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

[novymir]

37 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Human cells are used.

There is an ethical dimension with experiments through human to human contagion.

Liars, cheats and charlatans make me angry.

That so? An "ethical dimension" hmmm?

 

You know what I think? I think the "ethical dimension" only is in effect at the superficial level....the level that might be in view of the public...that's what I am beginning to realize. Below that, it's anything goes! In the HOLY NAME OF "SCIENCE", "Health Care"( talk about a misnomer...). FOLLOW THE MONEY.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Table Of Iatrogenic Deaths In The United States

(Deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures)

Condition	Deaths	Cost Billion $s	Author
Adverse Drug Reactions	106,000	12	Lazarou (1) Suh (49)
Medical error	98,000	2	IOM (6)
Bedsores	115,000	55	Xakellis (7) Barczak (8)
Infection	88,000	5	Weinstein (9) MMWR (10)
Malnutrition	108,800	—	Nurses Coalition (11)
Outpatients	199,000	77	Starfield (12) Weingart (1, 12)
Unnecessary Procedures	37,136	122	HCUP(3, 13)
Surgery-Related	32,000	9	AHRQ(8,5)
TOTAL	783,936	282

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. (14) Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14% (that Leape used in 1994 (16) we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

 

ADR/med error	420,000	$200 billion	Leape 1997(14)
TOTAL	999,936

Annual Unnecessary Medical Events

Unnecessary Events	People Affected (Millions)	Iatrogenic Events (Millions)
Hospitalization	8.9 (4)	1.78 (16)
Procedures	7.5 (3)	1.3 (40)
TOTAL	16.4	3.08

The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people ("patients") who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):

• 2.1% chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000) (1)
• 5% to 6% chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500) (9)
• 4% to 36% chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million) (16)
• 17% chance of a procedure error (1.3 million) (40)

All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a 10-year period. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates.

Medical Intervention

Projected Ten-Year Death Rates
Condition	10-Year Deaths
Adverse Drug Reaction	1.06 million
Medical error	0.98 million
Bedsores	1.15 million
Nosocomial Infection	0.88 million
Malnutrition	1.09 million
Outpatients	1.99 million
Unnecessary Procedures	371,360
Surgery-related	320,000
TOTAL	7,841,360 (7.8 million)

Our projected statistic of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from wars that America has fought in its entire history.

Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period are also dramatic.

Unnecessary Intervention

Projected Ten-Year Statistics
Unnecessary Events	10-Year Number	Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization	89 million	17 million
Procedures	75 million	13 million
TOTAL	164 million	30 million

These projected figures show that a total of 164 million people, approximately 56% of the population of the United States, have been treated unnecessarily by the medical industry — in other words, nearly 50,000 people per day.

https://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

 

They'll probably use the covid-con to reduce the appearance of those "Iatrogenic deaths", a little shuffle here, a little shuffle there,,,, and bingo! "Covid' is up, iatrogenic is down!

Edited October 27, 2021 by novymir

[scowie]

4 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Mock controls use the same ingredients minus the virus.

They would have used PBS with the virus experiment.

Define toxic soup?

 

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.

[GeoffB]

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.

[MarcusOmouse]

33 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Mock controls use the same ingredients minus the virus.

They would have used PBS with the virus experiment.

Define toxic soup?

 

A genuine placebo would contain nothing but saline.

 

Any thoughts as to why they would include toxins in the placebo ?

[GeoffB]

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.

[MarcusOmouse]

1 minute ago, GeoffB said:

Gentamicin Sulphate is so toxic it is used for children's eye drops. 

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.

[scowie]

2 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

The same ingredients are used for the experiment and the mock control.

 

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. 

[GeoffB]

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)

[GeoffB]

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.

[scowie]

1 minute ago, GeoffB said:

False?????

You're having a laugh.

 

The mock control doesn't contain Amphotericin B or Gentamicin sulphate does it?  The ingredients are different.

[MarcusOmouse]

1 minute ago, GeoffB said:

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)

Well there you have it.

 

Modern medical science , which is clearly based on a completely anti human, psychopathic, corporate agenda , seems to know better than mother nature how to protect us.

 

Next news, it will be the fault of their environment. 

 

Oh wait, thats  already happening.

[GeoffB]

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.

[GeoffB]

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.pdf

 

This 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/
 

[novymir]

41 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

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.pdf

 

This 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/
 

Some of us don't give a shit.

Many,,, if they knew they had a choice, would say; "...fuck that shit!, we don't want it, don't need it!.." .

 

But in your ignorance,,, you seek to impose universal ignorance as your masters(owners) would have you do.

 

They do have a choice. Ultimately this world dissolves,,,, along with all the fucked up ideas operating in it. Enjoy it while you can....I guess.

The artificial and synthetic, lose in the end. EgoMatrix.

 

 consensus is not synonymous with Truth in this (counterfeit)world----though it is in The Real World.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by novymir

[scowie]

5 hours ago, GeoffB said:

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.

 

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.

[scowie]

5 hours ago, GeoffB said:

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.pdf

 

This 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/
 

 

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.

[GeoffB]

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.

[GeoffB]

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.

[scowie]

7 hours ago, GeoffB said:

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.

