Jump to content

David Icke's claim that 'there is no virus'?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kilowon said:

so if it cannot be isolated how is it placed in a gene sequencing machine? I have read how it is done. It is not complicated for the layman. It is complete hogwash science fiction. Once again, stop just spouting the Rockefeller's nonsense. Use your mind. How can you sequence the gene of something that you cannot separate from  a cell? How the hell you know where the cells ends and the virus begin? Think, it ain't illegal yet. THERE IS NO VIRUS.

You asked how is it placed in the gene sequencing machine.

The first investigation on SARS-CoV-2 used bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from a patient as described in this peer reviewed scientific paper.

I’m not sure a layman would find this easy to understand ….

“To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. Remapping the RNA-sequencing data to the complete genome of WHCV resulted in an assembly of 123,613 reads, providing 99.99% genome coverage at a mean depth of 6.04× (range, 0.01–78.84×) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The viral load in the BALF sample was estimated by qPCR to be 3.95 × 108 copies per ml (Extended Data Fig. 4).

The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933). The un-translational regions and open-reading frame (ORF) of WHCV were mapped on the basis of this sequence alignment and ORF prediction. The WHCV viral genome was similar to these two coronaviruses (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3). The order of genes (5′ to 3′) was as follows: replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N). WHCV has 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences that are typical of betacoronaviruses, with 265 nt at the 5′ terminal end and 229 nt at the 3′ terminal end. The predicted replicase ORF1ab gene of WHCV is 21,291 nt in length and contained 16 predicted non-structural proteins (Supplementary Table 4), followed by (at least) 13 downstream ORFs. Additionally, WHCV shares a highly conserved domain (LLRKNGNKG: amino acids 122–130) in nsp1 with SARS-CoV. The predicted S, ORF3a, E, M and N genes of WHCV are 3,822, 828, 228, 669 and 1,260 nt in length, respectively. In addition to these ORF regions, which are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (with a length of 366 nt) that is located between the M and N ORF genes. The functions of WHCV ORFs were predicted on the basis of those of known coronaviruses and are described in Supplementary Table 5. In a manner similar to SARS-CoV Tor2, a leader transcription regulatory sequence (TRS) and nine putative body TRSs could be readily identified upstream of the 5′ end of the ORF in WHCV, and the putative conserved TRS core sequence appeared in two forms—ACGAAC or CUAAAC (Supplementary Table 6).

To determine the evolutionary relationships between WHCV and previously identified coronaviruses, we estimated phylogenetic trees on the basis of the nucleotide sequences of the whole-genome sequence, the non-structural protein genes ORF1a and ORF1b, and the main structural proteins encoded by the S, E, M and N genes (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). In all phylogenies, WHCV clustered with members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, including the SARS-CoV that was responsible for the global SARS pandemic1,2 of 2002–2003, as well as a number of SARS-like coronaviruses that have been obtained from bats5,11,12,13. However, WHCV changed topological position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus depending on which gene was used, which suggests that recombination has occurred in this group of viruses in the past (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). Specifically, in the S gene tree (Extended Data Fig. 5), WHCV was most closely related to the bat coronavirus SL-CoVZC45 with 82.3% amino acid identity (and around 77.2% amino acid identity to SARS-CoV; Supplementary Table 3) whereas in the ORF1b phylogeny, WHCV fell in a basal position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus (Fig. 2). This topological division, which probably reflects recombination among the bat sarbecoviruses, was also observed in the phylogenetic trees estimated for conserved domains in the replicase polyprotein pp1ab (Extended Data Fig. 6).

To better understand the potential of WHCV to infect humans, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of its spike protein was compared with those of SARS-CoVs and bat SARS-like CoVs. The RBD sequences of WHCV were more closely related to those of SARS-CoVs (73.8–74.9% amino acid identity) and SARS-like CoVs, including strains Rs4874, Rs7327 and Rs4231 (75.9–76.9% amino acid identity), that are able to use the human ACE2 receptor for cell entry11 (Supplementary Table 7). In addition, the RBD of the spike protein from WHCV was only one amino acid longer than the RBD of the spike protein from SARS-CoV (Extended Data Fig. 7a). By contrast, other bat SARS-like CoVs—including the Rp3 strain that cannot bind to human ACE214—had amino acid deletions at positions 433–437 and 460–472 compared with the sequence in SARS-CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 7a). The previously determined15 crystal structure of the RBD of the spike protein of SARS-CoV complexed with human ACE2 (Protein Data Bank (PDB) 2AJF) revealed that regions 433–437 and 460–472 directly interact with human ACE2 and hence may be important in determining species specificity (Extended Data Fig. 7b). We predicted the three-dimensional protein structures of the RBD domains of the spike protein of WHCV, Rs4874 and Rp3 by protein homology modelling using the SWISS-MODEL server and compared them to the crystal structure of RBD domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV (PDB 2GHV) (Extended Data Fig. 7c–f). In accordance with the sequence alignment, the predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and Rs4874 were closely related to that of SARS-CoV and different from the predicted structure of the RBD domain from Rp3. In addition, the N terminus of the spike protein of WHCV is more similar to that of SARS-CoV than other human coronaviruses (HKU1 and OC43) (Extended Data Fig. 8) that can bind to sialic acid16. In summary, the high similarities of the amino acid sequences and predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and SARS-CoV suggest that WHCV may efficiently use human ACE2 as a receptor for cellular entry, which could potentially facilitate human-to-human transmission11,17,18.

