Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

As an old socialist I can hardly be called right wing.

 

I have mentioned on here many times that the most likely source of the virus is a US lab and it was used as an economic attack on China by rogue elements of the US Deep State and they didn't bank on it spreading worldwide.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

 

The U.S. operates over 200 military biological laboratories worldwide who can release viruses whenever they like and yet you and people like you don't care because you are wedded to a 19th century theory that "viruses do not exist".

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-21/U-S-deployed-over-200-military-biological-laboratories-worldwide-QFtLkqhuVy/index.html

Both China and USA are owned by the globalist death cult. All of what you see on the news is political theatre for the gullible. At the top, they all bow to the same masters. Which is why on all global issues, such as climate change, 9/11,the scamdemic, they all sing from the same hymn sheet. So the US release a bioweapon with a 99.6 survival rate, if you are to believe the official figure? They must really suck at this bioweapon thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kilowon said:

Both China and USA are owned by the globalist death cult. All of what you see on the news is political theatre for the gullible. At the top, they all bow to the same masters. Which is why on all global issues, such as climate change, 9/11,the scamdemic, they all sing from the same hymn sheet. So the US release a bioweapon with a 99.6 survival rate, if you are to believe the official figure? They must really suck at this bioweapon thing.

I clearly stated it was an "economic attack".

It is a much more plausible theory than "viruses not existing".

Ron Unz has done some sterling work with a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that it was the Yanks that probably done it.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kilowon said:

But that in no way say that is what they used when doing their actual experiment since they rarely  revealed what is in the medium. And even in your list, you can see that chemicals like antibiotics, salts, Steroids are included. Also, there are so many sources of foreign materials in the medium that without true dictionary isolation, you could never knows for sure what is responsible for the cytopathic effects observe. No one seemed to take into account that the reaction of the medium with sputum might cause cytopathic effects which have nothing to do with a virus. And let's not even talk about the various freezing, thawing, heating etc processes that some of those samples goes through

These benign ingredients have been used in millions of experiments on human cells with a virus AND in the mock controls on human cells without the virus. The same medium is used in the experiment AND the control and then observed showing beyond doubt that it is the virus and not the medium or anything else causing the cytopathic effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

These benign ingredients have been used in millions of experiments on human cells with a virus AND in the mock controls on human cells without the virus. The same medium is used in the experiment AND the control and then observed showing beyond doubt that it is the virus and not the medium or anything else causing the cytopathic effects.

Antibiotics and steriods are benign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GeoffB said:

I clearly stated it was an "economic attack".

It is a much more plausible theory than "viruses not existing".

Ron Unz has done some sterling work with a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that it was the Yanks that probably done it.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

what economic attack? The Us is owned by the same forces that run CCP. There was no attack. It was all theatre. That is why this lab leak theory is on CNN and the fact that sarscov2 does not exist is never mentioned on MSM. The lab leak theory reinforced the idea of a virus and germ theory, which is one of their biggest weapon against the people and one of the most profitable golden goose. Which is why the theory got mainstream coverage when even the sheeple were starting to question the existence of the virus. It reinforced the narrative. Obviously, you are new to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, kilowon said:

Antibiotics and steriods are benign?

Yes they are.

And as they are in the experiment AND the control they have little effect on the result of the experiment which shows the cytopathic effects studied are from the virus NOT the medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GeoffB said:

I clearly stated it was an "economic attack".

It is a much more plausible theory than "viruses not existing".

Ron Unz has done some sterling work with a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that it was the Yanks that probably done it.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

What you apparently don't get, or refuse to consider; is that David Icke has accessed an "intelligence"-consciousness Greater than that that is limited to this "world"(consciousness).

Just because you or others do not understand that you may not understand something,( D.I.'s point of view),, but, and,,, that does not make your conclusions "true" except in your own mind. If you don't get that...you are NOT qualified to "teach" others anything except limitations that support limitations.

