Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Joe knows, Feb 14, 2023.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The article already discredits itself with the admission of the Peng Zhou paper, and further with the Leon Caly paper, among others.

    In Peng Zhou et al., a control/mock infection was conducted. However, the antibiotics in the experimental group was doubled which resulted in CPEs in only one out of 24 wells. It was declared this constitutes evidence of a new viral pathogen '2019-nCoV', later to be renamed SARS-CoV-2. Further, the 'viral genome' was derived in silico, which means no actual virus was physically lysed & analyzed, let alone proven to exist. So the improper 'control' invalidates the study. Further, no demonstration of physical isolation of viral particles or of viral RNA, nor of sequencing from lysed whole virions was shown.

    In Leon Caly et al., a sample from a 58 year-old man who had arrived in Australia from Wuhan was analyzed. RT-PCR was used to 'confirm' the presence of the virus. But PCR does not detect the presence of a microbe or infection. CPE-sensitive Vero cells (as usual) were used for culture, but with no details of how it was processed. No control/mock infection was included - which alone would invalidate any study. RNA wasn't physically extracted by whole lysed virions, but instead, as the authors state: "We extracted RNA for whole genome sequencing of the viral isolate. RNA was extracted from clarified cell culture supernatant and randomly amplified cDNA prepared by sequence-independent single-primer amplification (SISPA). Sequencing was performed with a combination of Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Illumina short-read sequencing." In other words, alleged viral RNA was neither confirmed to be of viral origin, nor was it isolated & purified - but was a mix of millions of gene fragments from unknown origins - and sequencing was performed entirely in silico without confirmation of the presence of a virus.

    All the other papers presented (if you care to check them) likewise exclude proper controls, fail to demonstrate the physical isolation of actual viruses, and do not physically sequence said viruses. All sequencing was performed by a process called 'alignment' - where complex computational algorithms are used to reconstruct a large sequence in silico that closely resembles a pre-selected genome from a soup of millions of short gene fragments of unknown origin.

    NOTE: Virologists don't directly isolate viruses from samples they suspect to be 'infected'. They always use a 'culture', use a specific cell line, apply the same chemical assault to the culture in order to induce a CPE, take an EM photo of the culture soup with no isolation of particles, and then apply a non-purified sample of this soup to a computer-based program that reconstructs a fictitious genome. Virologists are trained and told to follow a specific procedure in 'isolating' & 'sequencing' viruses because both the virus & the viral genome don't exist in nature. If virologists didn't follow these specific steps, none of them would be able to generate anything close to the pre-selected genome in question. The viral genome is always generated in silico through the computational reconstruction of a larger gene out of millions of short gene fragments of unknown origins. The final genome generated is allegedly declared to be the entire 'viral genome'. This process of generating a (fictitious) viral genome is called 'alignment'. However, each time these steps are performed by different labs (using different samples), the viral genome of the claimed identical virus are never replicated - and hence how they come up with so-called 'variants'. 'Variants' are also how they explain away the failure of vaccines in the vaccinated who become sick with 'covid'.

    Maybe appendicitis IS caused by constipation. Does the medical establishment know what causes it? (Note: Kaufman isn't talking about a ruptured appendix, which requires immediate surgery.)

    No, these claims haven't been shown to be false - but rather the opposite. The burden of proof is on virologists/medical scientists, and so far they haven't delivered. Dr. Kaufman didn't make any 'leap'. His conclusions are based on the absence of evidence for viruses, just did the conclusions by Dr. Stefano Scoglio, Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Sam Bailey, Dr. Mark Bailey, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Dr. Robert Willner, and many others. Exosomes (and other EVs) fit perfectly, in terms of appearance & behavior, the description of what virologists believe to be viruses.