 

To further characterize the putative recombination events in the evolutionary history of the sarbecoviruses, the whole-genome sequence of WHCV and four representative coronaviruses—bat SARS-like CoV Rp3, CoVZC45, CoVZXC21 and SARS-CoV Tor2—were analysed using the Recombination Detection Program v.4 (RDP4)19. Although the similarity plots suggested that possible recombination events had occurred between WHCV and SARS-CoVs or SARS-like CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 9), there was no significant evidence for recombination across the genome as a whole. However, some evidence for past recombination was detected in the S gene of WHCV, SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) (P < 3.147 × 10−3 to P < 9.198 × 10−9), for which the similarity plots suggested the presence of recombination breakpoints at nucleotides 1,029 and 1,652, which separate the S gene of WHCV into three regions (Fig. 3). In phylogenies of the nucleotide fragments from 1 to 1,029 and from 1,652 to the end of the sequence, WHCV was most closely related to bat SL-CoVZC45 and bat SL-CoVZXC21, whereas in the region of nucleotides 1,030 to 1,651 (the RBD region) WHCV grouped with SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) that are capable of direct human transmission17,20. Despite these recombination events, which seem relatively common among sarbecoviruses, there is no evidence that recombination has facilitated the emergence of WHCV.

Coronaviruses are associated with a number of infectious disease outbreaks in humans, including SARS in 2002–2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 20121,21. Four other coronaviruses—human coronaviruses HKU1, OC43, NL63 and 229E—are also associated with respiratory disease22,23,24,25. Although SARS-like coronaviruses have been widely identified in mammals including bats since 2005 in China10,26,27,28, the exact origin of human-infected coronaviruses remains unclear. Here we describe a new coronavirus—WHCV—in the BALF from a patient who experienced severe respiratory disease in Wuhan, China. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that WHCV is a member of the genus Betacoronavirus (subgenus Sarbecovirus) that has some genomic and phylogenetic similarities to SARS-CoV1, particularly in the RBD of the spike protein. These genomic and clinical similarities to SARS, as well as its high abundance in clinical samples, provides evidence for an association between WHCV and the ongoing outbreak of respiratory disease in Wuhan and across the world. Although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study29.

 

The identification of multiple SARS-like CoVs in bats have led to the idea that these animals act as hosts of a natural reservoir of these viruses22,23. Although SARS-like viruses have been identified widely in bats in China, viruses identical to SARS-CoV have not yet been documented. Notably, WHCV is most closely related to bat coronaviruses, and shows 100% amino acid similarity to bat SL-CoVZC45 in the nsp7 and E proteins (Supplementary Table 3). Thus, these data suggest that bats are a possible host for the viral reservoir of WHCV. However, as a variety of animal species were for sale in the market when the disease was first reported, further studies are needed to determine the natural reservoir and any intermediate hosts of WHCV.

 

Note added in proof: Since this paper was accepted, the ICTV has designated the virus as SARS-CoV-2 (30); in addition, the WHO has released the official name of the disease caused by this virus, which is COVID-19 (31).”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kilowon said:

It is an FOI. How can a freedom of information request be fake news? FFS. If viruses can only be proven to exist by gene sequencing then what about the viruses supposedly discovered by the likes of Enders well before the invention of gene sequencing technologies in the 1970's? How were they proven to exist? Virologist have long ago claimed they can isolate viruses. When challenged for proof they suddenly turn around and say they cannot isolate virus. Viruses are not only evident when they attack a cell according to virology. They supposedly exist as virions too. You defending something which you yourself does not understand

 

 

The letters sent out were worded in such a way by people who should understand that viruses are only evident when they attack another cell and try to replicate. They knew that asking for proof of a totally isolated virus is not possible and the "no virus exists" gullibles have fallen for it.

Viruses have been gene sequenced thousands upon thousands of times by different labs all over the world achieving the same results.

Here is a copy of the letter they sent out which shows they worded it to achieve their warped narrative and it was sent not in good faith.

 

Dear Public Health England,

I would like to see:

All records in the possession, custody or control of Public Health England describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells).

Please note that I am using "isolation" in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where "isolation of SARS-COV-2" refers *instead* to:

• the culturing of something, or
• the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
• the sequencing of something.

Please also note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by the PHE or that pertain to work done by the PHE. My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that the PHE has downloaded or printed.

Please provide enough information about each record so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it).”

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

You asked how is it placed in the gene sequencing machine.

The first investigation on SARS-CoV-2 used bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from a patient as described in this peer reviewed scientific paper.

I’m not sure a layman would find this easy to understand ….

“To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. Remapping the RNA-sequencing data to the complete genome of WHCV resulted in an assembly of 123,613 reads, providing 99.99% genome coverage at a mean depth of 6.04× (range, 0.01–78.84×) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The viral load in the BALF sample was estimated by qPCR to be 3.95 × 108 copies per ml (Extended Data Fig. 4).

