Dr. Tom Cowan Insists We Show Him Covid-19 |472|

That's the problem with "isolation" critera that these clowns perpetuate. Let's take what they like - toxins, poisons. How about hidrogen cyanide (HCN)? I am sure everybody knows about it. Let's take a glass of water and another glass of water that contains HCN. HCN is not pure, right? It has water with it, a lot of it. You can add some other stuff to that sollution too, so it is not "pure" by any means. If you try to "isolate" HCN by drying water to see what is there, you will not find HCN in the residue - it's volatile, trust me, it will evaporate. What Cowans do is equivalent to crying that see, it was not isolated, so it's not that "hypothetical" HCN thingy that all the eggheads say kills people.
You might well put a little of the solution into a gas chromatograph!

This isn't really a good analogy with the isolation of a virus. The problem as I understand it is that you have some body fluid or whatever with what seem to be virus particles present. The virus will contain RNA (in the case we are considering) but the only way to study the RNA is to break open the coat (sonically I think). After that point, if there was RNA from other sources still in the fluid, you can't determine which strands of RNA form part of the virus.

If you can establish a clean sample prior to opening the viral particles, then you can look for a short sequence of bases that seems to be unique to the virus, and make a PCR test out of it. However, if the sample isn't pure, you may create a probe that locks on to something else.

I agree that cleanliness can't really be treated as absolute, but I suspect you can get very close if you wash the viral particles with something that:

a) Can't break down or penetrate the viral protein coat
and
b) Can destroy any free RNA in the liquid.

However, unless the sample is free from other viruses, there still seems to be the possibility of confusion.

Like you, I have never worked on such problems, but I'll bet these experiments are not easy!

David
 
These unidentified viral infections presumably still circulate and may get misidentified as COVID. In the extreme case COVID might not exist at all.

They do. These viruses always have existed.

In 2018 my Sister-in-Law (the 63 year-old who recently had Covid) was in the hospital for two weeks and almost died from some type of virus. The doctors never identified it. She was unconscious for days. We began planning her funeral.

I molested every Doctor who visited her room to give us an explanation. They got angry and said loudly "Sir, we DON'T KNOW."

She's fine now. Yesterday she helped me dig a 3-foot hole in her yard to repair a burst water line.
 
Charlie doesn't pay any attention to anything we say, we may as well be typing up what we write in Zulu or Mandarin if we are writing for his benefit. I don't write for him. He already knows what he doesn't know. Charlie and other true believers know PCR better than Mullis. Note I point out Mullis and PCR to Charlie (I have done it at least twice or maybe more on this thread, others have too), and in his immediate reply he ignores all that and relies on a paper predicated on PCR testing. He also fails to note what I have pointed out on the likes of the CDC on whom he relies. As if they are objective and neutral here. As if they are interested in real science. He ignores everything we say, every single sentence, and blunders on blindly regardless.

Viberaider, the CDC know PCR better than its inventor, the gangster CDC has more credibility than Mullis (I am being facetious to those who don't get it), and Charlie P knows more about PCR than Mullis. Mullis the flat earther.
Striped Cat, as much as I appreciate the wealth of information you have patiently posted in this thread, I have to make one small correction here. I don't think you are being facetious, I think you are being sarcastic, and it's a sarcasm well deserved!

sar•casm
n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to express contempt or ridicule.

fa•ce•tious
adj. Playfully jocular; humorous.
 
I will just use ">" for quotes here. This will be a looooong one.

> Actually, I'm proud of my ignorance.

No one should be, imho.

> Unless we acknowledge ignorance, what we can learn becomes severely limited.

agreed. Acknowledging ignorance is commendable.

> And conjecture is the bedrock of science; in theory at least, it constantly makes conjectures and then sets out to test them, discarding or amending them as necessary.

True, but I am sure you know there is a very wide range of conjenctures. The one in the Myth is really weak, permiates the whole opus, and flies in the face of both facts and simple critical thought experiments.

> Whilst it's true that Cowan veers off a bit towards the end of the book,

He is deep in it from the very beginning and all the way through. If you don't see it, I doubt anybody can convince you otherwise.

> imho his central thesis, that viruses may not in and of themselves be infective agents, is an intriguing and plausible one,

That intrigued me too. You can believe it or not, but that's why I wasted a few hours on it.

> especially given the existence of exosomes which so closely resemble them. I don't know whether or not they are, but he's at least made me consider the idea.

Well, I guess you can give him credit there - making people aware of exosomes. There are much better ways to learn about them though

> 5g may or may not be pathogenic; I don't know that for sure either, but regardless, the notion that at least some bacteria and "viruses" (if that's what they can legitimately be called) may be utilised as part of our immune response to toxicity that has its origin in food and/or the environment isn't intrinsically ridiculous.

If I am not mistaken, it is already mainstream after the acceptance of benefits of gut bacteria. And it's not just in response to toxicity, mind you.

> We already know that human beings contain large numbers of bacteria that are important for gut health,

True. But if you put e-coli in the wrong part of the digestive tract (the upper part of it) it wreaks havoc. There's always this nuance: good for what, good for where. Cowan and Co forget about it and bend facts the way it fits them.

> and Gallo et al. in the paper mentioned earlier seem to take seriously the possibility that exosomes could be essential in immune responses, recommending further research with the aim of seeing whether they can't be utilised in combatting disease.

If you are talking about the PNAS paper that was mentioned here - yes, I agree (I read it). This does not make viruses or bacteria non-causal agents in disease, nor do the authors anywhere in that paper hint at that.

> So there's some evidence that bacteriologists and virologists may gradually be coming round to the idea that bacteria and things that resemble viruses aren't all infectious agents.

That's been so for decades, actually (I know, Cowan pretends it's otherwise using Pasteur as a strawman). Just think - why would people worry more about, say, anthrax bacteria than some other bacteria? Even though you do not believe I am scientist, some of my work actually involves suspended bio material. When there was the bioterrorism scare after 9/11, we tried to apply for funding to study its spread. You know the difference between weaponized and wild anthrax? It can be aerosolized. So how do you study dispersion and cervivability of anthrax, say in an indoor environment? There are benign species that are similar in shape, but you can work with them without having biosafety level 4 facility. Bacillus atrophaeus, for example. Not all "bugs" are dangerous and that's been known for ages.

As I see Cowan's and Co argument - it is nothing but a straw man. Let's take a criteria from a couple of centuries ago and demand that everybody now follows it. The funny part - he trashes the author of the criteria too.

> One thing I'm very sceptical about is that we've "isolated" viruses that putatively cause AIDS and COVID-19. "Isolated" means one thing in commonsense understanding, and another to people (unjustifiably in my view) convinced that scientists have actually extracted pure viruses and used such extracts to infect uninfected organisms.

