Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny

[tadmjones]

29 minutes ago, AlexL said:

 

 may have been internally contradictory or not aligned with established virology practices.

 

 

Like mass inoculation in an effected population during the first wave of a novel infection being less than optimal strategy or even dangerous, that kind of 'old school' virology practices ?

[AlexL]

34 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

may have been internally contradictory or not aligned with established virology practices.

Like mass inoculation in an effected[?] population during ... ?

Are you capable to distinguish a science, virology, from [forced] mass inoculation, which is politics?

"Virology practices" I was mentioning are research and laboratory practices and standards. But you understood this very well...

Edited January 31 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

23 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Are you capable to distinguish a science, virology, from [forced] mass inoculation, which is politics?

"Virology practices" I was mentioning are laboratory practices and standards. But you understood this very well...

I like virology, along with most sciences, that's how I could tell the response from the 'officials' was bs, I'm sure you arrived at the same conclusion, yes ?

[AlexL]

10 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I like virology, along with most sciences, that's how I could tell the response from the 'officials' was bs

Oh, you are a virology professional ! Nice ! Too bad that, according to Christine Massey, M.Sc., "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". Which is only understandable, because viruses do not exist😁

Edited January 31 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

7 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Oh, you are a virology professional ! Nice ! Too bad that, according to Christine Massey, M.Sc., "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". Which is only understandable, because viruses do not exist😁

Did you understand the official 'word' on covid shots was bs , based on accepted virology(of the time)?

[AlexL]

10 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Did you understand the official 'word' on covid shots was bs , based on accepted virology(of the time)?

No, it seems that I didn't. Can you please explain? (I do know what "bs" is, though.😁)

Edited January 31 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, it seems that I didn't. Can you please explain? (I do know what "bs" is, though.😁)

It has to do with the idea that ‘non-sterilizing’ or less than 100% transmission blocking vaccines should not be mass administered due to mutation forcing. And the associated downstream effects of ‘vaccine/immune’ escape would be a net negative for mitigation and disease control going forward.
 

An ideal situation would be one in which a population was isolated and inoculated prior to infection appearance which was not the situation circa vaccine roll out.

The fact that ‘officials’ were suggesting that the ‘best’ mitigation efforts were those that pushed the idea of vaccinating the highest percentage of global populations in the initial wave(s) contradicted my understanding of what was or could be considered best practices of the sciences of virology and immunology. 
Not to mention the idea of mass inoculation with a novel platform! mRNA shots highjack healthy cells to produce proteins alien to the host and the targeted production was aimed at multiplying a serotoxic protein, a wholly different strategy than other immunization techniques, but somehow that was the ‘best’ solution?

[AlexL]

10 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It has to do with the idea...

OK, thanks.

Now: what about Christine Massey's claim"Virology is not a science..."? You did not object to this @monart's quote...

[monart]

20 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Just to get clear on questions of evidence, what is your evidence that all 220 FOI agencies have responded with "no Arecords found", and exactly what record was requested (i.e. your proof that the specific request was made)?

As referenced in my 2nd post, the documentation of the FOI requests are shown at Christine Massey's site.

[monart]

21 hours ago, EC said:

No it's not. Is saying that someone died of cancer also "circular reasoning"? It's one thing to accept that the first place COVID was discovered was in Wuhan right in the same city where they were doing experiments with coronavirus's and it escaped from the lab. A high probability but it's quite another thing to arbitrarily claim that a virus that hundreds of millions of people have had or died from "doesn't exist". That's not saying that what is essentially roughly equivalent to the flu was overhyped and obviously governments massively overreacted but to deny a viruses very existence arbitrarily without evidence while there is tons of evidence of its existence is irrational. I won't be participating in this conversation after this comment though.

You're still assuming, begging the question, that there were millions of excess deaths and that these excess deaths were caused by SARS-CoV-2, when the existence, i.e., isolation, purification, and identification of the virus is put into doubt because of all the FOI requests returning with "no records found".

[DavidOdden]

So to paraphrase your response, you personally have no evidence to support the claim, instead you believe a claim made by others. Which is pretty much the same basis that 99.99% of people on the planet have for the affirmative belief that covid exists: they have heard an “authoritative request”, they have no reason to deny the claim and some reason to accept the claim – an act of faith. Clearly, we have an epistemological crisis: contradictory positions, so how do we chose between rejecting vs. accepting the claim (that covid is real)?