The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933). The un-translational regions and open-reading frame (ORF) of WHCV were mapped on the basis of this sequence alignment and ORF prediction. The WHCV viral genome was similar to these two coronaviruses (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3). The order of genes (5′ to 3′) was as follows: replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N). WHCV has 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences that are typical of betacoronaviruses, with 265 nt at the 5′ terminal end and 229 nt at the 3′ terminal end. The predicted replicase ORF1ab gene of WHCV is 21,291 nt in length and contained 16 predicted non-structural proteins (Supplementary Table 4), followed by (at least) 13 downstream ORFs. Additionally, WHCV shares a highly conserved domain (LLRKNGNKG: amino acids 122–130) in nsp1 with SARS-CoV. The predicted S, ORF3a, E, M and N genes of WHCV are 3,822, 828, 228, 669 and 1,260 nt in length, respectively. In addition to these ORF regions, which are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (with a length of 366 nt) that is located between the M and N ORF genes. The functions of WHCV ORFs were predicted on the basis of those of known coronaviruses and are described in Supplementary Table 5. In a manner similar to SARS-CoV Tor2, a leader transcription regulatory sequence (TRS) and nine putative body TRSs could be readily identified upstream of the 5′ end of the ORF in WHCV, and the putative conserved TRS core sequence appeared in two forms—ACGAAC or CUAAAC (Supplementary Table 6).

To determine the evolutionary relationships between WHCV and previously identified coronaviruses, we estimated phylogenetic trees on the basis of the nucleotide sequences of the whole-genome sequence, the non-structural protein genes ORF1a and ORF1b, and the main structural proteins encoded by the S, E, M and N genes (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). In all phylogenies, WHCV clustered with members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, including the SARS-CoV that was responsible for the global SARS pandemic1,2 of 2002–2003, as well as a number of SARS-like coronaviruses that have been obtained from bats5,11,12,13. However, WHCV changed topological position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus depending on which gene was used, which suggests that recombination has occurred in this group of viruses in the past (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). Specifically, in the S gene tree (Extended Data Fig. 5), WHCV was most closely related to the bat coronavirus SL-CoVZC45 with 82.3% amino acid identity (and around 77.2% amino acid identity to SARS-CoV; Supplementary Table 3) whereas in the ORF1b phylogeny, WHCV fell in a basal position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus (Fig. 2). This topological division, which probably reflects recombination among the bat sarbecoviruses, was also observed in the phylogenetic trees estimated for conserved domains in the replicase polyprotein pp1ab (Extended Data Fig. 6).

To better understand the potential of WHCV to infect humans, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of its spike protein was compared with those of SARS-CoVs and bat SARS-like CoVs. The RBD sequences of WHCV were more closely related to those of SARS-CoVs (73.8–74.9% amino acid identity) and SARS-like CoVs, including strains Rs4874, Rs7327 and Rs4231 (75.9–76.9% amino acid identity), that are able to use the human ACE2 receptor for cell entry11 (Supplementary Table 7). In addition, the RBD of the spike protein from WHCV was only one amino acid longer than the RBD of the spike protein from SARS-CoV (Extended Data Fig. 7a). By contrast, other bat SARS-like CoVs—including the Rp3 strain that cannot bind to human ACE214—had amino acid deletions at positions 433–437 and 460–472 compared with the sequence in SARS-CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 7a). The previously determined15 crystal structure of the RBD of the spike protein of SARS-CoV complexed with human ACE2 (Protein Data Bank (PDB) 2AJF) revealed that regions 433–437 and 460–472 directly interact with human ACE2 and hence may be important in determining species specificity (Extended Data Fig. 7b). We predicted the three-dimensional protein structures of the RBD domains of the spike protein of WHCV, Rs4874 and Rp3 by protein homology modelling using the SWISS-MODEL server and compared them to the crystal structure of RBD domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV (PDB 2GHV) (Extended Data Fig. 7c–f). In accordance with the sequence alignment, the predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and Rs4874 were closely related to that of SARS-CoV and different from the predicted structure of the RBD domain from Rp3. In addition, the N terminus of the spike protein of WHCV is more similar to that of SARS-CoV than other human coronaviruses (HKU1 and OC43) (Extended Data Fig. 8) that can bind to sialic acid16. In summary, the high similarities of the amino acid sequences and predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and SARS-CoV suggest that WHCV may efficiently use human ACE2 as a receptor for cellular entry, which could potentially facilitate human-to-human transmission11,17,18.

 

To further characterize the putative recombination events in the evolutionary history of the sarbecoviruses, the whole-genome sequence of WHCV and four representative coronaviruses—bat SARS-like CoV Rp3, CoVZC45, CoVZXC21 and SARS-CoV Tor2—were analysed using the Recombination Detection Program v.4 (RDP4)19. Although the similarity plots suggested that possible recombination events had occurred between WHCV and SARS-CoVs or SARS-like CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 9), there was no significant evidence for recombination across the genome as a whole. However, some evidence for past recombination was detected in the S gene of WHCV, SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) (P < 3.147 × 10−3 to P < 9.198 × 10−9), for which the similarity plots suggested the presence of recombination breakpoints at nucleotides 1,029 and 1,652, which separate the S gene of WHCV into three regions (Fig. 3). In phylogenies of the nucleotide fragments from 1 to 1,029 and from 1,652 to the end of the sequence, WHCV was most closely related to bat SL-CoVZC45 and bat SL-CoVZXC21, whereas in the region of nucleotides 1,030 to 1,651 (the RBD region) WHCV grouped with SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) that are capable of direct human transmission17,20. Despite these recombination events, which seem relatively common among sarbecoviruses, there is no evidence that recombination has facilitated the emergence of WHCV.