That's the problem with "isolation" critera that these clowns perpetuate. Let's take what they like - toxins, poisons. How about hidrogen cyanide (HCN)? I am sure everybody knows about it. Let's take a glass of water and another glass of water that contains HCN. HCN is not pure, right? It has water with it, a lot of it. You can add some other stuff to that sollution too, so it is not "pure" by any means. If you try to "isolate" HCN by drying water to see what is there, you will not find HCN in the residue - it's volatile, trust me, it will evaporate. What Cowans do is equivalent to crying that see, it was not isolated, so it's not that "hypothetical" HCN thingy that all the eggheads say kills people.

And as to the talking heads on CNN and other prestitutes - what they are talking about generally has very little to do with science. You may or may not believe it, but I gave quite a few interviews (not to CNN though) - even if you are careful and chewing things up to make it digestible, there is always something in the result that you have not meant to say. This is not to say that all scientists are truthful, no.

> Alas, the papers I've seen are often so obfuscated by jargon that it's difficult to be sure what procedures were followed.

That PNAS paper is quite plain language and they clearly define the difference between viruses (including damaged ones) and exosomes.

> But there are quite a few qualified scientists who maintain that we haven't isolated viruses. Even the conventional scientists who ascribe to germ theory may say that their experiments haven't isolated the AIDS or COVID-19 viruses, especially when pressed for an opinion: or even when not, as when they include the explicit disclaimer in their papers.

That could be true. But that's true for other things, like diabetes seems to be one disease, but actually is a bouquet of things that go wrong. AIDS could be the same thing. I admit, I have not gone into it, I have only 24 h in a day.

> We do know that vaccines are potentially dangerous -- not least because they often contain adjuvants such as mercury and aluminium compounds.

I agree. "Live" or neutralized can also be dangerous if some of the viruses or bacteria survive and are still active. BTW, just as with poisons, the end result depends on the dose and the dose depends on the "territory", but even a perfectly healthy territory can be overcome if sufficiently potent agent is given in sufficiently large quantity. Do you know what I mean?

> Many probably don't know about these additives, but if you were to propose injecting people solely with such toxins sans the supposed active principle, they'd be up in arms. However, add it in, and they're miraculously supposed to enthusiastically embrace vaccines. The active principle, an allegedly killed or otherwise disabled pathogen, apparently not only cures the disease, but also renders inoperative the toxic brew in which it is delivered.

But that's a different story from whether or not viruses/bacteria actually exist. Believe it or not, I stopped taking flu vaccines (not sure how long I will be allowed to do that), because I do not think the risks outway the gains, especially that quite often they mispredict the strain.

> Louis Pasteur, that great hero of Western medicine, allegedly fudged his findings, and there have been a number of officially acknowledged incidents with vaccines that caused more problems than the diseases they were supposed to cure.

See above.

> There's one great overriding problem in science, especially prevalent latterly: the tendency to accept theoretical postulates prematurely, and build on them immense edifices of dogma that one questions at one's peril. At which point, science becomes ossified and inflexible, a kind of religious faith.

Fully agree, however I am not sure about the "especially prevalent" part. I think it's been like that since forever. Now it is exacerbated by $$$, but even back in alchemy days the great brains were BSing their sponsors that they can make gold out of lead (well they probably meant not the physical substances, but I am pretty sure kings who payed them thought that way)

> We're seeing it all over the place -- from cosmology to psi research, Darwinism to nuritional science, and now, germ theory, which may be only partially correct. I never really questioned it before, but that's what I'm entertaining after reading Cowan's book.

That's what really perplexes me: you really don't see problems with Cowan's book? He's lying for crying out loud. 88 countries, if I remember correctly, had G5 by April 2019, but the effect was sooo slow I guess. G4, G3, radars - none gone away, and yet epidemics have a clearly isolated time signature. Can't you see through his BS?

> As to his assertions about 5g and his taking seriously the concept of biogeometry, well, I offer no opinion. As others have said, discussing such things tends to leave him open to ridicule regardless of whether they might have merit.

Rightly so, as he has no merit, see above

> But the rest of his argument seems to me, as I keep on saying, at least plausible. In other words, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I keep an open mind, because I know I know less than I may sometimes kid myself I know.

I don't think his argument is anywhere near being plausible, I gave plenty of reasons. What are your reasons that there is a baby in that bathwater?

> Alex uses the phrase "inquiry to perpetuate doubt". I think it's a good phrase, because when all doubt disappears, one presumably claims to know everything about a given topic. Which is an enormous claim, entirely antithetical to the true scientific spirit.

I like it too. Apply it to Cowan's work and see what happens. He is a complete fraud and I gave you reasons why.

> How certain is any of us that germ theory is completely correct? Personally, I don't think the probability is 100%. At the moment, I'm hovering around 50%. Maybe parts of it are correct and parts aren't.

Awesome. I personally would put it pretty close to 100%, with some nuances remaining.

> Maybe some bacteria are infectious, as may be some particles we label "viruses", but the rest act in ways that help us. One sticking point is the fact that no "viral" agent appears to have been demonstrated to satisfy Koch's or Rivers' postulates.

See above. What I have seen makes sense if you apply some logic: you add a mix of something that contains A,B,C,..., then you have a control that does not have A, see what happens. If the one with A caused problems, then it probably has something to do with it. If you also see that A increased in concentration after administering it - it probably is infectios, not just poisonous. You don't need to isolate it.

There could be of course sinergetic effects, but still, in most cases there is one main factor. For example, formaldehyde is toxic in itself, but much more toxic for those who smoke. Still, formaldehyde is the main causative agent in damage attributed to it.

> It's always hazy, and we may tend to mistake surrogate markers, such as PCR employs, for viruses. In other words, we may be mistaking correlation for causation. To me, that's distinctly possible.

PCR is a different story. It is being (I suspect on purpose) misused (by not scientist, but the medical profession that follows guidelines dropped on them) with the number of cycles, to "show" that immunity does not last (see, the antibodies are decreasing! when it is not about antibodies, but T-cells), etc., etc. That PNAS paper does not doubt that viruses exist, but that they could be difficult to distinguish from exosomes. The fact that viruses take chucks of host DNA was known since at least mid 80s. They leave some of their own too.

Exosomes actually make the origin of viruses probable. Suppose some of those native exosomes escaped their original organism and happened to be somehow compatible with another species such that they can introduce their genetic material into a new host. Plausible? I would think so. Now imagine that some of them had some machinery to reproduce whatever they brought with them without negative control mechanisms and there you go, you have what conventionally is called a virus. Plausible? Def more plausible than 5G or a comet passing by.