 

That is nonsense.  A control can be anything.  It is often saline.  When it is saline that does not mean that the treatment is also saline plus one other thing.  If it was then that would be great.  It would be a good control.  That is never the case in virology though.  The control (if one is even used) is always a bad control precisely because it is saline when the virus sample is not!

 

The evidence is in the way that virology is practised which you are clearly don't fully comprehend...

 

7 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Viruses are only evident when attached to a cell therefore cell culturing and virus culturing are the same thing with the same ingredients.

 

Evident, meaning that the viruses (really exosomes) are only imaged in relation to cells with an electron microscope because you need to aim it at something you have already identified in an optical telescope.  That does not mean virus does not exist away from cells.  No one claims that.  In preparing virus samples, large things like cells and possible contaminants like bacteria are usually filtered out.  You then have a fluid that contains alleged virus plus whatever chemicals were used to culture the virus.  This is what is then sent out to the virologists who do experiments with the virus samples.  The culturing that they then do in looking for cytopathic effects is a separate thing to the culturing that was done to create the sample.  As they got their virus samples from a third party, they get to claim complete ignorance about what chemicals are in the fluid along with the alleged virus (as you are doing).  This is chemicals like lysing agents, used to break cells apart to release more virus.  The biological specimen the virus was obtained from is likely to have been stored in a viral transport medium containing a cocktail of chemicals.  If it wasn't it may have gone off (w/bacteria producing toxins). The specimen itself may have contained toxins even before adding it to the VTM, seeing as toxins are the cause of all disease.  None of these toxins can be separated from the alleged virus.  As you have said yourself, true isolation, in the common understanding of the word, is impossible.

Edited October 28, 2021 by scowie

[kilowon]

7 hours ago, GeoffB said:

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.

That is the point. There is no evidence of what is in their control. They never mentioned it in their papers. And you yourself do not know. You are making shit up to defend your religious belief. I know it is hard to let go of indoctrination. I had a hard time a few years ago letting go of the germ theory and the idea of contagion. It is a hard road to unplugged from the matrix. Which my explained why you are so angry right now

[kilowon]

21 hours ago, scowie said:

 

The paper you linked to in reply to me does actually say what the control is if you read the Methods section....

 

PBS being phosphate-buffered saline. Like I said, they use a standard off-the-shelf control, not one that is made up in the same way the virus sample is (minus the virus).  The control simply lacks the same toxins that are in the virus sample.  That is the problem with the whole of virology.  The protocols they use constitute bad science.  They are not eliminating variables between treatment and control arms of their experiments down to one.  Virologists are poisoning animals with a toxic soup and then claiming a virus did the damage.

exactly. Virologist knows they cannot induced cytopathic effects with viruses, which are just piece of cell debris, so they cheat and poisoned the cells with all type of toxic shite and then claimed it is a piece of non-living materials with no agency of its own doing it 

[kilowon]

20 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Human cells are used.

There is an ethical dimension with experiments through human to human contagion.

Liars, cheats and charlatans make me angry.

But I have already posted evidence of Human to human contagion experiments. You refuse to look at them because you know what they shows and that will destroyed your worldview. Vaccine company like Pfizer already use human test subject for their vaccine, as they did last year for their covid vaccine. There does not seemed to any ethical issue there. What possible ethical issue could you have with one subject giving another healthy subject a little cold. They do it all the time when testing new products

[kilowon]

20 hours ago, GeoffB said:

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.

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/gentamicin-side-effects.html side effects of Gentamicin  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/amphotericin-b-intravenous-route-injection-route/side-effects/drg-20061771 side effects of ampthotericin b. Still think they are not toxic?

[kilowon]

50 minutes ago, scowie said:

 

That is nonsense.  A control can be anything.  It is often saline.  When it is saline that does not mean that the treatment is also saline plus one other thing.  If it was then that would be great.  It would be a good control.  That is never the case in virology though.  The control (if one is even used) is always a bad control precisely because it is saline when the virus sample is not!

 

The evidence is in the way that virology is practised which you are clearly don't fully comprehend...

 

 

Evident, meaning that the viruses (really exosomes) are only imaged in relation to cells with an electron microscope because you need to aim it at something you have already identified in an optical telescope.  That does not mean virus does not exist away from cells.  No one claims that.  In preparing virus samples, large things like cells and possible contaminants like bacteria are usually filtered out.  You then have a fluid that contains alleged virus plus whatever chemicals were used to culture the virus.  This is what is then sent out to the virologists who do experiments with the virus samples.  The culturing that they then do in looking for cytopathic effects is a separate thing to the culturing that was done to create the sample.  As they got their virus samples from a third party, they get to claim complete ignorance about what chemicals are in the fluid along with the alleged virus (as you are doing).  This is chemicals like lysing agents, used to break cells apart to release more virus.  The biological specimen the virus was obtained from is likely to have been stored in a viral transport medium containing a cocktail of chemicals.  If it wasn't it may have gone off (w/bacteria producing toxins). The specimen itself may have contained toxins even before adding it to the VTM, seeing as toxins are the cause of all disease.  None of these toxins can be separated from the alleged virus.  As you have said yourself, true isolation, in the common understanding of the word, is impossible.

And let's not forget the freezing and thawing process that the cell cultures goes through

[novymir]

Yeah, "there is no virus"...except the one called untruth.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1755134.Good_Bye_Germ_Theory

Edited October 29, 2021 by novymir