Coronaviruses are associated with a number of infectious disease outbreaks in humans, including SARS in 2002–2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 20121,21. Four other coronaviruses—human coronaviruses HKU1, OC43, NL63 and 229E—are also associated with respiratory disease22,23,24,25. Although SARS-like coronaviruses have been widely identified in mammals including bats since 2005 in China10,26,27,28, the exact origin of human-infected coronaviruses remains unclear. Here we describe a new coronavirus—WHCV—in the BALF from a patient who experienced severe respiratory disease in Wuhan, China. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that WHCV is a member of the genus Betacoronavirus (subgenus Sarbecovirus) that has some genomic and phylogenetic similarities to SARS-CoV1, particularly in the RBD of the spike protein. These genomic and clinical similarities to SARS, as well as its high abundance in clinical samples, provides evidence for an association between WHCV and the ongoing outbreak of respiratory disease in Wuhan and across the world. Although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study29.

 

The identification of multiple SARS-like CoVs in bats have led to the idea that these animals act as hosts of a natural reservoir of these viruses22,23. Although SARS-like viruses have been identified widely in bats in China, viruses identical to SARS-CoV have not yet been documented. Notably, WHCV is most closely related to bat coronaviruses, and shows 100% amino acid similarity to bat SL-CoVZC45 in the nsp7 and E proteins (Supplementary Table 3). Thus, these data suggest that bats are a possible host for the viral reservoir of WHCV. However, as a variety of animal species were for sale in the market when the disease was first reported, further studies are needed to determine the natural reservoir and any intermediate hosts of WHCV.

 

Note added in proof: Since this paper was accepted, the ICTV has designated the virus as SARS-CoV-2 (30); in addition, the WHO has released the official name of the disease caused by this virus, which is COVID-19 (31).”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

 

 

That whole block of technical sounding text is a product of a twisted education system where everything is divided into left brain and right brain, with no attempt to consolidate the meaning of of what we are taught and connect the dots or think beyond the obvious. 

 

Holistic education teaches one to sit and think what the tests and results mean and then look around at the world and try to find what are the implications.


The freemason science wants to divide the entire natural world into discrete units based on genetic structure.

Nature is an interconnected web and many changes happen in us and our bodies as we survive and adapt as do other organisms.

 

What do mothers pass on when they gestate or when they breast feed  the child or hold it? And how?

 

In ancient tribes when people participated in communal cooking and eating (without using hand sanitiser), they were exchanging intelligence from the web of life that binds them and gives them peace and gratitude and love.

 

Why do you feel refreshed after eating a home cooked meal with freshly plucked ingredients and especially if dining with family, and feel dead after eating a McBurger sitting among strangers all staring at their phones?  

 

What invisible information is present in things we consume and how we interact? What changes happen in our genetic expressions as we interact?

 

What passes between us cannot all be isolated and categorised.

 

We exchange information with the web of life, but how will the transfer take place..? Just magic or actual pathways of information exchange..? Would that be that how receptors and spike proteins work..instead of the scary way in which virologists are using it? As if forming new connections with nature is something unheard of in human history..

 

So they tell us that they have isolated the first ‘virus’ from a time when biotech/ lab tools were limited- and that becomes the basis of the next step; and when the next sequence is not 100% match then it is identified as another new alien organism; and then the third has another tiny difference and is another new parasite…etc.


But at the time of the very first case itself they did not have the entire gene library—so how did they manage to conclude that this is an alien parasite that needs to be killed and eliminated from the body..?

 

Where is the evidence that any of that is not meant to be there?

 

What is the basis of establishing that just one sniffle means that the ‘virus’ they claim to have isolated from the sniffly person’s sample is the cause? Which is the cause and effect..? 

Did the sniffle activate the parasite or the parasite caused sniffles or any other correlation that science cannot explain..?

Even if all sniffly people have the parasite in their samples, it still does not prove that the 'virus' caused the illness—

maybe the 'parasite'  is activated afterwards ..?

And the sniffles is due to another cause for which what they call the ‘virus’ is a symptom..?

 

Why are they so keen to give life ritualistically to the concept of a virus when there is no virus?

Edited by m754
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, m754 said:

 

That whole block of technical sounding text is a product of a twisted education system where everything is divided into left brain and right brain, with no attempt to consolidate the meaning of of what we are taught and connect the dots or think beyond the obvious. 

 

Holistic education teaches one to sit and think what the tests and results mean and then look around at the world and try to find what are the implications.


The freemason science wants to divide the entire natural world into discrete units based on genetic structure.

Nature is an interconnected web and many changes happen in us and our bodies as we survive and adapt as do other organisms.

 

What do mothers pass on when they gestate or when they breast feed  the child or hold it? And how?

 

In ancient tribes when people participated in communal cooking and eating (without using hand sanitiser), they were exchanging intelligence from the web of life that binds them and gives them peace and gratitude and love.

 

Why do you feel refreshed after eating a home cooked meal with freshly plucked ingredients and especially if dining with family, and feel dead after eating a McBurger sitting among strangers all staring at their phones?  

 

What invisible information is present in things we consume and how we interact? What changes happen in our genetic expressions as we interact?

 

What passes between us cannot all be isolated and categorised.

 

We exchange information with the web of life, but how will the transfer take place..? Just magic or actual pathways of information exchange..? Would that be that how receptors and spike proteins work..instead of the scary way in which virologists are using it? As if forming new connections with nature is something unheard of in human history..

