pathogenicity of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant (Lanka) was successful not objectionable in the result.”
-
30 minutes ago, kilowon said:
Nope. The court found in favour of Lanka on this technicality because they refused to go further and have his control experiment done. They knew that if they did it would have destroyed virology and of course they could not have that. Even the expert, which we must remembered is part of the system and would be out of a job if he admit that virus did not exist, admitted there was issue with the measles virus, as point 117 made clear. But of course, he would not go any further or would have to admit his field was pseudoscience. Virology.net certainly took the decision seriously as they promptly remove the picture of measles from their database and replaced it with Not Applicable. You can go there and see for yourself.
Pure conjecture on your part.
The court documents clearly show that the judges and the experts agree that viruses exist.
You have been caught lying.
You have been saying all along that the court documents show the opposite.
Just like Lanka you are a fraud who uses lies and deceit to try to prove your point.
Viruses exist.
-
There has been a lot of untruths on this thread, particularly by one individual, about the Lanka court case. I have been through the court document in detail so you don’t have to and these were the court’s findings …….
Lanka offered 100,000euros for someone to prove that the measles virus exists and it’s diameter.
The court papers state Lankas parameters as ……
3. “The prize money is paid out when a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, its diameter is determined.
4. The prize money will not be paid out if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus only involves models or drawings such as ... ... "
Lanka lost his case in the German courts and was ordered to pay out the money to the student doctor who claimed the prize.
Lanka appealed to a German higher court who decided that he didn’t have to pay due to the following legal technicalities ……
47 “Insofar as the defendant's (Lanka) appeal is admissible, it is also justified, since the amount awarded could only have been earned if the circumstances to be proven had all been demonstrated in a self-contained work.” (In other words although the 6 scientific papers submitted by the student doctor proved to the court and the experts that the measles virus existed and it’s diameter known, Lanka had asked for “a scientific publication” [a] meaning just one and NOT six).
81 “After the clear and unambiguous wording, a publication is to be submitted in which the evidence is to be fulfilled in accordance with these requirements.”
87 “Although it may meet the need of the plaintiff and the person providing evidence to set the hurdles for the evidence, this is ultimately a matter for the claimant, who alone determines what he is willing to pay a reward for. In this sense, it can also be seen by the third party that the sponsor does not want to make it easier for the possible applicants for the prize money to provide the proof that a measles virus exists, which they do not want anyway.” (In other words the court is accusing Lanka of deliberately asking for one scientific paper knowing that the proof of viruses existing is in a different scientific paper to the diameter of the virus. The court accused him of semantics to deliberately make it difficult for anyone to claim the prize).
88 “The fact that the defendant (Lanka) did not raise the objection immediately after the publications were presented that six publications were presented and not just one does not contradict this. The defendant (Lanka) immediately objected that none of the submitted work was suitable to provide evidence. Only when the expert had shown his result that the evidence could be regarded as having been obtained when all publications were viewed together did it become necessary to object that in any case the evidence had not been produced by a single piece of work.” (In other words the expert agreed that it had been proved that the measles virus existed).
103 (5-7) “Evidence of measles virus existence, diameter and non-use of models”. (The following points are the courts findings on the existence and diameter of the measles virus).
104 “The assessment of the evidence by the regional court to the effect that the expert opinion obtained has proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff in their entirety provide evidence of the existence and the pathogenicity of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant (Lanka) was successful not objectionable in the result.”
107 “The regional court assessed the information provided by the expert, whose specialist knowledge cannot be questioned, in detail, comprehensibly and convincingly (see in particular p. 20 et seq. Of the judgment under 2.). It is not evident that laws of thought were violated or that other errors were made.”
117 “In the end, the defendant (Lanka) cannot be successful because it was allegedly not cleared up whether ribosomes were found inside the measles virus at the RKI and whether this would rule out the virus. The expert stated in this regard (protocol p. 9, p. 147 d. A.) that the measles virus did not contain any ribosomes and that such a report would be astonishing and would attract the greatest attention, although the concept of the virus would, of course, not necessarily be “ruined” would be thrown ”. The conceptual understanding of the virus is in fact in flux. The mere presence of ribosomes therefore does not necessarily stand in the way of the existence of a virus”.
118 “Insofar as the diameter of the measles virus was allegedly stated by the RKI to be 120 - 400 nm (see page 23 of the A.), this does not conflict with the assessment of the evidence by the regional court. This size range is within the range of 50 to 1,000 nm that the regional court has identified as scientifically plausible, based on the expert opinion. It cannot therefore be recognized that the two measured values are mutually exclusive.”
122 “As a result, the appeal, insofar as it is admissible, was successful because the claimant did not meet the criterion of the claim to prove the existence of the measles virus through “a scientific publication”. As a result, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trial legal fees.” (In other words this final statement confirms that the court found in Lanka’s favour only because the claimant submitted 6 scientific papers which categorically showed that the measles virus exists and it’s diameter instead of one scientific paper).
-
57 minutes ago, kilowon said:
Once again with your millions of scientist. I doubt very much there are a million virologist on earth. In vivo, bacteria exist in us. So how the hell can you claim an experiment which represent real life does not include the ubiquitous bacteria? And yes, all those virologist are lying or just following their programming from Rockerfeller's medecine. So you saying that Lanka does not need to explained every single details of his experiments. Once again, contradicting what you said earlier.
Lanka hasn't written ANYTHING about his so-called experiment.
-
8 minutes ago, kilowon said:
You have in no way prove me wrong. Someone saying they did control and actually doing a control is two totally different thing. You have yet to show me a paper on sarscov2 were a control was done. Because if a control was done then the paper should be able to explained what that process was. Else it is not a control. So then you have no idea how the control was done and yet here you are claiming it was a control. How do you know what was in there if you yourself admit to not knowing what was in there? You are rambling and contradicting yourself. BTW, The job of antibiotic is to kill life. The word literally means against life. How can you claim that antibiotics will not have an adverse effect on cells? Ridiculous.
Every one with an ounce of scientific knowledge, not you, knows what a "mock-infection control" is.
Scientists don't need to explain every detail because it is a well known process.
Your suggestion that the millions of scientists who have done the millions of experiments using "mock-infection control" are all lying and it's a big conspiracy that only you and a tiny, tiny number of people are aware of is ridiculous.
Antibiotics protects the cell from bacteria that might adversely effect the experiment.
-
14 minutes ago, kilowon said:
Nope, No one in Terrain theory think that germ does not exist. In fact, Bechamps spend his whole live studying germ life cycles. You really have no idea what you talking about do you? And are you done with me or not. Cause i am a bit confused about that as one minute you say you are done with me and then the next minutes you are still commenting on my posts
My mistake. They don't believe viruses exist.
David Icke's claim that 'there is no virus'?
in David Icke Discussion
Posted
Why do you have shit for brains?
He clearly states, as do most scientific papers, that a mock control is done.