In reviewing some of the voluminous files provided on the web page, I concluded that the requests themselves were misconceived, in terms of what constitutes a record under 45 CFR Part 5, which starts by clarifying that

The FOIA does not require us to perform research for you or to answer your questions. The FOIA does not require agencies to create new records or to perform analysis of existing records; for example, by extrapolating information from existing agency records, reformatting publicly available information, preparing new electronic programs or databases, or creating data through calculations of ratios, proportions, percentages, trends, frequency distributions, correlations, or comparisons.

Ill-defined requests for “any information on this topic” are very likely to run into the 2 hour search limit. As a meta-test test of FOIA compliance, you might therefore request something more specific, such as information contained in the article “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies”. I don’t believe that this published article would be produced by a FOIA request, because scientific publication on a topic within the scope of what a federal agency “does” are not automatically records subject to disclosure. The regulation states that “Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding”. Discovery of some fact about covid in the above publication would not “shed light on the operations or activities of the government”, therefore would be outside the penumbra of FOIA.

There are better tools for searching for scientific information. A FOIA request is about as appropriate as would be using a hammer to remove a screw.

[monart]

20 hours ago, AlexL said:

I would have submitted the same query but about another virus whose existence I was certain of, to see if I received predominantly positive responses

Indeed, Christine Massey, has done that and continues to do so, e.g., for measles, and received same or equivalent "no records found". (Although I keep track of her updates, I don't pay close attention to each one.)

 

20 hours ago, AlexL said:

A clue in this direction comes from a comment by one of the respondents to CM's inquiry [see here]:

Quote

The definition of “isolation" provided in the request is outside of what is possible in virology, as viruses need cells to replicate, and cells require liquid food... the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be isolated from a human clinical specimen by culturing in cell culture, which is the definition of “isolation" as used in microbiology...

Yet. the requirement of isolation and purification in identifying a virus is a standard mentioned in textbooks. Here are quotes from Virus Mania:

.. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identi­fication as stated by textbooks, virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier, and the second of Koch’s postulates...

 

“Purification”… means the separation of an object from everything that does not belong to it … Only on the basis of such a complete purification can it be proven that the nucleic acid sequences found in the particles in question originate from a new virus.

We also contacted Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001,Science published an “impassioned plea ...to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that "[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction ...tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint." And that’s why we asked Calisher whether he knows of a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and then truly purified. His answer: "I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one."

21 hours ago, AlexL said:

Could the question have been carefully crafted to ensure that the only honest answer was "No records found"? Would a conspiracy-minded individual engage in such tactics? Who can know for sure?

The FOI requests were carefully worded to ensure that "isolation" means separate from everything else, worded so for the very reason that those who claimed they isolated SARS-CoV-2 did not actually do so. No a priori conspiracy-mindedness is needed to word the FOI requests thus. A possible opposite motivation for such wording is to disconfirm a conspiracy theory.
 

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, monart said:

On 1/31/2024 at 7:43 PM, AlexL said:

I would have submitted the same query but about another virus whose existence I was certain of, to see if I received predominantly positive responses

Indeed, Christine Massey, has done that and continues to do so, e.g., for measles, and received same or equivalent "no records found".

Just to double check: is this measles virus one about whose existence Christine Massey is certain - and, therefore, the query should have been positive? As I understand, measles virus is among the non-existent viruses, in Massey's view. So, no, Christine Massey, has NOT done the test-run I was talking about.

Besides, @DavidOddenalready showed that such queries will always return a negative result and, therefore, Christine Massey proved nothing except her incompetence or, rather, bad faith.

Edited February 1 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2LS27P/

Easy to find article, plainly debunks the idea that SARS-CoV 2 virus was not  isolated or purified. Reuters fact checker team declares a false verdict on a story about a Canadian doctor claiming the virus was never isolated and that the identification the medical officials and pharma companies used as evidence was basically a mish mash of RNA and other materials commonly found 'in' human bodies.

Now as to conspiracy hypothesis, what does Chrissy have to gain from the fight she is picking? (Because the CEO of Thomson Reuters, who  also sits on the Pfizer board and works very closely with World Economic Forum, does have a dog in the fight and a fact checking team to back him up.)

 

[monart]

On 1/31/2024 at 10:20 AM, tadmjones said:

I think there is an immediate third step, find the origin and assess the likely-hood of similar 'outbreaks'.