 

So they tell us that they have isolated the first ‘virus’ from a time when biotech/ lab tools were limited- and that becomes the basis of the next step; and when the next sequence is not 100% match then it is identified as another new alien organism; and then the third has another tiny difference and is another new parasite…etc.


But at the time of the very first case itself they did not have the entire gene library—so how did they manage to conclude that this is an alien parasite that needs to be killed and eliminated from the body..?

 

Where is the evidence that any of that is not meant to be there?

 

What is the basis of establishing that just one sniffle means that the ‘virus’ they claim to have isolated from the sniffly person’s sample is the cause? Which is the cause and effect..? 

Did the sniffle activate the parasite or the parasite caused sniffles or any other correlation that science cannot explain..?

Even if all sniffly people have the parasite in their samples, it still does not prove that the 'virus' caused the illness—

maybe the 'parasite'  is activated afterwards ..?

And the sniffles is due to another cause for which what they call the ‘virus’ is a symptom..?

 

Why are they so keen to give life ritualistically to the concept of a virus when there is no virus?

It's all in the mind. That's where "the sniffle" is sourced from. All of it. None of it has anything to do with externals/the physical. An itch. A pain. An impulse. Being "sick" is hallucinatory. Propagating it as "reality" in the physical plane amounts to black magic/witchcraft- ignorance--infecting people's mind with garbage when getting rid of the garbage is the answer, ,,,why perpetuate the dream of...............bullshit?

Other than self-debasement, self-punishment, Self-denial, denial of Reality= Workings of the ego.

 

All "cause" resides in the mind. Everything (seemingly)external is a projection instantaniously perceived.

 

Edited by novymir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, m754 said:

 

That whole block of technical sounding text is a product of a twisted education system where everything is divided into left brain and right brain, with no attempt to consolidate the meaning of of what we are taught and connect the dots or think beyond the obvious. 

 

Holistic education teaches one to sit and think what the tests and results mean and then look around at the world and try to find what are the implications.


The freemason science wants to divide the entire natural world into discrete units based on genetic structure.

Nature is an interconnected web and many changes happen in us and our bodies as we survive and adapt as do other organisms.

 

What do mothers pass on when they gestate or when they breast feed  the child or hold it? And how?

 

In ancient tribes when people participated in communal cooking and eating (without using hand sanitiser), they were exchanging intelligence from the web of life that binds them and gives them peace and gratitude and love.

 

Why do you feel refreshed after eating a home cooked meal with freshly plucked ingredients and especially if dining with family, and feel dead after eating a McBurger sitting among strangers all staring at their phones?  

 

What invisible information is present in things we consume and how we interact? What changes happen in our genetic expressions as we interact?

 

What passes between us cannot all be isolated and categorised.

 

We exchange information with the web of life, but how will the transfer take place..? Just magic or actual pathways of information exchange..? Would that be that how receptors and spike proteins work..instead of the scary way in which virologists are using it? As if forming new connections with nature is something unheard of in human history..

 

So they tell us that they have isolated the first ‘virus’ from a time when biotech/ lab tools were limited- and that becomes the basis of the next step; and when the next sequence is not 100% match then it is identified as another new alien organism; and then the third has another tiny difference and is another new parasite…etc.


But at the time of the very first case itself they did not have the entire gene library—so how did they manage to conclude that this is an alien parasite that needs to be killed and eliminated from the body..?

 

Where is the evidence that any of that is not meant to be there?

 

What is the basis of establishing that just one sniffle means that the ‘virus’ they claim to have isolated from the sniffly person’s sample is the cause? Which is the cause and effect..? 

Did the sniffle activate the parasite or the parasite caused sniffles or any other correlation that science cannot explain..?

Even if all sniffly people have the parasite in their samples, it still does not prove that the 'virus' caused the illness—

maybe the 'parasite'  is activated afterwards ..?

And the sniffles is due to another cause for which what they call the ‘virus’ is a symptom..?

 

Why are they so keen to give life ritualistically to the concept of a virus when there is no virus?

I like this. But geoff will only answer you with a wall of text of technical jargon which he himself does not understand. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Lanka is a snake oil salesman.

 

Covid Lanka-ReSet.jpg

Please provide the scientific evidence that his product does not do what he claim they do. The irony of calling someone a snake oil salesman when you believe in virology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GeoffB said:

You asked how is it placed in the gene sequencing machine.

The first investigation on SARS-CoV-2 used bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from a patient as described in this peer reviewed scientific paper.

I’m not sure a layman would find this easy to understand ….

“To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. Remapping the RNA-sequencing data to the complete genome of WHCV resulted in an assembly of 123,613 reads, providing 99.99% genome coverage at a mean depth of 6.04× (range, 0.01–78.84×) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The viral load in the BALF sample was estimated by qPCR to be 3.95 × 108 copies per ml (Extended Data Fig. 4).