_++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

As a side note concerning the "reality" of "science" absolutism(Scientism):

 

 

"

A Betrayal of the Human Intellect

 

First, scientism is self-refuting. The statement “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge” cannot be verified by scientific methods. It’s a metaphysical proposition and thus not subject to scientific inquiry. No matter how successful science is, it is restricted to physical reality. Metaphysics deals with foundational truths about reality that go beyond the merely physical (e.g., questions about existence itself, time, space, etc.). Science can never go beyond the boundaries of its data source, so, in principle, cannot verify the truth of scientism.

But if science cannot verify the truth of scientism, then scientism is self-refuting.

https://strangenotions.com/is-real-knowledge-only-scientific-knowledge/

 

The current dominating ideology that is being used to attack and enslave humanity is this. A RELIGION of an antiSpirit, anti-Christ nature. And "germ theory" is the projection of the DISTORTION and BANKRUPTCY of THAT RELIGION externally, attacking GENUINE TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE->>>THAT THREATENS THE LIARS AND BELIEVERS OF LIES AND THEIR DISTORTED PERCEPTION OF REALITY.

"Germ theory" is the belief system of the HYPOCRITES---projectors in denial of adherence to untruth and hostility to TRUTH.

Edited by novymir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, novymir said:

What you apparently don't get, or refuse to consider; is that David Icke has accessed an "intelligence"-consciousness Greater than that that is limited to this "world"(consciousness).

Just because you or others do not understand that you may not understand something,( D.I.'s point of view),, but, and,,, that does not make your conclusions "true" except in your own mind. If you don't get that...you are NOT qualified to "teach" others anything except limitations that support limitations.

_++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

As a side note concerning the "reality" of "science" absolutism(Scientism):

 

 

"

A Betrayal of the Human Intellect

 

First, scientism is self-refuting. The statement “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge” cannot be verified by scientific methods. It’s a metaphysical proposition and thus not subject to scientific inquiry. No matter how successful science is, it is restricted to physical reality. Metaphysics deals with foundational truths about reality that go beyond the merely physical (e.g., questions about existence itself, time, space, etc.). Science can never go beyond the boundaries of its data source, so, in principle, cannot verify the truth of scientism.

But if science cannot verify the truth of scientism, then scientism is self-refuting.

https://strangenotions.com/is-real-knowledge-only-scientific-knowledge/

 

The current dominating ideology that is being used to attack and enslave humanity is this. A RELIGION of an antiSpirit, anti-Christ nature. And "germ theory" is the projection of the DISTORTION and BANKRUPTCY of THAT RELIGION externally, attacking GENUINE TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE->>>THAT THREATENS THE LIARS AND BELIEVERS OF LIES AND THEIR DISTORTED PERCEPTION OF REALITY.

 

David Icke, along with many other so-called 'conspiracy' theorists, have been well and truly vindicated in recent years especially. It would be irrational to ignore them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Yes they are.

And as they are in the experiment AND the control they have little effect on the result of the experiment which shows the cytopathic effects studied are from the virus NOT the medium.

If you still have any credibility in our eyes it would have been destroyed by the ridiculous statement that antibiotic(against life) and steroid are benign. Thankfully for you, no one take you seriously. so all those scientist saying that antibiotics and steroids are dangerous have been lying all those years? https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/side-effects-steroids-3440702/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kilowon said:

If you still have any credibility in our eyes it would have been destroyed by the ridiculous statement that antibiotic(against life) and steroid are benign. Thankfully for you, no one take you seriously. so all those scientist saying that antibiotics and steroids are dangerous have been lying all those years? https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/side-effects-steroids-3440702/.

As far as ingredients in the medium for transporting and keeping cells alive then antibiotics and steroids in small doses are benign and have no effect on the result of the experiment and the mock infection control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 7:07 PM, GeoffB said:

Scientists have shown the proof that viruses exist but you choose to ignore it.

My patience is wearing thin and am only giving back what you have been throwing at me.