Yes, "covid-19" wasn't the first "outbreak". The earlier ones, in retrospect, look like preparatory, regional trial "epidemics" for the global "covid-19 pandemic", when added with the pandemic simulations conducted by government/medical representatives during the year prior to the March 11 WHO pandemic declaration: simulations such as "Event 201" and "Crimson Contagion", the latter based on the scenario of a virus outbreak in Wuhan!

[monart]

On 1/31/2024 at 4:06 PM, tadmjones said:

Not to mention the idea of mass inoculation with a novel platform! mRNA shots highjack healthy cells to produce proteins alien to the host and the targeted production was aimed at multiplying a serotoxic protein, a wholly different strategy than other immunization techniques, but somehow that was the ‘best’ solution?

Add to that, the historical, scientific, and philosophical challenges to the claim that vaccination is actually safe, effective, necessary, and moral: such as Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History

Edited February 2 by monart

[monart]

18 hours ago, AlexL said:

Just to double check: is this measles virus one about whose existence Christine Massey is certain - and, therefore, the query should have been positive? As I understand, measles virus is among the non-existent viruses, in Massey's view. So, no, Christine Massey, has NOT done the test-run I was talking about.

 

No, I don't know (but I haven't read all her updates) of any FOI requests by Christine Massey or her team for records of other microbes having been isolated, such as a specific bacterium or cancerous cell.  I presume they were interested in SARS-CoV-2, primarily, and other infectious viruses, secondarily. That they did not do the "test-run" you suggested does not, alone, explain why the "no records found" results. As I said, in my previous reply to you:

The FOI requests were carefully worded to ensure that "isolation" means separate from everything else, worded so for the very reason that those who claimed they isolated SARS-CoV-2 did not actually do so.

18 hours ago, AlexL said:

Besides, @DavidOddenalready showed that such queries will always return a negative result and, therefore, Christine Massey proved nothing except her incompetence or, rather, bad faith.

No, David did not show it will "always" happen. (I will be responding to him.) He only showed that some FOI requests may return with "no records found", due to administrative/temporal and miscellaneous non-topic-related causes. You yourself earlier quoted one example of a FOI result that did acknowledge understanding of the terms of the request by claiming that microbiological practice does not require actual virus isolation; "therefore", no records of such isolation.

Even if 99% of all the FOI requests resulting in administrative "no records found", where are 1% records that show SARS-CoV-2 having been isolated? It's a professional, scientific, and philosophic abdication of reason if current microbiology insists that isolation, purification, and definitive identification of a virus is neither required nor practiced. And, even more severe, that such an unproven claim of SARS-Cov-2's existence is supposedly enough to justify the global pandemic tyranny.

[Jon Letendre]

During the Scamdemic, Ivermectin, a powerful, out-of-patent and cheap anti-parasitic whose discoverer won a Nobel Prize for Medicine for said discovery, was poo-pooed by every tentacle of the system. It was called 'horse dewormer" as though that's all it is. Ivermectin has eliminated river blindness in whole swathes of Africa, it has been nothing short of a miracle drug. It is also a powerful anti-viral. Doctors around the world prescribed it for covid and as a prophylactic against covid, flu, colds and other viral pathogens. Doctors around the world were ridiculed by the whole system for prescribing Ivermectin. Doctors around the world were prevented from prescribing it, with the licenses they feed their families with explicitly threatened. Pharmacies around the world refused to fill legitimate prescriptions for Ivermectin by medical doctors. The FDA ran misinformation social media campaigns saying "You're not a horse. Seriously, stop it."

Why all that effort?

Because the Emergency Use Authorization, which our overlords used to justify coercing an experimental treatment on billions of people, requires that no other drugs exist for fighting the relevant pathogen.

So they systematically attacked Ivermectin until after they got their way on forcing mystery cocktails on the masses.

Now they're quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent.

"Ivermectin can suppress almost completely the growth of various human cancers"

Anti-parasite drug ivermectin can suppress ovarian cancer by regulating lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA axes - PMC (nih.gov)

 

Full-disclosure sidenote:

As a two-decade user of Humira I may be immunosuppressed and therefore have been using Ivermectin twice weekly, prophylactically, for the last three years, following the FLCCC Alliance recommendations.

I used to get 6-8 colds per year, no exceptions, my whole life. I have had no colds since starting IVM. I have taken no tests or coerced shots, why would I?

I obtain the medicine at Tractor Supply Co. The first time I went in I was asked by a nice young lady if I needed help to find something. I asked if they carried Ivermectin.