The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933). The un-translational regions and open-reading frame (ORF) of WHCV were mapped on the basis of this sequence alignment and ORF prediction. The WHCV viral genome was similar to these two coronaviruses (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3). The order of genes (5′ to 3′) was as follows: replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N). WHCV has 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences that are typical of betacoronaviruses, with 265 nt at the 5′ terminal end and 229 nt at the 3′ terminal end. The predicted replicase ORF1ab gene of WHCV is 21,291 nt in length and contained 16 predicted non-structural proteins (Supplementary Table 4), followed by (at least) 13 downstream ORFs. Additionally, WHCV shares a highly conserved domain (LLRKNGNKG: amino acids 122–130) in nsp1 with SARS-CoV. The predicted S, ORF3a, E, M and N genes of WHCV are 3,822, 828, 228, 669 and 1,260 nt in length, respectively. In addition to these ORF regions, which are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (with a length of 366 nt) that is located between the M and N ORF genes. The functions of WHCV ORFs were predicted on the basis of those of known coronaviruses and are described in Supplementary Table 5. In a manner similar to SARS-CoV Tor2, a leader transcription regulatory sequence (TRS) and nine putative body TRSs could be readily identified upstream of the 5′ end of the ORF in WHCV, and the putative conserved TRS core sequence appeared in two forms—ACGAAC or CUAAAC (Supplementary Table 6).

To determine the evolutionary relationships between WHCV and previously identified coronaviruses, we estimated phylogenetic trees on the basis of the nucleotide sequences of the whole-genome sequence, the non-structural protein genes ORF1a and ORF1b, and the main structural proteins encoded by the S, E, M and N genes (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). In all phylogenies, WHCV clustered with members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, including the SARS-CoV that was responsible for the global SARS pandemic1,2 of 2002–2003, as well as a number of SARS-like coronaviruses that have been obtained from bats5,11,12,13. However, WHCV changed topological position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus depending on which gene was used, which suggests that recombination has occurred in this group of viruses in the past (Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 5). Specifically, in the S gene tree (Extended Data Fig. 5), WHCV was most closely related to the bat coronavirus SL-CoVZC45 with 82.3% amino acid identity (and around 77.2% amino acid identity to SARS-CoV; Supplementary Table 3) whereas in the ORF1b phylogeny, WHCV fell in a basal position within the subgenus Sarbecovirus (Fig. 2). This topological division, which probably reflects recombination among the bat sarbecoviruses, was also observed in the phylogenetic trees estimated for conserved domains in the replicase polyprotein pp1ab (Extended Data Fig. 6).

To better understand the potential of WHCV to infect humans, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of its spike protein was compared with those of SARS-CoVs and bat SARS-like CoVs. The RBD sequences of WHCV were more closely related to those of SARS-CoVs (73.8–74.9% amino acid identity) and SARS-like CoVs, including strains Rs4874, Rs7327 and Rs4231 (75.9–76.9% amino acid identity), that are able to use the human ACE2 receptor for cell entry11 (Supplementary Table 7). In addition, the RBD of the spike protein from WHCV was only one amino acid longer than the RBD of the spike protein from SARS-CoV (Extended Data Fig. 7a). By contrast, other bat SARS-like CoVs—including the Rp3 strain that cannot bind to human ACE214—had amino acid deletions at positions 433–437 and 460–472 compared with the sequence in SARS-CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 7a). The previously determined15 crystal structure of the RBD of the spike protein of SARS-CoV complexed with human ACE2 (Protein Data Bank (PDB) 2AJF) revealed that regions 433–437 and 460–472 directly interact with human ACE2 and hence may be important in determining species specificity (Extended Data Fig. 7b). We predicted the three-dimensional protein structures of the RBD domains of the spike protein of WHCV, Rs4874 and Rp3 by protein homology modelling using the SWISS-MODEL server and compared them to the crystal structure of RBD domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV (PDB 2GHV) (Extended Data Fig. 7c–f). In accordance with the sequence alignment, the predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and Rs4874 were closely related to that of SARS-CoV and different from the predicted structure of the RBD domain from Rp3. In addition, the N terminus of the spike protein of WHCV is more similar to that of SARS-CoV than other human coronaviruses (HKU1 and OC43) (Extended Data Fig. 8) that can bind to sialic acid16. In summary, the high similarities of the amino acid sequences and predicted protein structures of the RBD domains of WHCV and SARS-CoV suggest that WHCV may efficiently use human ACE2 as a receptor for cellular entry, which could potentially facilitate human-to-human transmission11,17,18.

 

To further characterize the putative recombination events in the evolutionary history of the sarbecoviruses, the whole-genome sequence of WHCV and four representative coronaviruses—bat SARS-like CoV Rp3, CoVZC45, CoVZXC21 and SARS-CoV Tor2—were analysed using the Recombination Detection Program v.4 (RDP4)19. Although the similarity plots suggested that possible recombination events had occurred between WHCV and SARS-CoVs or SARS-like CoVs (Extended Data Fig. 9), there was no significant evidence for recombination across the genome as a whole. However, some evidence for past recombination was detected in the S gene of WHCV, SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) (P < 3.147 × 10−3 to P < 9.198 × 10−9), for which the similarity plots suggested the presence of recombination breakpoints at nucleotides 1,029 and 1,652, which separate the S gene of WHCV into three regions (Fig. 3). In phylogenies of the nucleotide fragments from 1 to 1,029 and from 1,652 to the end of the sequence, WHCV was most closely related to bat SL-CoVZC45 and bat SL-CoVZXC21, whereas in the region of nucleotides 1,030 to 1,651 (the RBD region) WHCV grouped with SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoVs (WIV1 and RsSHC014) that are capable of direct human transmission17,20. Despite these recombination events, which seem relatively common among sarbecoviruses, there is no evidence that recombination has facilitated the emergence of WHCV.