> Alex has asked more than once the question: "do you think there's a covid-19 virus? y/n/m". Taking "m" as meaning "maybe", I'm wondering why he's asking it -- maybe it's a "when did you stop beating the wife?" type of question, an attempt to force people into boxes. Whatever, imho it would have been better if he'd said "y/n/dn", where "dn" signifies "don't know", which is my position. I have a strong suspicion there may not be a COVID-19 virus, to be sure, but I don't know. I've seen no convincing evidence it does, surrogate evidence having been taken as proof positive in lieu of actual isolation followed by actual infection and reinfection. This seems circumstantial to me.

Yes, a conjecture, but much stronger than a comet, would you agree?

> Such doubt as I have could be dispelled if there was some paper I could understand (or was rendered understandable to me), that incontrovertibly demonstrated that Koch's or even Rivers' postulates had been followed. But to my knowledge, none ever has. If it had, why then would there be all the controversy about HIV causing AIDS or SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19? One incontrovertible paper for each would suffice, and yet if there is one, I've yet to see it cited.

See above re postulates. Should we demand that all quantum phenomena be treated strictly within an outdated classical mechanics paradigm? Even if the quantum theory is wrong, it makes things tick - we would not be able to communicate now without all those semiconductors, you know. This is why a couple of posts back I brought up the pragmatic/utilitarian aspect of science. Even if a theory is wrong, if it makes things easier to interpret, predict, design useful things, etc, - that's all one needs, at least for a time being.

Re controversies: Cowan claims germ theory is wrong. I think I have shown that he is full of shit. His main claims and alternative ideas also do not stand even simple critical inquiry. Do you think he helps to motivate people to address your questions re HIV and COVID? He actually does an enormous damage to your cause. Do you think there are a lot of people like me who what to spend hours uncovering this idiocy? I am actually thinking this will be my last post in this topic.

> All the papers seem to use surrogate markers instead of the thing itself. Why should that be if it's possible to isolate, extract and infect/reinfect with pure viruses?

See above. You admit it could be difficult due to exosomes, but also due to other practical reasons. The paper in the Isolation writeup actually does a decent job showing, by deduction, that those particles were likely the covid virus. You do not need something in pure form to show it works (remember that HCN example?).

> Why doesn't the scientific establishment step in and perform an experimentum crucis and have done with it? I can only conclude it's because it's currently technically unfeasible. Hence, inevitably, there's inbuilt room for doubt. At least to some degree, people who have no doubt seem to me to lack imagination, to have a touching faith in human nature and how scientists are totally objective and hence immune to subversive influences.

Not just feasible, but it could be not that high on the priority list. Plus, yes, because it is a hot topic, there will be plenty of "ambulance chasers" and thus plenty of questionable papers. But it is not that the scientific community is that brain dead or corrupt to question 100% of its output.

Imagination, yes. I actually also listen to Greg Carlwood's THC. Quite a few of his guests have such an "open" mind, oh my. But yes I find it entertaining and stimulating imagination, yes. Still, one should not forget about taking everything critically, even the stuff that contradicts the big man.
I will just use ">" for quotes here. This will be a looooong one.

> Actually, I'm proud of my ignorance.

No one should be, imho.

> Unless we acknowledge ignorance, what we can learn becomes severely limited.

agreed. Acknowledging ignorance is commendable.

> And conjecture is the bedrock of science; in theory at least, it constantly makes conjectures and then sets out to test them, discarding or amending them as necessary.

True, but I am sure you know there is a very wide range of conjenctures. The one in the Myth is really weak, permiates the whole opus, and flies in the face of both facts and simple critical thought experiments.

> Whilst it's true that Cowan veers off a bit towards the end of the book,

He is deep in it from the very beginning and all the way through. If you don't see it, I doubt anybody can convince you otherwise.

> imho his central thesis, that viruses may not in and of themselves be infective agents, is an intriguing and plausible one,

That intrigued me too. You can believe it or not, but that's why I wasted a few hours on it.

> especially given the existence of exosomes which so closely resemble them. I don't know whether or not they are, but he's at least made me consider the idea.

Well, I guess you can give him credit there - making people aware of exosomes. There are much better ways to learn about them though

> 5g may or may not be pathogenic; I don't know that for sure either, but regardless, the notion that at least some bacteria and "viruses" (if that's what they can legitimately be called) may be utilised as part of our immune response to toxicity that has its origin in food and/or the environment isn't intrinsically ridiculous.

If I am not mistaken, it is already mainstream after the acceptance of benefits of gut bacteria. And it's not just in response to toxicity, mind you.

> We already know that human beings contain large numbers of bacteria that are important for gut health,

True. But if you put e-coli in the wrong part of the digestive tract (the upper part of it) it wreaks havoc. There's always this nuance: good for what, good for where. Cowan and Co forget about it and bend facts the way it fits them.

> and Gallo et al. in the paper mentioned earlier seem to take seriously the possibility that exosomes could be essential in immune responses, recommending further research with the aim of seeing whether they can't be utilised in combatting disease.

If you are talking about the PNAS paper that was mentioned here - yes, I agree (I read it). This does not make viruses or bacteria non-causal agents in disease, nor do the authors anywhere in that paper hint at that.

> So there's some evidence that bacteriologists and virologists may gradually be coming round to the idea that bacteria and things that resemble viruses aren't all infectious agents.

That's been so for decades, actually (I know, Cowan pretends it's otherwise using Pasteur as a strawman). Just think - why would people worry more about, say, anthrax bacteria than some other bacteria? Even though you do not believe I am scientist, some of my work actually involves suspended bio material. When there was the bioterrorism scare after 9/11, we tried to apply for funding to study its spread. You know the difference between weaponized and wild anthrax? It can be aerosolized. So how do you study dispersion and cervivability of anthrax, say in an indoor environment? There are benign species that are similar in shape, but you can work with them without having biosafety level 4 facility. Bacillus atrophaeus, for example. Not all "bugs" are dangerous and that's been known for ages.

As I see Cowan's and Co argument - it is nothing but a straw man. Let's take a criteria from a couple of centuries ago and demand that everybody now follows it. The funny part - he trashes the author of the criteria too.

> One thing I'm very sceptical about is that we've "isolated" viruses that putatively cause AIDS and COVID-19. "Isolated" means one thing in commonsense understanding, and another to people (unjustifiably in my view) convinced that scientists have actually extracted pure viruses and used such extracts to infect uninfected organisms.

That's the problem with "isolation" critera that these clowns perpetuate. Let's take what they like - toxins, poisons. How about hidrogen cyanide (HCN)? I am sure everybody knows about it. Let's take a glass of water and another glass of water that contains HCN. HCN is not pure, right? It has water with it, a lot of it. You can add some other stuff to that sollution too, so it is not "pure" by any means. If you try to "isolate" HCN by drying water to see what is there, you will not find HCN in the residue - it's volatile, trust me, it will evaporate. What Cowans do is equivalent to crying that see, it was not isolated, so it's not that "hypothetical" HCN thingy that all the eggheads say kills people.