 

 

On 10/30/2021 at 7:54 PM, GeoffB said:

Sam Bailey is another joke internet personality who has been exposed by her peers back in New Zealand.

"sam bailey on isolating viruses, and why she is wrong"

https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2021/04/sam-bailey-on-isolating-viruses-and-why-she-is-wrong/

 

I would agree with you that I find characters like Dr Sam Bailey a bit suspicious, especially how she's been allowed to rise to some prominence, but then that is my own opinion, I don't know her personally and I don't regularly watch her videos. She can't be a very busy NZ GP if she has the time to regularly produce these videos for her channels.

 

But then again, you keep bringing up 'mainstream System academics' as your counter-point, while also claiming to 'support' many other of David Icke's 'ideas', which have most probably at some point also been demolished by these same System 'academics' and dismissed as 'fringe' theories.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

 

I would agree with you that I find characters like Dr Sam Bailey a bit suspicious, especially how she's been allowed to rise to some prominence, but then that is my own opinion, I don't know her personally and I don't regularly watch her videos. She can't be a very busy NZ GP if she has the time to regularly produce these videos for her channels.

 

But then again, you keep bringing up 'mainstream System academics' as your counter-point, while also claiming to 'support' many other of David Icke's 'ideas', which have most probably at some point also been demolished by these same System 'academics' and dismissed as 'fringe' theories.

 

 

Virology is a complex subject that is based on facts.

The best people to call out misinformation on viruses are experts in their field.

David Icke normally doesn't deal in facts he deals in theories and abstract concepts and is therefore difficult to contradict with facts.

The only thing I disagree with David is his disappointing stance that "viruses do not exist" which has been totally debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Virology is a complex subject that is based on facts.

The best people to call out misinformation on viruses are experts in their field.

 Agreed.

 

So don't you find it  even mildly concerning that the only experts in this field allowed to spout their alleged  facts  are those promoting the mass murdering pharmeceutical industry narrative?

 

Cmon  Geoff.

 

The only person you are fooling around here is yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GeoffB said:

Virology is a complex subject that is based on facts.

The best people to call out misinformation on viruses are experts in their field.

David Icke normally doesn't deal in facts he deals in theories and abstract concepts and is therefore difficult to contradict with facts.

The only thing I disagree with David is his disappointing stance that "viruses do not exist" which has been totally debunked.

Virology is a useless, invasive, offensive, arrogant, and an ignorant occupation. Mental masterbation actually. Fantasy.

Do you believe this is "reality"? You "think"/BELIEVE they are studying "facts" and "reality". But the elephant in the room is....that's NOT true.

 

So, they're making shit up in line with the fraudulent nature of this "world".  It wouldn't matter much, if it wasn't for the diabolical treatment of children and other vulnerable life forms. THAT'S YOUR FUCKING "SCIENCE". Studying the matrix from the inside with ideas in line with the fraud and tools/instruments of "measurement" produced and endorsed by the thing you are studying( a counterfeit "reality').

 

Guess what?, those cells you're fucking with are ALIVE=Conscious.

 

That's why He said: " ...forgive them Father, they know not what they do..." and they still don't.

He also said; "...physician!...heal thyself...!".

 

let me guess, you think Christ was a fairy-tale...

 

Edited by novymir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GeoffB said:

A very quick internet search produces the ingredients.

"In general terms, cultured cells require a sterile environment and a supply of nutrients for growth. In addition, the culture environment should be stable in terms of pH and temperature. Over the last 60 years, various defined basal media types have been developed and are now available commercially. Originally, balanced salt solutions were used to maintain contractility of mammalian heart tissue and Tyrode’s salt solution was designed for use in work with primary mammalian cells. These founding formulations have since been modified and enriched with amino acids, vitamins, fatty acids and lipids so that modern culture media are suitable for supporting the growth of a wide range of cell types. The precise media formulations have often been derived by optimizing the concentrations of every constituent. Examples of the different media and their uses are given below:"

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/mammalian-cell-culture/the-cell-environment

 

I said virus sample, not cell culture.  A cell culture is what you start with.  You have to add stuff to that to culture virus.  That added stuff is not recorded as ingredients on the virus sample.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Yes they are.