Coronaviruses are associated with a number of infectious disease outbreaks in humans, including SARS in 2002–2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 20121,21. Four other coronaviruses—human coronaviruses HKU1, OC43, NL63 and 229E—are also associated with respiratory disease22,23,24,25. Although SARS-like coronaviruses have been widely identified in mammals including bats since 2005 in China10,26,27,28, the exact origin of human-infected coronaviruses remains unclear. Here we describe a new coronavirus—WHCV—in the BALF from a patient who experienced severe respiratory disease in Wuhan, China. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that WHCV is a member of the genus Betacoronavirus (subgenus Sarbecovirus) that has some genomic and phylogenetic similarities to SARS-CoV1, particularly in the RBD of the spike protein. These genomic and clinical similarities to SARS, as well as its high abundance in clinical samples, provides evidence for an association between WHCV and the ongoing outbreak of respiratory disease in Wuhan and across the world. Although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study29.

 

The identification of multiple SARS-like CoVs in bats have led to the idea that these animals act as hosts of a natural reservoir of these viruses22,23. Although SARS-like viruses have been identified widely in bats in China, viruses identical to SARS-CoV have not yet been documented. Notably, WHCV is most closely related to bat coronaviruses, and shows 100% amino acid similarity to bat SL-CoVZC45 in the nsp7 and E proteins (Supplementary Table 3). Thus, these data suggest that bats are a possible host for the viral reservoir of WHCV. However, as a variety of animal species were for sale in the market when the disease was first reported, further studies are needed to determine the natural reservoir and any intermediate hosts of WHCV.

 

Note added in proof: Since this paper was accepted, the ICTV has designated the virus as SARS-CoV-2 (30); in addition, the WHO has released the official name of the disease caused by this virus, which is COVID-19 (31).”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

 

You like saying the layman would not understand. Why do you think that? I am a layman and i understand what they are saying. It is pseudoscience nonsense of course. In the very first paragraph they admit they did not identified a genomic sequence, but constructed one in silico. They said that they generated sequence, not discovered or identified them. They admitting they made it up and yet you still think we are dealing with real things? Also at no point did they explain how they were able to separate the virus from the rest of the soup it was cultured in. So once again, they have no idea if their gene sequence comes from a cells or was a lab artifacts creation. Once again, read Harold Hillman and you will get a better understanding of how lab processes are responsible for creating all the artifacts that they then turn around and claimed to be viruses. BTW, bats were not sold at the Wuhan market.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GeoffB said:

The letters sent out were worded in such a way by people who should understand that viruses are only evident when they attack another cell and try to replicate. They knew that asking for proof of a totally isolated virus is not possible and the "no virus exists" gullibles have fallen for it.

Viruses have been gene sequenced thousands upon thousands of times by different labs all over the world achieving the same results.

Here is a copy of the letter they sent out which shows they worded it to achieve their warped narrative and it was sent not in good faith.

 

Dear Public Health England,

I would like to see:

All records in the possession, custody or control of Public Health England describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells).

Please note that I am using "isolation" in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where "isolation of SARS-COV-2" refers *instead* to:

• the culturing of something, or
• the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
• the sequencing of something.

Please also note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by the PHE or that pertain to work done by the PHE. My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that the PHE has downloaded or printed.

Please provide enough information about each record so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it).”

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Johnson

The letter were worded just fine. When you claim to have discover something, then you must be able to show what you have discovered individually as a thing. If not, then this thing cannot exist. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand what Geoff is going through. I remember the time when i myself came to the realization that the Germ theory was a load of claptrap. It was hard to accept and it took me a while to digest this. It is hard to accept that you have been fooled to such an extent. But in the end, i had to accept this as truth is my compass. I search for the truth fearlessly no matter where it takes me. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, m754 said:

But at the time of the very first case itself they did not have the entire gene library—so how did they manage to conclude that this is an alien parasite that needs to be killed and eliminated from the body..?

They already had the gene sequence for SARS-CoV-1 which was very similar to the new virus which they designated SARS-CoV-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kilowon said:

The letter were worded just fine. When you claim to have discover something, then you must be able to show what you have discovered individually as a thing. If not, then this thing cannot exist. Simple.

Before David Icke was seduced by Lanka and Kaufman he would have accused you of being "imprisoned in a constrictive five sense reality". Just because you can't see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientists have shown that gravity exists and Virologists have shown via gene sequencing that viruses exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kilowon said:

You like saying the layman would not understand. Why do you think that? I am a layman and i understand what they are saying. It is pseudoscience nonsense of course. In the very first paragraph they admit they did not identified a genomic sequence, but constructed one in silico. They said that they generated sequence, not discovered or identified them. They admitting they made it up and yet you still think we are dealing with real things? Also at no point did they explain how they were able to separate the virus from the rest of the soup it was cultured in. So once again, they have no idea if their gene sequence comes from a cells or was a lab artifacts creation. Once again, read Harold Hillman and you will get a better understanding of how lab processes are responsible for creating all the artifacts that they then turn around and claimed to be viruses. BTW, bats were not sold at the Wuhan market.

You have no understanding of gene sequencing whatsoever.

If you know the exact gene sequence of the host cell and you know the likely structure of the virus the very sophisticated gene sequencing machine will do the rest.

Hillman wrote his book in 1972 before gene sequencing was discovered.