And as to the talking heads on CNN and other prestitutes - what they are talking about generally has very little to do with science. You may or may not believe it, but I gave quite a few interviews (not to CNN though) - even if you are careful and chewing things up to make it digestible, there is always something in the result that you have not meant to say. This is not to say that all scientists are truthful, no.

> Alas, the papers I've seen are often so obfuscated by jargon that it's difficult to be sure what procedures were followed.

That PNAS paper is quite plain language and they clearly define the difference between viruses (including damaged ones) and exosomes.

> But there are quite a few qualified scientists who maintain that we haven't isolated viruses. Even the conventional scientists who ascribe to germ theory may say that their experiments haven't isolated the AIDS or COVID-19 viruses, especially when pressed for an opinion: or even when not, as when they include the explicit disclaimer in their papers.

That could be true. But that's true for other things, like diabetes seems to be one disease, but actually is a bouquet of things that go wrong. AIDS could be the same thing. I admit, I have not gone into it, I have only 24 h in a day.

> We do know that vaccines are potentially dangerous -- not least because they often contain adjuvants such as mercury and aluminium compounds.

I agree. "Live" or neutralized can also be dangerous if some of the viruses or bacteria survive and are still active. BTW, just as with poisons, the end result depends on the dose and the dose depends on the "territory", but even a perfectly healthy territory can be overcome if sufficiently potent agent is given in sufficiently large quantity. Do you know what I mean?

> Many probably don't know about these additives, but if you were to propose injecting people solely with such toxins sans the supposed active principle, they'd be up in arms. However, add it in, and they're miraculously supposed to enthusiastically embrace vaccines. The active principle, an allegedly killed or otherwise disabled pathogen, apparently not only cures the disease, but also renders inoperative the toxic brew in which it is delivered.

But that's a different story from whether or not viruses/bacteria actually exist. Believe it or not, I stopped taking flu vaccines (not sure how long I will be allowed to do that), because I do not think the risks outway the gains, especially that quite often they mispredict the strain.

> Louis Pasteur, that great hero of Western medicine, allegedly fudged his findings, and there have been a number of officially acknowledged incidents with vaccines that caused more problems than the diseases they were supposed to cure.

See above.

> There's one great overriding problem in science, especially prevalent latterly: the tendency to accept theoretical postulates prematurely, and build on them immense edifices of dogma that one questions at one's peril. At which point, science becomes ossified and inflexible, a kind of religious faith.

Fully agree, however I am not sure about the "especially prevalent" part. I think it's been like that since forever. Now it is exacerbated by $$$, but even back in alchemy days the great brains were BSing their sponsors that they can make gold out of lead (well they probably meant not the physical substances, but I am pretty sure kings who payed them thought that way)

> We're seeing it all over the place -- from cosmology to psi research, Darwinism to nuritional science, and now, germ theory, which may be only partially correct. I never really questioned it before, but that's what I'm entertaining after reading Cowan's book.

That's what really perplexes me: you really don't see problems with Cowan's book? He's lying for crying out loud. 88 countries, if I remember correctly, had G5 by April 2019, but the effect was sooo slow I guess. G4, G3, radars - none gone away, and yet epidemics have a clearly isolated time signature. Can't you see through his BS?

> As to his assertions about 5g and his taking seriously the concept of biogeometry, well, I offer no opinion. As others have said, discussing such things tends to leave him open to ridicule regardless of whether they might have merit.

Rightly so, as he has no merit, see above

> But the rest of his argument seems to me, as I keep on saying, at least plausible. In other words, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I keep an open mind, because I know I know less than I may sometimes kid myself I know.

I don't think his argument is anywhere near being plausible, I gave plenty of reasons. What are your reasons that there is a baby in that bathwater?

> Alex uses the phrase "inquiry to perpetuate doubt". I think it's a good phrase, because when all doubt disappears, one presumably claims to know everything about a given topic. Which is an enormous claim, entirely antithetical to the true scientific spirit.

I like it too. Apply it to Cowan's work and see what happens. He is a complete fraud and I gave you reasons why.

> How certain is any of us that germ theory is completely correct? Personally, I don't think the probability is 100%. At the moment, I'm hovering around 50%. Maybe parts of it are correct and parts aren't.

Awesome. I personally would put it pretty close to 100%, with some nuances remaining.

> Maybe some bacteria are infectious, as may be some particles we label "viruses", but the rest act in ways that help us. One sticking point is the fact that no "viral" agent appears to have been demonstrated to satisfy Koch's or Rivers' postulates.

See above. What I have seen makes sense if you apply some logic: you add a mix of something that contains A,B,C,..., then you have a control that does not have A, see what happens. If the one with A caused problems, then it probably has something to do with it. If you also see that A increased in concentration after administering it - it probably is infectios, not just poisonous. You don't need to isolate it.

There could be of course sinergetic effects, but still, in most cases there is one main factor. For example, formaldehyde is toxic in itself, but much more toxic for those who smoke. Still, formaldehyde is the main causative agent in damage attributed to it.

> It's always hazy, and we may tend to mistake surrogate markers, such as PCR employs, for viruses. In other words, we may be mistaking correlation for causation. To me, that's distinctly possible.

PCR is a different story. It is being (I suspect on purpose) misused (by not scientist, but the medical profession that follows guidelines dropped on them) with the number of cycles, to "show" that immunity does not last (see, the antibodies are decreasing! when it is not about antibodies, but T-cells), etc., etc. That PNAS paper does not doubt that viruses exist, but that they could be difficult to distinguish from exosomes. The fact that viruses take chucks of host DNA was known since at least mid 80s. They leave some of their own too.

Exosomes actually make the origin of viruses probable. Suppose some of those native exosomes escaped their original organism and happened to be somehow compatible with another species such that they can introduce their genetic material into a new host. Plausible? I would think so. Now imagine that some of them had some machinery to reproduce whatever they brought with them without negative control mechanisms and there you go, you have what conventionally is called a virus. Plausible? Def more plausible than 5G or a comet passing by.

> Alex has asked more than once the question: "do you think there's a covid-19 virus? y/n/m". Taking "m" as meaning "maybe", I'm wondering why he's asking it -- maybe it's a "when did you stop beating the wife?" type of question, an attempt to force people into boxes. Whatever, imho it would have been better if he'd said "y/n/dn", where "dn" signifies "don't know", which is my position. I have a strong suspicion there may not be a COVID-19 virus, to be sure, but I don't know. I've seen no convincing evidence it does, surrogate evidence having been taken as proof positive in lieu of actual isolation followed by actual infection and reinfection. This seems circumstantial to me.

Yes, a conjecture, but much stronger than a comet, would you agree?