And as they are in the experiment AND the control they have little effect on the result of the experiment which shows the cytopathic effects studied are from the virus NOT the medium.

They are not in the control.  The control is PBS, i.e. phosphate-buffered saline, as we have established.  If I didn't know better i'd say that you are engaged in deliberate con artistry here — maybe you should become a virologist/immunologist! 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MarcusOmouse said:

 Agreed.

 

So don't you find it  even mildly concerning that the only experts in this field allowed to spout their alleged  facts  are those promoting the mass murdering pharmeceutical industry narrative?

 

Cmon  Geoff.

 

The only person you are fooling around here is yourself.

Judy Mikovits, Mike Yeadon and Andrew Wakefield are 3 who come to mind who understand that viruses exist and are certainly NOT promoting the mass murdering pharmaceutical industry narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scowie said:

 

I said virus sample, not cell culture.  A cell culture is what you start with.  You have to add stuff to that to culture virus.  That added stuff is not recorded as ingredients on the virus sample.

Virus sample and cell culture are the same thing as a virus is only evident when attached to a cell.

The lab sends out the cell with the virus in a medium for the experiment.

The lab also sends out the mock control cell in exactly the same medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scowie said:

They are not in the control.  The control is PBS, i.e. phosphate-buffered saline, as we have established.  If I didn't know better i'd say that you are engaged in deliberate con artistry here — maybe you should become a virologist/immunologist! 😆

You're talking rubbish.

No-one has "established" anything of the sort.

The control ALWAYS uses the same ingredients other than the virus or it wouldn't be a control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

 

I would agree with you that I find characters like Dr Sam Bailey a bit suspicious, especially how she's been allowed to rise to some prominence, but then that is my own opinion, I don't know her personally and I don't regularly watch her videos. She can't be a very busy NZ GP if she has the time to regularly produce these videos for her channels.

 

But then again, you keep bringing up 'mainstream System academics' as your counter-point, while also claiming to 'support' many other of David Icke's 'ideas', which have most probably at some point also been demolished by these same System 'academics' and dismissed as 'fringe' theories.

 

 

Tellingly, he has yet to tell us what he agree with Icke on, despite claiming he agrees with 99percent of what he said and then turning around and disagreeing with all the people Icke agrees with. Of course, we have to be careful about controlled opposition, especially when they come WITH a pretty face. I have heard said that Carrie Madej is controlled opposition too. But in those situation i tend to ignore the messenger and look at the message. And certainly Bailey's message is that virus does not exist and the germ theory is a lie. This is something i most definitely subscribed to and have done so for a few years now. So it was not the Johnny come lately that convinced me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GeoffB said:

As far as ingredients in the medium for transporting and keeping cells alive then antibiotics and steroids in small doses are benign and have no effect on the result of the experiment and the mock infection control.

antibiotics and steroids are not benign. How the hell would antibiotics keep cells alive when it job is actually to kill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Science Delusion"

(Free Book)

 

The aim of this work is not to defend any specific religious doctrines or dogmas, but rather to offer a timely counterpart to the new wave of aggressive anti-religionism exemplified by Richard Dawkins’ ‘scientific’ critique of The God Delusion.

 

It does so by critically examining the supposed rationality of ‘science’ itself, showing that it is as much based on unquestioned assumptions and dogmatic beliefs – accepted entirely on faith – as the most ‘fundamentalist’ of religions.

 

The words ‘science’, ‘conscience’ and ‘consciousness’ all stem from the Latin scire – ‘to know’ - a verb whose root meaning is ‘to cut through’.