He was also sacked because of his perverse views.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/good-scientists-bad-science-clinging-to-a-dubious-position-can-destroy-a-career-62809

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kilowon said:

Please provide the scientific evidence that his product does not do what he claim they do. The irony of calling someone a snake oil salesman when you believe in virology.

It is up to Lanka to prove that his 99,90Euros powders and tablets work.

But as he hasn't written a peer reviewed scientific paper for decades so that's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, screamingeagle said:

i have to ask although i know the answer

 

are you serious with this coment?

The UK government chooses who they want as their advisors.

If they surround themselves with maths modelers, virologists, epidemiologists, scientists and doctors who are all over cautious pessimists then the government will have a jaundiced view of the current situation.

There are plenty of other virologists, epidemiologists, scientists and doctors out there who believe that Covid19 has been blown out of proportion and that lockdowns are unnecessary and that "the vaccines" may be harmful and counter productive.

Unfortunately governments choose to listen to the former and not the latter.

One then has to ask if governments are just being over cautious or are they being coerced into bringing in draconian measures for something more sinister.

As a fan of David Icke's for the last 20 years I believe it is the latter.

The only thing I don't agree with David is his insistence that "viruses do not exist".

I have done the research and Stefan Lanka and Andrew Kaufman who have influenced David are charlatans with no credibility whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

The UK government chooses who they want as their advisors.

If they surround themselves with maths modelers, virologists, epidemiologists, scientists and doctors who are all over cautious pessimists then the government will have a jaundiced view of the current situation.

 

I think that reads better as "If they surround themselves with maths modelers, virologists, epidemiologists, scientists and doctors who are all bought and paid off to further the elite agenda then the government will have a jaundiced view of the current situation."

 

👍

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

I think that reads better as "If they surround themselves with maths modelers, virologists, epidemiologists, scientists and doctors who are all bought and paid off to further the elite agenda then the government will have a jaundiced view of the current situation."

 

👍

I quite agree.

Many of their advisors have links and shares in Big Pharma and definitely have a conflict of interest which doesn't seem to bother corrupt governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Kaufman who have influenced David are charlatans with no credibility whatsoever.

same can be said for you from conspiracy perspective.....

the only thing is that you support oficial narrative,nothing more

 

maybe you are geniune believer or you are part of agenda,it doesn't matter....

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GeoffB said:

They already had the gene sequence for SARS-CoV-1 which was very similar to the new virus which they designated SARS-CoV-2.

 

Okay.

 

You obviously have a strong belief in these scientific research papers perhaps due to your training or education. So there would be no point in trying to make you see another viewpoint.

 

Having said that, it is possible to point out the holes in the 'isolation' and 'sequencing' storyline, if one could spend a few days going through these journals and findings.

 

Point is—why would anybody wish to do that? It will have the same result. That there is a 'virus' is being pushed not based  entirely on these so called research papers but on authority’s decree.

 

But I am not a virologist nor  do I wish as a layman to spend these precious days of my ‘existence’ here in reading this pointless research.

 

I don’t wish to miss the forest for the trees. 


So I will leave it at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, screamingeagle said:

same can be said for you from conspiracy perspective.....

the only thing is that you support oficial narrative,nothing more

 

maybe you are geniune believer or you are part of agenda,it doesn't matter....

 

 

 

The only official narrative I support is that viruses exist.

Many others in the alternative media know that viruses exist including Judy Mikovits.

We can't all be "controlled opposition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, m754 said:

That there is a 'virus' is being pushed not based  entirely on these so called research papers but on authority’s decree.

Science has shown beyond doubt that viruses exist.

Thankfully those of us in the alternative media have seen through "authority's decree" that it is so harmful we need to bring in draconian measures.

It is as harmful as a bad flu season and these draconian measures pushed for by the global elite are not necessary.

A few influential people in the alternative media pushing the notion that "viruses do not exist" is harming the fight against the global elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

They already had the gene sequence for SARS-CoV-1 which was very similar to the new virus which they designated SARS-CoV-2.

That does not answer the question. Just because something is similar to something else does not means they have the same characteristics. How did they know this new genome was responsible for covid19 in human?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Before David Icke was seduced by Lanka and Kaufman he would have accused you of being "imprisoned in a constrictive five sense reality". Just because you can't see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientists have shown that gravity exists and Virologists have shown via gene sequencing that viruses exist.

No they have not. You refuse to address the issue of how they were able to identified the genome of the virus in the organic cell culture. Let me give you a simple example. If you bake a cake, your ingredient will include flour, eggs, baking powder, sugar, milk and butter. But if you ate that cake and you get some sort of allergy. You can do two thing, stop eating cake or try to find out which of the ingredient in the cake caused your allergy. To do that you cannot use the cake as the ingredient have been mixed up and the process of cooking means you will not be able to separate one ingredient from another. So the logical thing would be to test each of the ingredient individually and see which one you are allergic to. But in virology they have never once done that. They just took a random piece of the cake and claim it is the one causing your allergy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Before David Icke was seduced by Lanka and Kaufman he would have accused you of being "imprisoned in a constrictive five sense reality". Just because you can't see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientists have shown that gravity exists and Virologists have shown via gene sequencing that viruses exist.

BTW, Lanka disproved the existence of Measles virus. So much so, that in 2017, The Big Picture Book of Viruses, available on virology.net, stop using the image of the measles virus. Now, if you go there, all it say next to the measles virus is n/a. Not applicable. http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVRNApara.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...