"Of course! It's one of our best sellers! Follow me."

I followed her to the "Equine" section.

"All you need to know is these over here contain only Ivermectin, but these contain Ivermectin and also [some other compound] and that stuff really is only for horses. Come find me if you have any questions."

And she walked away.

Do your own work, of course, but you will find that the per pound of patient instructions on the packaging are equal to per pound human patient dosing, 50 lbs per click.) So, if you weigh about 150 lbs, eject three clicks onto a cracker. If you weigh about 200 pounds, eject four clicks onto a cracker and enjoy. Costs about $2 per dose. Keeps you out of the hospital where they will pretend you need a ventilator and then murder you with one.

Edited February 2 by Jon Letendre

[AlexL]

36 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Now they're quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent.

"Ivermectin can suppress almost completely the growth of various human cancers"

Anti-parasite drug ivermectin can suppress ovarian cancer by regulating lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA axes - PMC (nih.gov)

In what form are they(?) "quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent"? By publishing that article on the nlm.nih.gov site?

This site has the following disclaimer: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".

If not on nlm.nih.gov, then where are they(?) "quietly admitting etc."?

Edited February 2 by AlexL

[Jon Letendre]

Tucker interviews Truemed founder Calley Means about the diabetes and obesity crises, the criminal pharma companies, the healthcare system incentives that are skewed against our health and wellbeing, and more:

Big Pharma Is Fooling You Again, and You Don't Even Know It (rumble.com)

Edited February 3 by Jon Letendre

[monart]

On 2/1/2024 at 8:58 AM, DavidOdden said:

So to paraphrase your response, you personally have no evidence to support the claim, instead you believe a claim made by others. Which is pretty much the same basis that 99.99% of people on the planet have for the affirmative belief that covid exists: they have heard an “authoritative request”, they have no reason to deny the claim and some reason to accept the claim – an act of faith. Clearly, we have an epistemological crisis: contradictory positions, so how do we chose between rejecting vs. accepting the claim (that covid is real)?

 

No, David, your paraphrasing is not correct. It's not "an act of faith" on my part, as an Objectivist, to challenge the government-medical-academic-media propagated and imposed belief held by "99.99% of people on the planet": the belief that "SARS-CoV-2" has been isolated and proven to exist, that it caused millions of new and excess respiratory illnesses and deaths worldwide, and that the spread of this "Covid-19 pandemic" must be stopped by testing, distancing, masking, lockdowns, and vaccination. Empowered morally and politically by altruism and collectivism, the consequent, even greater tyranny caused untold loss and suffering, in varying degrees and various ways, on believers and non-believers alike, and for decades to come. I am among those who challenge all this.

Following the law of Identity, the principles of Onus of Proof, and other basic reasoning, the challenges by the unbelievers, (who include microbiologists, epidemiologists, and other medical specialists marginalized and muzzled by the ruling establishments) were directed at one or more claims of the "Covid-19 pandemic" -- the most fundamental challenge being that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to be isolated, purified, and distinctly identified.

Many papers claiming or appearing to have done the isolation, on closer examination, have not actually done so. Numerous FOI requests worldwide for records of isolation have resulted in "no records found" (any administrative exclusions notwithstanding). Over the years, I, myself, have read a few of the papers, including the first, "progenitive" one from China ("A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019") and found that, among other flaws and biases, it did not report actual isolation and purification. Here are other examples of non-isolation, as confirmed by the authors themselves of those papers (quoted here from the book Virus Mania)

---

Sharon R. Lewin et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID -19 In Australia, The Medical Journal of Australia, June 2020, pp. 459-462     

Jason A. Roberts and Julian Druce            "The nucleic acid extraction was performed on isolate material recovered from infected cells. This material was not centrifuged, so was not purified through sucrose gradient to have a density band as such. The EM images were obtained directly from cell culture material."           October 5, 2020

Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health, Nature Medicine, March 2020       Malik Peiris        "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus."     May 12, 2020

Myung-Guk Han et al. Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020           Myung-Guk Han       "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells."    May 6, 2020

Wan Beom Park et al. Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 In Korea, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020           Wan Beom Park "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification."              March 19, 2020

Na Zhu et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020           Wenjie Tan         "(We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones."             March 18, 2020

---

So, on this basic challenge, the believers just have to present one paper that actually, unequivocally, definitively, shows that SAR-CoV-2 was isolated. (Excuses that current microbiology doesn't require or practice virus isolation is no excuse, professionally, scientifically, or philosophically.) If such a paper is presented and verified (unlikely because of the flawed progenitor study from China to which all subsequent studies reference for the purported original genetic sequence), then this basic challenge will be met, even if the other challenges still remain.