> Such doubt as I have could be dispelled if there was some paper I could understand (or was rendered understandable to me), that incontrovertibly demonstrated that Koch's or even Rivers' postulates had been followed. But to my knowledge, none ever has. If it had, why then would there be all the controversy about HIV causing AIDS or SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19? One incontrovertible paper for each would suffice, and yet if there is one, I've yet to see it cited.

See above re postulates. Should we demand that all quantum phenomena be treated strictly within an outdated classical mechanics paradigm? Even if the quantum theory is wrong, it makes things tick - we would not be able to communicate now without all those semiconductors, you know. This is why a couple of posts back I brought up the pragmatic/utilitarian aspect of science. Even if a theory is wrong, if it makes things easier to interpret, predict, design useful things, etc, - that's all one needs, at least for a time being.

Re controversies: Cowan claims germ theory is wrong. I think I have shown that he is full of shit. His main claims and alternative ideas also do not stand even simple critical inquiry. Do you think he helps to motivate people to address your questions re HIV and COVID? He actually does an enormous damage to your cause. Do you think there are a lot of people like me who what to spend hours uncovering this idiocy? I am actually thinking this will be my last post in this topic.

> All the papers seem to use surrogate markers instead of the thing itself. Why should that be if it's possible to isolate, extract and infect/reinfect with pure viruses?

See above. You admit it could be difficult due to exosomes, but also due to other practical reasons. The paper in the Isolation writeup actually does a decent job showing, by deduction, that those particles were likely the covid virus. You do not need something in pure form to show it works (remember that HCN example?).

> Why doesn't the scientific establishment step in and perform an experimentum crucis and have done with it? I can only conclude it's because it's currently technically unfeasible. Hence, inevitably, there's inbuilt room for doubt. At least to some degree, people who have no doubt seem to me to lack imagination, to have a touching faith in human nature and how scientists are totally objective and hence immune to subversive influences.

Not just feasible, but it could be not that high on the priority list. Plus, yes, because it is a hot topic, there will be plenty of "ambulance chasers" and thus plenty of questionable papers. But it is not that the scientific community is that brain dead or corrupt to question 100% of its output.

Imagination, yes. I actually also listen to Greg Carlwood's THC. Quite a few of his guests have such an "open" mind, oh my. But yes I find it entertaining and stimulating imagination, yes. Still, one should not forget about taking everything critically, even the stuff that contradicts the big man.

Dear God, I hope it really is your last post on this topic. You’re really good at writing in sophisticated language, and you make a lot of good points re: Dr Cowan. But, I still don’t get how you think that you (or “scientists”) have proven that Germ theory is true (outside of laboratory animals being poisoned) and terrain theory isn’t. Have you heard of Dr Harold Hillman? A Biologist who realized that what they are doing in laboratories is basically useless because they are only studying dead cells? I still don’t get how you think that what they are doing in their mad science experiments with fetal bovine serum and monkey kidneys is getting to the fundamental causes of disease; Malnutrition, environmental toxins, stress, fatigue. They are very good at describing cell death and reversing the flow of events. Do all their big words and vivisection ceremonies somehow actually convince you of microscopic monsters that are only vanquished by their mighty chemicals?
 
Last edited:
You say - how come antibiotics work? Firstly antibiotics don't work against 'viruses', they are prescribed to fight bacterial infections. Nobody is disputing the reality of bacteria, or their role in disease (see what I write above somewhere). It's just that their role is associative not causative. So antibiotics work because they clear up the bacteria, which yes are involved in bacterial infections, otherwise no bacterial infections. However the bacteria are not the root cause as I say, but antibiotics are still going to be effective and are effective (when they are effective! See below), because bacteria are the surface problem that the antibiotics clean up.

Yes, I know antibiotics don't work on viruses. The problem is, not Cowan, nor you yet presented any proof that your theory has any merit or can stand against well-established facts.

What you say about the role of microbes is demonstrably false. Not all infections are opportunistic as you seem to suggest. Yes, environmental factors are important, but more often than not a "bug" is stronger than any "territory". Why did they bother weaponizing anthrax if it would not work without some primary chemical agent (you need a toxin or mechanical trauma in your world, no?) to prepare the territory so to speak? What about cutaneous anthrax? Talk to any microbiologist who works in a lab and ask how easy it is to contaminate / infect a cell culture. Do you think they use laminar flow hoods with UV that cost several thousand $$ just for fun? And yes, UV can produce scary radicals and yet that's the only way to keep cell cultures safe, despite those scaaary radicals.

Even without going that far, do you think someone's "territory" changes as soon as "opportunistic" bugs go away and one stops taking antibiotics? I know a lot about environmental contaminants, and I am sorry to inform you that they don't change with someone's prescriptions.

> You are a climate scientist and/or similar. So what? Your knowledge of things outside your speciality that you have not even looked into properly is that of any other layman's, who has likewise not looked into this controversy in any meaningful way. And it shows. ...

Wrong. I actually studied to become a biochemist, but then switched fields, that's one. Second, in work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols, among other things. I told you that I can detect BS when it is there, such as in climate science. But unlike you, I have skills to separate valid things from BS. I asked quite a few questions and all I hear back is the same nonsense. Your argument about antibiotics is loughable, see above. And I have not seen anything better in any of your posts so far and I am afraid that's symptomatic.
 
Dear God, I hope it really is your last post on this topic. You’re really good at writing in sophisticated language, and you make a lot of good points re: Dr Cowan. But, I still don’t get how you think that you (or “scientists”) have proven that Germ theory is true (outside of laboratory animals being poisoned) and terrain theory isn’t. Have you heard of Dr Hillman? A Biologist who realized that what they are doing in laboratories is basically useless because they are only studying dead cells? I still don’t get how you think that what they are doing in their mad science experiments with fetal bovine serum and monkey kidneys is getting to the fundamental causes of disease; Malnutrition, environmental toxins, stress, fatigue. They are very good at describing cell death and reversing the flow of events. Do all their big words and vivisection ceremonies somehow actually convince you of microscopic monsters that are only vanquished by their mighty chemicals?

Sorry, as you can see, it was not my last post. You say they study only dead cells? Those that somehow multiply? Are you really that gullible? I don't know where you are, but in the US universities host open door outreach events. Please find one and ask them to show you cell cultures. I've seen them myself.
 
Yes, I know antibiotics don't work on viruses. The problem is, not Cowan, nor you yet presented any proof that your theory has any merit or can stand against well-established facts.

What you say about the role of microbes is demonstrably false. Not all infections are opportunistic as you seem to suggest. Yes, environmental factors are important, but more often than not a "bug" is stronger than any "territory". Why did they bother weaponizing anthrax if it would not work without some primary chemical agent (you need a toxin or mechanical trauma in your world, no?) to prepare the territory so to speak? What about cutaneous anthrax? Talk to any microbiologist who works in a lab and ask how easy it is to contaminate / infect a cell culture. Do you think they use laminar flow hoods with UV that cost several thousand $$ just for fun? And yes, UV can produce scary radicals and yet that's the only way to keep cell cultures safe, despite those scaaary radicals.

