"it has been sequenced"
the manner in wihich it was sequenced involved highly error prone fradulent methods.
it involved both consensus sequencing and conservative sequencing, those methods were originally created as purely learning tools and there are text books that say to not use them to actually genome sequence as you won't get something accurate.
"we've seen it under a microscope"
no, we have seen pictures of cellular debris under a microscope, with black arrows pointing pictures at vesicles, and the declaration that this is sars cov 2. that doesn't count as "Seeing it under a microscope."
there is a strict clinical definition in pathology for "isolation" and there is a whole process to prove that a pathogen causes a disease called "the koch postulates", which was updated for viruses, that update was called "The thomas rivers postulates.", doing this process creates a "gold standard assay" that all other test results and analaysis's can be compared to. the cdc them selves admitted there is no "gold standard assay".
"None of that explains the sky-high death rate in nursing homes in spring 2020"
there is an entire section in the paper i posted and the video i posted about nursing homes, canadian military that volunteere in nursing homes reported unprecedented amounts of abuse, there was no over sight for the staff because of pandemic rules, so they got away with things like leaving food in sleeping peoples mouthes, unreported falls, leaving moldy food in peoples rooms, and many other human rights abuses, plus the elderly weren't allowed to be visited by anyone. all the factors besides a pathogen give a clear explanation as to the increased cause of mortality in the nursing homes, and because there was no oversight, it could just be called "covid 19".
"the death rate in third world countries"
the reaction to the supposed pandemic it self explains the increase in mortality.
also, there were countries that didn't have severe reactions to the pandemic and they faired better off then countries that reacted strongly.
"If it's a fake pandemic, why would someone bother putting that detail in there, let alone discussing it?"
because people are increasingly distursting of establishment, so if you create a conspiracy theory that it was "made in a lab" then that makes people like you more likely to believe its real in the first place.
"David Crowe looks to be a hippie loon with no background in medicine. Why should I trust him?"
you shouldn't trust him, you should evaluate what he says and cross reference it.
"he's some hippy loon and doesn't appear to have a background in medicine, Why should I trust him? "
you sound like people saying "oh yea and where did you go to medical school?" when other people were criticizing lockdowns and criticizing anthony fauci, it doesn't matter what someones qualifications are if they are right. ALSO, i posted Dr. Sam Bailey who is a literal medical doctor and was part of new zealands media response to covid until she started saying she doesn't think the vaccines are good. you shouldn't trust, you should verify.
"And if you're getting your info from people who claim viruses don't exist"
i am not only getting info from people who claim viruses don't exist, i read all the vaccine trial data and i read all the papers that "proved" the out break was occuring. the wuhan paper uses fradulent genome sequencing methods that rely on 29 nested pcr tests. a nested pcr test is a pcr test that is done on the results of another pcr test. then they did bullshit methods to create "cytopathic effects" in some lung tissue that was literally sampled from paitients with lung cancer. and voila they claimed to have a virus. its fucking bullshit. and i'm not just taking anyones word for it.
you projecting on to me your own method of believing in stuff which i already prefaced in my post about what makes someone believe something, you get your information from people whom you decide to trust or not based on pavliovian association and your fear of being ostracized. i get my information from trying my best to actually evaluate the information. i've read alot of literal text books regarding the subject.
i could go into detail as to why conservative and consensus sequencing is retarded. or why the method that they proved "Cytopathic effects" is retarded, but that would be such a high level of effort posting, and might fly over peoples heads, and i've done all this before, and people still don't believe because of stupid shit like associating the source of information with "hippy wackjobs". the quality of the evidence literally doesn't matter because you have already started at a conclusion "the virus was a lab leak, people who think other wise are shills" and are working backwords to find evidence to support that conclusion.
virologists have literally stripped the clinical definition of "isolated" that is used in pathology, when virologists use the word "isolated" it means in the casual sense, as in what ever they want it to mean, like taking a photo of cellular debris. so then people will say "its never been isolated" and then people like you will own a study, hit ctrl + f, find the word "isolated" and be like "see it is isolated your a wack job" and leave it like that.
"Wu Zanyou has lied about many things related to the virus in his goal of pushing for a non-Chinese origin, ergo his reliability is dubious. "
ok sure, but cdc documents also admit there is "no gold standard assay" which also means it hasn't been isolated, plus you can read the papers them selves and look at the methodology and see that it hasn't actually passed the thomas rivers postulates. but no one will fucking read the papers because we live in a tik tok culture where people have the tiniest possible attention spans. i posted several links, did you look at literally any of them? no, you just said david crowe was a hippy and totally ignored that i posted a literal medical doctor becuase of the simple fact that they go on to speculate the existence of other virus's as well. its a kind of pseudo intellectualism thats taken over, you don't actually want to learn about stuff, you just wnt to be given a fully formed opinion from people you trust. its not even you personally, its literally everyone.
"This whole narrative of the "virus didn't exist" seems extremely sketchy to me in general. It sounds like an attempt to exonerate the role of the people who created the virus like Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, etc. as well as the Chinese government's role in epidemic and just get people blaming some nebulous cabal of politicians."
it doesn't actually exonerate everyone because everyone who would be guilty of making the virus is now instead guilty of creating the hoax.