Edited February 3 by monart

[Jon Letendre]

On 2/1/2024 at 8:58 AM, DavidOdden said:

So to paraphrase your response, you personally have no evidence to support the claim, instead you believe a claim made by others. Which is pretty much the same basis that 99.99% of people on the planet have for the affirmative belief that covid exists: they have heard an “authoritative request”, they have no reason to deny the claim and some reason to accept the claim – an act of faith. Clearly, we have an epistemological crisis: contradictory positions, so how do we chose between rejecting vs. accepting the claim (that covid is real)?

You don't choose between competing positions as though they are somehow starting out equal, where in the world did you get that?

You assess whether the assertion that it exists has been proven.

It has not been.

Let go of your pearls, there is no "epistemological crisis," here.

Edited February 3 by Jon Letendre

[Jon Letendre]

One side has made an assertion, the other side is still waiting for proof.

Simple. No crisis.

[DavidOdden]

19 hours ago, monart said:

Following the law of Identity, the principles of Onus of Proof, and other basic reasoning, the challenges by the unbelievers, (who include microbiologists, epidemiologists, and other medical specialists marginalized and muzzled by the ruling establishments) were directed at one or more claims of the "Covid-19 pandemic" -- the most fundamental challenge being that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to be isolated, purified, and distinctly identified.

Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people. That would be fine, if those other people are shown to be credible and trustworthy. I have no reason to believe that Massey is trustworthy, and based on my reading of her FOI-related posts, I conclude that she is not trustworthy w.r.t. this particular issue (which is whether covid exists). You on the other hand, apparently have faith in her belief, and use her postion as the basis for your own argument. Your challenge to the covid-existence is ineffective, because you have not provided any evidence that supports the claim that covid does not exist, which is necessary to overcome the direct evidence of the senses, which cannot be rationally denied, that covid does exist.

You might imaginably argue that there has been a specific misidentification, for example you could claim that covid is a bacterium, not a virus, or you could argue with the specific scientific classification of covid, but you have not done that. Your argument also seems to depend on an invalid package deal, a mixed wall of scientific and political claims. All of the political issues such as lockdowns and mask mandates are red herrings w.r.t. the scientific question of the existence of covid. Every known Objectivist, as far as I have been able to discern, holds that it is not the proper role of government to show down businesses, mandate a suspension of property rights, force vaccinations and mask-wearing etc. irrespective of their scientific beliefs about the nature of the disease. Feel free to challenge improper governmental action, but don’t lump in nihilistic unscientific claims there covid doesn’t even exist.

As I mentioned before, “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies” provides prima facie scientific evidence, of the type that you demanded, for isolation, purification and distinct identification of the virus. Scientists have shouldered the burden of proof, now the burden rests on those who deny that proof. You claim, in broad terms that many such studies “on closer examination, have not actually done so”, but you do not provide any evidence in support of that assertion. The subsequent sentence “Numerous FOI requests worldwide for records of isolation have resulted in "no records found" (any administrative exclusions notwithstanding)” is irrelevant as I explained above (FOI requests provide evidence of government records, not scientific results).

My main point here is that science is a specialized kind of knowledge, not the same as philosophy, and making any scientific claim requires the integration of massive amounts of existing knowledge. At best, you can reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that covid exists, just as you could reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that the Earth is a sphere since you have not directly seen any evidence supporting that claim and you do not accept the claims of myriad others who claim that the Earth is a sphere.

I do not actually accept your premise that “isolation, purification and distinct identification” is a logical requirement for an existential proof of an existent, but I have acceded to the demand and provided one reference, in the hopes that you would engage the science and abandon the irrelevant political rhetoric.

[Jon Letendre]

7 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

you have not provided any evidence that supports the claim that covid does not exist, which is necessary to overcome the direct evidence of the senses, which cannot be rationally denied, that covid does exist.

Provide evidence for/prove a negative? 

Oh, now you know of its positive existence through undeniable direct sensory evidence?

You are a clown.

"Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people."

No, clown. You know where the burden lies.

We're not believing anyone's claims, and we don't have to produce shit in this debate, which you well understand.

Edited February 4 by Jon Letendre