Even without going that far, do you think someone's "territory" changes as soon as "opportunistic" bugs go away and one stops taking antibiotics? I know a lot about environmental contaminants, and I am sorry to inform you that they don't change with someone's prescriptions.

> You are a climate scientist and/or similar. So what? Your knowledge of things outside your speciality that you have not even looked into properly is that of any other layman's, who has likewise not looked into this controversy in any meaningful way. And it shows. ...

Wrong. I actually studied to become a biochemist, but then switched fields, that's one. Second, in work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols, among other things. I told you that I can detect BS when it is there, such as in climate science. But unlike you, I have skills to separate valid things from BS. I asked quite a few questions and all I hear back is the same nonsense. Your argument about antibiotics is loughable, see above. And I have not seen anything better in any of your posts so far and I am afraid that's symptomatic.[/
Sorry, as you can see, it was not my last post. You say they study only dead cells? Those that somehow multiply? Are you really that gullible? I don't know where you are, but in the US universities host open door outreach events. Please find one and ask them to show you cell cultures. I've seen them myself.
Sorry, as you can see, it was not my last post. You say they study only dead cells? Those that somehow multiply? Are you really that gullible? I don't know where you are, but in the US universities host open door outreach events. Please find one and ask them to show you cell cultures. I've seen them myself.
http://pro-decizii-informate.ro/wp-...-the-21st-century-is-in-dire-straits-2011.pdf

Let him explain it. I’m a colloquial Brooklyn English speaker. Cells not attached to living creatures are dead to me.
 
You might well put a little of the solution into a gas chromatograph!

This isn't really a good analogy with the isolation of a virus. The problem as I understand it is that you have some body fluid or whatever with what seem to be virus particles present. The virus will contain RNA (in the case we are considering) but the only way to study the RNA is to break open the coat (sonically I think). After that point, if there was RNA from other sources still in the fluid, you can't determine which strands of RNA form part of the virus.

If you can establish a clean sample prior to opening the viral particles, then you can look for a short sequence of bases that seems to be unique to the virus, and make a PCR test out of it. However, if the sample isn't pure, you may create a probe that locks on to something else.

I agree that cleanliness can't really be treated as absolute, but I suspect you can get very close if you wash the viral particles with something that:

a) Can't break down or penetrate the viral protein coat
and
b) Can destroy any free RNA in the liquid.

However, unless the sample is free from other viruses, there still seems to be the possibility of confusion.

Like you, I have never worked on such problems, but I'll bet these experiments are not easy!

David

Most GC don't like water, but you can use a special column or easier collect and inject the headspace above the solution, yes. It was not a very good example, but that's what the anti-virus argument essentially is.

If I am not mistaken, there were already papers with the covid virus sequences, so somebody has done it. Please note, those sequences are likely different from anything in the human genome, they screen for that. There were questions about the chinese reports, but that was not about whether those sequence were of parts of human DNA, it was that they incerted some other parts of sequence to upfuscate any links to their bioweapons lab (still puzzles me, why would anybody waste billions on something that is not causative, right?). If you have papers (not from the likes of Cowan) questioning whether or not those were purely human DNA transcripts, please point to them.
 
GeoDoorn to me; "Wrong. I actually studied to become a biochemist, but then switched fields, that's one. Second, in work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols, among other things. I told you that I can detect BS when it is there, such as in climate science. But unlike you, I have skills to separate valid things from BS. I asked quite a few questions and all I hear back is the same nonsense. Your argument about antibiotics is loughable, see above. And I have not seen anything better in any of your posts so far and I am afraid that's symptomatic."

You have not really addressed what I am talking about. And my commentary on antibiotics and bacteria is hardly laughable, it's not even that controversial (among the naturopathic school at least, unlike radical virus dissent. And on bacterial resistance to antibiotics not at all). You just bluff and just do not really understand what I write, because it goes against everything you have been taught. We are going along 2 different tracks and there is no common meeting ground really. You objected earlier, why do antibiotics work? You ignored the meaning of successful bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the literature on this topic alone is huge and goes back more than 6 decades (the terrain btw would include the mind-body system of the patient. But you won't know what I am getting at here). You don't get what the naturopathic school means by environment/terrain, as a whole. Obviously bacteria are still a big part of the problem with infections/bacterial diseases (being ASSOCIATIVE with the disease), hence the antibiotic treatments, I never denied that. I can keep repeating the point, but I think I expressed it well enough earlier. You didn't get the point I was making. So it's a waste of time arguing really. Albeit I appreciate your comments. You are trained to see it differently, so that's how it is.

You don't acknowledge bacterial resistance to antibiotics in any serious way and how this has been a big big problem in medicine, never mind the side-effects of antibiotics in patients which are often severe, in your postings. I cited Dubos, one of the great fathers of antibiotic research; so according to your uh logic, you imply that Dubos's later notions on antibiotics and their use in the war against bacterial infections/disease were laughable too (even as they were based on years of experience and research. Once again Dubos is one of the giant names in antibiotic breakthroughs). I realize you didn't get the point I was making (the point about bacteria and the terrain, it's more complex than you think). This is why you cannot get AIDS dissent or SARS-CoV-2 dissent, and why you clearly don't want to know. You don't get the meaning of antibiotic resistance by bacteria (you don't even acknowledge it in in your first knee-jerk commentary on antibiotics), the med profession is treating the surface issue... Yes it is necessary to treat the surface issue, of course, but it's still the surface, associative issue. It is not the underlying causative issue, even though GeoDoorn and others don't get what I am saying here.

You bring up anthrax, but how does anthrax thrive in nature? Sure we can and do culture the bacterium here. And various chemicals, UV, can destroy or reduce the virulence/multiplication of anthrax, and it can be modified artificially to be more virulent. So? UV has an effect on anthrax bacteria, yes. So? And antibiotics are prescribed to combat various bacterial ailments. So? The latter objection of yours follows the same kind of pattern as your UV and anthrax one. You are in both cases looking at the surface issue. It's part of your education. Not denying any of this, nobody does, but the anthrax bacteria are being cultured in a hospitable environment (to them), artificially. That is in culture, in vitro. By lab scientists. The bacteria are still dependent on the right artificially engineered environment to thrive and multiply (and nobody is denying how dangerous these bacteria are). A man-made environment is still an environment. An in vitro culture is still an environment. The cultured bacteria cannot exist without that just-so-right in vitro culture, the necessary nutrients, temperature, other factors. It's an environment. Even if a man-made one. Important to stress: how does anthrax thrive in nature? Your comments on anthrax tell me you don't get what the naturopathic school is saying here, you have to read their literature.