 

By ‘cutting through’ the countless common myths and delusions that make up our idea of ‘science’, as well as those that science itself fosters and is founded upon, I offer a ‘heretical’ challenge to the quasi-religious authority and almost totalitarian hegemony that the scientific world-view wields in todays globalised Western media and culture - a culture in which deference to ‘The Science’ has become as automatic as deference to ‘The Church’ used to be in medieval Europe.

 

In contrast to the sterile Eurocentric and Western debate between religionists and anti-religionists, religious ‘theists’ and secular or scientific ‘a-theists’, I argue also that God’s reality is not a question of the ‘existence’ or ‘non-existence’ of some sort of supreme being ‘with’ consciousness. Instead the essential reality of God is consciousness, a supreme or universal consciousness of the sort recognised in Indian philosophy - one that cannot be reduced to the property of any thing or being that comes to stand out or ‘ex-ist’ within it.

 

 Whatever your standpoint on God however, The Science Delusion raises two important questions:

(1) why is it politically and culturally acceptable to question the rationality of religious belief in the existence of an invisible God, a belief shared by both Newton and Einstein, but politically and culturally ‘incorrect’ to question - as did both Newton and Einstein - scientific belief in an invisible force called Gravity ?

 

(2) what are the new waves of religious fundamentalism a reaction to?  Is it that religious fundamentalists are just mad or bad, or are they just unconsciously reacting to the rise of a new religion – ‘science’?  For despite its global authority - and in the absence of anyone to play the role of ‘God’s Galileo’ - this is a religion whose own fundamentalist dogmas remain invisible and wholly unchallenged in ‘secular’ educational institutions - leaving large numbers of people to blindly accept what I call ‘The Science Delusion’. "...........

 

..........."

Myth 7:
Science rests on ‘empirical’ evidence.
Religion rests on dogmatic belief.

.(excerpt)....."The fact that a scientist writes a scientific paper that is read and understood by other scientists is no more proof – in science’s own terms - of the reality of the thoughts expressed in that paper than is a declaration of love, or a cry of pain proof that there is such a thing as ‘pain’ or ‘love’.

 

The truth that science dares not even consider is that whatever the ‘objective’ results of its experiments, spelled out in scientific papers, these remain just that - papers. The reality of the conscious mental activity and thoughts that generate their subject matter in the form of scientific hypotheses and theories, proven or unproven, remain, in the last analysis, objectively unproven and unverifiable.

 

Instead of being ‘objectively’ verified they are inter-subjectively validated – accepted in the consciousness, thoughts and minds of other scientists - who happen also to have the unprovable subjective experience of engaging in mental activity and coming up with ideas, theories and hypotheses. ".......

http://www.thenewyoga.org/science_delusion.htm#Preface

 

This could shed some light on David Icke's point of view.

(personally, I'm not into "religion" as such, I'm into Truth and Spirituality(Reality).

"Infinite Consciousness" =GOD.

Edited by novymir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Virus sample and cell culture are the same thing as a virus is only evident when attached to a cell.

The lab sends out the cell with the virus in a medium for the experiment.

The lab also sends out the mock control cell in exactly the same medium.

 

No one is sending out any "mock control cell".  In these cytopathic studies like the one you linked to back on page 29, there are 3 things required at the start:

A) Cultured cells which are to have either treatment or mock control substances added to them.

B) The virus sample obtained from some other laboratory.

C) A mock-infection substance used as a control, in this case phosphate-buffered saline (not from a lab!)

 

The study is then carried out by combining A + B (treatment) and A + C (control).

 

B does not contain PBS.  I just had another look at that article and it says...

Quote

Seed SARS-CoV-2 stocks and virus isolation studies were performed in Vero cells, which are maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin, and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2

 

...it doesn't mention the substances in the viral transport medium that are added to this but even still, it is clear that (B) and (C) contain completely different ingredients!

 

This makes it a bad control, and the same likely applies to every cytopathic study ever published relating to mythical viruses.

Edited by scowie
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.

×
×
  • Create New...