" it sounds very much like a government disinformation attempt to stop people from looking into real conspiracies"
not really, why is "there is no actual covid 19" seem like government disinformation, but "covid 19 was a bioleak" can't be exactly that? if there is no covid 19, then a bunch of shit that is beneficial to WEF and different governments who want to enact medical tyranny is in jepordy, if "covid 19 was a bioleak" then a few people can be blamed but still all the economic depression, medical tyranny stuff can still happen.
theres basically no oversight in virology, its an extremely gate kept field. instead of just having a gut reaction to how crazy everything i'm saying sounds without even trying to steel man it, spend like an hour and watch the david crowe podcast i posted, or read the paper, or watch the four hour documentary i posted which both covers the paper and the david crowe podcast as well as testimony from an under cover nurse who had a hidden camera.
heres the initial study that "proved" sars cov 2 was real.
the methodology is totally bogus. notice the black arrows in the picture i've posted. their definition of "isolated" is having vesicles floating within debris and pointing black arrows at them.
heres the document from the fda that admits there were no quantified virus isolates.
its not about trusting anyone, its about evaluating the information, do you think there should be some standard for proving that a pathogen exists and causes a disease? learn about what that standard is and what it should be, and then evaluate if the methods use satisfy what should be the standard.
there isn't just the thomas rivers postulates, theres also the bradford hill criteria, and it doesn't satisfy that either.
the virologists decided to look for a novel corona virus, then they did 29 nested pcr tests. the inventor, kary mullis, said you can't use pcr tests as a diagnostic tool, that its actually very hard to not find what ever your looking for, and that almost lends credence to the buddhist notion that "everything is within everything"
a nested pcr test, is when you get the results of a pcr test, and then do another pcr test on that
so then they had 29 dna segments, and they used a computer algorithm to do something called "consensus sequencing" also known as "daisy chain sequencing" or i think "shotgun sequencing"
a few problems become immediately apparent, how do you know if they go together at all?
for example, say you have two segments.
GTATCGT and CGTTGTA
it could go together like gtatcgttgta
or it could go together like cgttgtatcgt
or it could go together like gtatcgtcgttgta
or it could go together like cgttgtagtatcgt
or it could match up to another part of the sequence entirely, or they could just not go together at all.
there did this, and there was gaps in the sequence, holes basically, blank spaces within the constructed genome sequence thus far.
so then they used another computer algorithim known as "conservative sequencing", this is when the genome is looked up in the illumina soft ware gene bank data base and the software looks up genomes that belong to the same family, or are "conserved" to the same family (hence conservative sequencing)
so the assumption was made ahead of time, "we are looking for a novel corona virus" and the software looks for a corona virus that has a dna sequence that has gtatcgt....cgttgta (as a simplified example)
when it finds it, it copy's the letters that go inbetween those segments, and pastes it in to the unfinished genome
how do we know that that will be accurate? we don't, molecular biology text books, virology text books, and so on, actually say to not use this genome sequencing technique, that it almost always will be inaccurate when compared to manual methods of genome sequencing
to manually genome sequence, you expose the dna strands to certain chemicals that cause the dna to give off certain levels of flourescent light, and then you measure the level of light given off to determine which letter goes there
this has only been done to very simple organisms, and every time, it was wildly different then the virtual methods of genome sequencing, which is what was done with sars cov 2
again, conservative sequencing comes back with several results, and then the scientists choose the one they like the best
heres a further problem, the gene bank is basically open source, any researchers can upload genomes with little discretion. so if there are already genomes present in the data bank that are flawed and fraudulent, that further makes the conservative sequencing totally fraudulent, because its using made up genomes that don't mean anything to reference
this is why the new "variants" are called "variants" and not strains, strain has a strict clinical definition that involves being able to observe phenotypal differences through an electron microscope, "variant" does not. and as i have explained to you, everytime you go through this process, you can come back with multiple different genomes, so its no problem at all to just generate a different genome, and call that a "new variant"
how a pathologist is supposed to prove that the particle causes a disease is called "the koch postulates", but for viruses, it was updated and that update is called "the thomas rivers postulates"
it involves having a sick person, taking a biological sample, observing cells that are present in that sick person, but not present in a healthy person, putting that sample through a ceramic filter, putting the resulting filtrate through a centrifuge, and then extracting the particle so that you can take an electron microscope photo of just the cell with nothing else
this is what pathologists define as "isolated"
the wuhan researchers, and several other researchers in different studies that "replicated" the results, didn't do that
then, according to the thomas rivers postulates, you take the isolate, and you inject it into a host, and you observe that it becomes sick, and then you take another sample from that new host and you once again isolate the same pathogen.
at wuhan, took a biological sample, they took a photo, they had vesicals that looked phenotypally different from eachother, they inserted black arrows into the photos pointing at the vesicals, and said "this is the particle" and then called that "isolation". i'm pretty sure they didn't put it in a centrifuge and they didn't filter the sample.