You studied biochemistry. So what? The Gangster Med Profession currently destroying the world with this covid mania (when not poisoning children with vaccines and killing people the world over with AIDS drugs, and so much more iatrogenic disasters) is made up of professionals with backgrounds in biochemistry, immunology, virology, plain med degrees etc. You know nothing of gangster medicine, and nothing of the dubious claims of virology (including blunders admitted by the orthodoxy, such as the discredited notion that retroviruses cause certain rare leukemias) and you don't appear to want to know. But hey one day maybe you will be more open minded here. I hope so.

Going by your condescending dismissal, typical, one would have no idea what I actually wrote, on HIV/AIDS, COVID-19 etc. And why the establishment here can't possibly admit to blundering. You can't even bother to check what AIDS dissidents and SARS-CoV-2 dissidents are saying in their own words. And what about the polio scandal? You don't know and you don't want to know. I give the links, the names, but you are not interested. So if you don't care for what they say, just dismiss it out of hand even as you have no idea what they are saying, it goes against your conditioning, why would anything I write here make a difference? GeoDoorn writes: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That's not a scientific point btw. It's just argument from personal conviction. And personal ego. There is no substance to it. It doesn't refute Perth Group, Lanka etc. on virus isolation issues etc. It's not even an attempt at a remotely fact sourced argument, at high-minded rhetoric, never mind a refutation. It's just ego bloviating. It's the mo of every blowhard. I know you are not a blowhard GeoDoorn, but that kind of argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.

Obviously everything I could write here, even if I wrote a book here, wouldn't make a difference. I mean the far more detailed and technical expositions of the likes of the Perth Group, Lanka, Kauffman mean nothing to you, you don't appear to want to know what they are saying. You don't refute them because you don't even know what they are saying. Making a lame charge of BS - as you do - is not remotely good enough. And I don't think you would necessarily get what they are saying, because you don't really get the points I make on bacteria and terrain. You don't know what the radical naturopathic school means by terrain in toto, you haven't perused their literature here. It goes against your own education, your training. I know. You need to decondition! You need to read the naturopathic and virus dissident literature! So a far less detailed and nitty-gritty argument that I would make here re viruses - never mind the reality of the HIV, corona testing fraud - likewise is just going to see you dismiss it, without getting to grips with it. You've already done so. Obviously it doesn't matter what I write here, or who I cite, you are going to say what you say. It's all nonsense to you and your kind! No matter what. You imply that Dubos was full of BS, that his writings re bacteria, antibiotics, disease are laughable. It's implicit in your ranting directed my way. Now that is truly laughable. You tell me you don't have the time to look into things deeper (a few days back now this is what you wrote), but you have the time to rant here on this forum.

Kary Mullis dismissing Quantitive PCR as a diagnostic tool for testing for viruses (their nucleotide sequences), he called it an "oxymoron", and much of the testing worldwide for SARS-CoV-2 is PCR testing, including in the USA, means nothing to you. And your deeply conditioned kind. Mullis was a full-on AIDS dissident btw. But yeah he was the idiot who was full of BS, GeoDoorn knows better. Perth Group literature on HIV means nothing to you. You tell us you don't have the time to dig deep, but you have written several postings here in this now lengthy back-and-forth.

Likewise you can't get to grips with what Kauffman, Cowan, Frei, Lanka, Alexov, Kohnlein are actually saying about SARS-CoV-2, wouldn't have a clue going by GeoDoorn's commentary. Namely their responses to the numerous labs around the world claiming SARS-CoV-2 isolation, you don't know what the former are *actually* saying, and you don't appear to want to know.

I have asked these questions, got no answer from you: What are AIDS dissidents saying in their own words in toto about gay AIDS ALONE? I have made this challenge, never got a response from you. And the others on your side. Charlie P inadvertently mentions a few things (such as poppers), but still doesn't remotely get to grips with what AIDS dissidents (and the NIH's own activity here in the early days of the GRID pandemic, which is very revealing) are saying re gay AIDS in toto. So when you don't get to grips with what they are saying, on gay AIDS ALONE, because you don't want to know, nothing I write will make a difference to you and your ilk neither. On HIV/AIDS, SARS-CoV-2 alone, never mind the philosophy of naturopathic medicine, you don't lend a sympathetic ear. I'm not writing this for those whose minds are already closed on these issues.

Here's another challenge: how many people are killed by the med profession every year in the USA (iatrogenic deaths)? What are the figures for the most recent years that we have on record? Figures coming from the NIH or WHO itself. These figures ignore those maimed by the med profession, and in fact these figures on iatrogenic deaths are way too conservative (since deaths from vaccines are not always recognized as such or reported as such, deaths from AIDS drugs are blamed on HIV, but let's ignore that for argument's sake). And tell me, given these huge numbers of iatrogenic killings in the USA alone, why I should take Establishment Gangster Medicine seriously? You have a background in biochemistry, so what, so do plenty working for Gangster Big Pharma Medicine. And you work in a completely unrelated field. You don't get what I write or allude to on bacteria, antibiotics, you don't get what is meant by the environment/terrain in this context. You are looking at it in a superficial way, you need to dig deeper into the naturopathic friendly literature here. So viral isolation issues, which is more difficult to get or appreciate for somebody conditioned into the allopathic medical model, is going to be even more of a step up. To put it mildly. You don't even check up on it, you don't have the time you have said, but have the time to rant here. Truth is you find it deeply disturbing.

Again, what are virus dissidents saying re gay AIDS in toto, I still haven't heard from you in this respect GeoDoorn; never mind on the HIV isolation issue and the papers of Gallo, Montagnier and others here, addressed by the Perth Group and others? What are the virus dissidents such as Frei, Kohnlein, Kauffman, Lanka and Cowan saying in response to labs (and their 'scientific' papers) claiming they have isolated SARS-CoV-2? You don't address the extracellular vesicle (exosomes) issue, that Michael Larkin has mentioned. You don't appear to get the implications here.

You work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols. So what? How does that mean you know the first thing about the problems in modern medicine and virology? You clearly don't. What does your field of work have to do with viruses and related, what does it have to do with the conflict between allopathic medicine vs naturopathic medicine, and the history here? Your field of knowledge and work has nothing whatsoever to do with it. You write (once again) that you can detect BS when you see it. Every know-it-all on the planet blowing smoke says the same thing. On near every topic under the sun. That's not a remotely logical point btw. It's just bluff and bluster. That's all.

GeoDoorn: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That is so not a logical argument/point/barb at all. To repeat and hammer home the point. It has nothing to do with authentic rhetoric, with making a scientific case. It's why nothing I write can probably ever reach you. At least on an issue that clearly disturbs you. Even though otherwise you may be very logical and scientific. Anybody and everybody can say "I have skills to separate valid things from BS" in response to anything they don't like to hear. People say that kind of thing all the time. Doesn't count for much.