then they took a sputum sample from people
with lung cancer (literally states that in the study) and the inocculated the sputum with the biological sample, put it in a petri dish with antibiotics and chemicals, and left it in the petri dish for several days, seperated from its living tissue, the morphological field that it was a part of, and being deprived of nutrients
they observed morphological changes to the particles, and they said "this proves that the particle caused the disease"
morphological changes (cytopathic affects) are basically changes to the cells shape within the sputum. but this could have been caused by the antibiotics, the chemicals, the seperation from the living tissue, the being deprived of nutrients, the passage of time
this is the methodology that sars cov 2 was "proven" to exist and was "proven" to cause covid 19.
say you have a gifted child, a real smarty pants.
he's in a group project with the jock and the stacy, the jock and the stacy just goof off and have silly times, and the nerd does all the work, and they all get the same grade.
so the nerd goes to the teacher to complain, and the teacher believes the nerd, but the teacher can't prove that the nerd is telling the truth, so they all get the same grade anyways.
the nerd says "i can't wait until i'm an adult and life is about hard work and not a popularity contest like highschool.
the nerd goes to college and starts studying for their PhD, they go deep into student loan debt and study for the seven or so years it takes to get a PhD. They come out of it, and the jock and the stacy are married and have kids, the nerd is still a virgin. the Jock and the Stacy are well off, one of them inherits a nice job from their father, and they make fun of people like the nerd still on social media.
the nerd tries really hard to get research grants to help pay off their student loan debt. there is no job security, contracts last for about a year and a half, if they are lucky and get a bit of a reputation, then they can get contracts for three years.
the research equipment is very expensive, they can't do research on their own, so they have to find a benefactor, who is the benefactor? the jock. he inherited a really high position in a company and has a ton of money to finance studies for the nerd. and if the nerd comes back with results that the benefactor doesn't like? he's not asked to come back for more research. the benefactor, the jock, isn't interested in merely advancing the field of science and learning more about the universe, he has very specific aims and goals in mind, specific agendas.
and the nerd is old now, still a virgin, still struggling to pay off their student loan debt, struggling in life in general.
and then the nerd realizes, all they need to do in order to succeed and do well, is stop caring.
thats it, they don't need to be malevolent and have malicious intent, they often don't even have to conciously engage in science fraud most of the time because their research is so cellularized, they just have to be a bit more suggestable from authority, not rock the boat, and if a question makes them feel uncomfortable, just respond with "thats out side the area of my expertise."
and then when they go along to get along, suddenly they get to be on podcasts and the news while wearing bow ties, they get all kinds of contracts and kick backs, and life becomes way easier to them.
it doesn't have to be a kabal where everyone is knowingly some kind of evil genius and are intentionally plotting for the destruction of the world or some cartoonish shit like that, its literally that simple, life is hard, these people are human beings, and they just want to get paid so they can have a wife and kids.
Heres the bradford hill criteria, and how on every part of the bradford hill criteria, covid 19 doesn't satisfy it and appears to there for not be a legitimate disease.
1. Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
It appears there have been several instances that show at times no association with the supposed virus. With people supposedly getting sick without being near the time and place of the outbreak or being in contact with people who are supposedly infected or indeed being around people at all, and other people fitting all that criteria and not getting sick.
2. Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
There is very little consistency in the findings, some people getting very sick and some people getting no symptoms what so ever while “testing positive”.
3. Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
It would seem that this to is denied by what has been discussed already, regarding the first criteria, strength. Especially because there are many other explanations for illness with all of these cases, including at Wuhan.
4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
people have been presumed to be sick without coming across a cause, including when socially isolating at home.
5. Biological gradient (dose-response relationship): Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
many cases involved people getting sick with little to no exposure to a biological gradient, while other cases involved people not getting sick, or having little to no symptoms, with great exposure to the supposed biological gradient, and in many cases of supposed test positives, the exact same amount of viral load was found in all patients test results.
6. Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
This is denied by the total chaos and inconsistency of supposed positive and negative results, with some people testing positive having no exposure, and some people testing negative with alot of exposure, such as grocery store workers, homeless people, and so on.
7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".
There are many such instances of a lack of coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings; for example, when simply the testing criteria is very minorly adjusted. There is no standardization for the testing criteria and so areas of supposed out breaks have no consistancy with eachother let alone laboratory settings.
8. Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".
There is no controls in the supposed experimental use of medicines to treat the supposed disease, so there is no experimental data to speak of.
9. Analogy: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.
There is no little to no analgous known disease that has this broad a spectrum of behaviour and presentation, for some it is totally benign, for others, they report a case of “the blahs”, and still others, it supposedly shuts down their immune system and respiratory system in various vague ways, all congruent with the aggressive treatment they receive, and it has none of its own unique symptoms.
10. Some authors consider, also, Reversibility: If the cause is deleted then the effect should disappear as well.
with many people supposedly getting the disease without being exposed to any causal link connecting to the wuhan outbreak, this is also denied.
www.thehighersidechats.com
odysee.com
trendingpoliticsnews.com
web.archive.org