Later edit: I have edited this several times, when I need to be doing other things. For what it's worth I appreciate GeoDoorn's commentary, forces me to flesh out things more, dig into my memory store... even as we can both get hot tempered. I hate this about internet forum argumentation, but it seems to be the nature of the beast. The lack of face to face contact is not to the good. If you read it earlier, I have added commentary on anthrax, that I forgot to mention earlier. Also this is my last lengthy post on this thread. I promise!
 
Last edited:
Most GC don't like water, but you can use a special column or easier collect and inject the headspace above the solution, yes. It was not a very good example, but that's what the anti-virus argument essentially is.

If I am not mistaken, there were already papers with the covid virus sequences, so somebody has done it. Please note, those sequences are likely different from anything in the human genome, they screen for that. There were questions about the chinese reports, but that was not about whether those sequence were of parts of human DNA, it was that they incerted some other parts of sequence to upfuscate any links to their bioweapons lab (still puzzles me, why would anybody waste billions on something that is not causative, right?). If you have papers (not from the likes of Cowan) questioning whether or not those were purely human DNA transcripts, please point to them.
Interestingly, the PCR tests only run on a short base sequence - typically 20 bases long. There is a 4^20 chance of a random match with anything.
A 1 in one trillion might sounds good odds, but when you bear in mind the size of the human genome plus the sizes of the genomes of whatever else is found in the human respiratory system, it doesn't look totally safe.

The only papers I have right now is Cowan's book. However, I watch a blog run by a medical doctor who is hugely sceptical of the standard COVID story, and certainly of the lockdown policies.

It is difficult to check whether there is evidence that Pasteur added poisons where necessary to prove his theories, but interestingly enough, Cowan quotes Pasteur on his death bed:
[quote
“The pathogen is nothing. The terrain is everything.” A well maintained and properly driven vehicle will last much longer than the one not maintained and poorly driven. We are what we eat, what we don't eat, and what we don't excrete.
[/quote]
This quote comes up at once if you GOOGLE it!

What I can say is that there is a good deal of disquiet about the modern virus 'industry'. Here for example is Kary Mullis (Nobel prize for inventing PCR) talking about AIDS:

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html

BTW, Even if COVID exists, I don't think its behaviour remotely justifies the lockdown etc.

David
 
The huge number of looooong posts you see in this thread crammed with obfuscation, pilpul sophistry, and logical fallacies indicate A.I. chaos bots.

I know that sounds crazy, but I've been watching this happen on forums for years regarding topics the Control System actually cares about neutralizing.

They've poured billions of research dollars into weaponizing A.I. It's documented how they use it to send millions of phone text messages to citizens in poor countries to influence foreign color revolutions.

With investigation into the 9-11 attacks, they inject nonsense about energy weapons and "no planes".

On serious economic forums discussing reform of the Federal Reserve System they inject extreme levels of anti-semitism.

On forums discussing the politics of the Military Industrial Complex they inject alien abduction and reptile overlords.

If you study the A.I. bots used in customer service, on dating websites, and on-line psychological counseling, you will discover they are WAY more sophisticated than most people realize.

I don't know why The System is so interested in destroying rational discussion of the Covid "epidemic" and vaccines, but it is.

Charlie, I don't care for these inane and ridiculous conspiracies neither. And it just seems to be getting worse. Every year. We can actually agree on quite a lot! This is however a guilt by association argument. One has to address what many med scientists (serious journalists and the like, knowledgeable activists) are saying re their criticisms of germ theory, the AIDS industry, vaccines, virus isolation controversies etc.

Later edit: Charlie, I don't agree with your first sentence at all btw. I think you also make too much about AI bots, much of the conspiracy mongering on the internet seems to be coming from people/forum participants themselves.
 
Last edited:
It's not.

The chaos behavior I see in this thread is the same as what I've seen for years when discussing 9/11 Truth, the Federal Reserve, or the MIC.

They do it because it's effective.
The funny thing is, I agree with you, I just see that the “bioweapon in a Chinese lab” story is the misinformation being spread. I feel that “Big industry” has used “Virology” as a smokescreen to avoid culpability for a very long time, while simultaneously creating another chemical industry, pharmaceuticals. Have you seen the Corbett report, “Rockefeller medicine”?
 
It's not.

The chaos behavior I see in this thread is the same as what I've seen for years when discussing 9/11 Truth, the Federal Reserve, or the MIC.

They do it because it's effective.
Well who exactly are you accusing of spewing chaos? Answer by MP if you think it is too sensitive!

David
 
I just see that the “bioweapon in a Chinese lab” story is the misinformation being spread.

I knew about "Rockefeller Medicine" a long time before James did.

Initially I thought "Chinese Bioweapon" story was more low-brow NeoCon RepubliTard warmongering. Now I'm seeing more information indicating it's true.

Alex posted this:

https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-m...ens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

This morning one of my Jiu-Jitsu students who is an M.D. sent me this:

https://parler.com/post/dc9b7703c40344e9ab92ff1409b7079b

I need to look into it more. After ignoring it, I just downloaded this: https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=36404751

and intend to give it a fair viewing this afternoon.
 
I really appreciate this discussion. My thinking, at this point, is that Dr. Cowan is not really a good representation of “terrain theory” (for lack of a better way to express doubt in the germ theory paradigm) and his book does seem to be a bit David Icke-ish. (By that I mean, a few semi-connected theories slapped together in persuasive language). It would have been really good if Alex could have interviewed Andrew Kaufman instead. Stefan Lanka would be ideal, but his accent may be too strong. This is a very interesting transcript of Dr Lanka. https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/11/17/dr-stefan-lanka-the-history-of-the-infection-theory/
 
Last edited:
I really appreciate this discussion. My thinking, at this point, is that Dr. Cowan is not really a good representation of “terrain theory” (for lack of a better way to express doubt in the germ theory paradigm) and his book does seem to be a bit David Icke-ish. (By that I mean, a few semi-connected theories slapped together in persuasive language). It would have been really good if Alex could have interviewed Andrew Kaufman instead. Stefan Lanka would be ideal, but his accent may be too strong. This is a very interesting transcript of Dr Lanka. https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/11/17/dr-stefan-lanka-the-history-of-the-infection-theory/

Lanka's accent isn't too strong at all. But Alex would need to let Lanka or Kauffman get a word in, before he came in with the skepticism!

Charlie, I admit it. I am one of those AI bots. Busted! I planned to take over the world, and reduce you all to slaves. I was programmed by a couple of domestic cats out of Palo Alto. Everybody knows cats really run things anyhow. But I have decided running the world on behalf of a couple of tabby cats is not my thing. I am going to retire to Italy, maybe Florence, don't know. Man Italian girls.... Don't think AI bots don't have desires like everybody else, just because we are AI.
.
 
Back
Top