    I don't care if Kaufman believes unicorns exist and that they fart Lucky Charms. What matters is his expose of the fraud of virology, which he lays out very clearly by demystifying all the scientific jargon virologists use. Kaufman understands the complex medical literature. What his beliefs may be of certain mental conditions right now is up to anyone's guess. No one knows what causes schizophrenia. Kaufman said demons may be responsible for some cases, as some believe it to be. But he didn't say he was certain of it - only that it's a possibility since a questioner asked him about it. Have you noticed when a person gets drunk they sometimes appear to be overcome by another personality. Who is to say this other personality is not coming from another dimension/realm of consciousness and impinging in some way upon the inebriated (and psychically vulnerable) individual? This is commonly seen in people who take psychedelics, including indigenous medicine men & witch doctors. I personally wouldn't call them 'demons', but rather 'Astral entities' or disembodied entities that might, under the right conditions, be able to impose their will on physical beings who are either intoxicated or in an altered state. So who knows what's on the 'other side' that might be influencing us.

    The McGill site attacks Dr. Kaufman, but doesn't address his arguments.

    The second article claims Koch's Postulates have been 'misused'. But this is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the postulates can't be fulfilled by virologists because they're unable confirm a single one of Koch's 4 Postulates - not even the first step of establishing the existence of the virus in question.

    From A Farewell to Virology (pgs 6-7) by Dr. Mark Bailey, we read:

    The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles. Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,” and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformaEon rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.” Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates, which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else. Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive. The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.
     
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  2. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you know they would die without the so-called 'anti-virals'? Viruses don't exist, so what exactly do the meds do?

    The makers claim that the meds will reduce the 'viral load' to 'undetectable' levels within 6 months. Really? Sounds like a scam to me - particularly if the person is asymptomatic.

    People haven't stopped having sex or sharing needles, yet where are the millions of AIDS deaths that had been predicted? Why is no one afraid of HIV anymore? Could it be because there is no longer a campaign of fear-mongering & mass 'testing' for HIV anymore, coupled with the fact that hardly anyone is being given the deadly 'anti-retroviral' drugs (eg, Nevirapine, AZT, etc.)?

    One interesting whistleblower, Dr. Robert Willner, wanted to prove to the world that HIV doesn't exist. So he decided to inoculate himself with the blood of an HIV-positive patient on live TV - twice. Willner wrote a book entitled Deadly Deception: the Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS.

    Dr. Peter Duesberg stated in the 1990s:

    Indeed, AIDS has increased from negligible numbers in the early 1980s to about 80,000 annual cases in the early '90s and has since declined to about 50,000 cases (US figures). In the same period, recreational drug users have increased from negligible numbers to millions by the late 1980s, and have since decreased possibly twofold. However, AIDS has declined less because since 1987 increasing numbers of mostly healthy, HIV-positive people, currently about 200,000, use anti-HIV drugs that cause AIDS and other diseases. At least 64 scientific studies, government legislation, and non-scientific reports document that recreational drugs cause AIDS and other diseases. Likewise, the AIDS literature, the drug manufacturers, and non-scientific reports confirm that anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS and other diseases in humans and animals. In sum, the AIDS dilemma could be solved by banning anti-HIV drugs, and by pointing out that drugs cause AIDS –modeled on the successful anti-smoking campaign.
    https://www.duesberg.com/papers/pddrgenetica.html

    "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." ~ Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen

    "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." ~ Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, PCR inventor & 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry recipient
     
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  3. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You keep touting Kaufman as though you have some way of evaluating his alleged expertise.
    Perhaps you might consider:

    "SARS-CoV-2, a β-coronavirus, has rapidly spread across the world, highlighting its high transmissibility, but the underlying morphogenesis and pathogenesis remain poorly understood. Here, we characterize the replication dynamics, cell tropism and morphogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in organotypic human airway epithelial (HAE) cultures. SARS-CoV-2 replicates efficiently and infects both ciliated and secretory cells in HAE cultures. In comparison, HCoV-NL63 replicates to lower titers and is only detected in ciliated cells. SARS-CoV-2 shows a similar morphogenetic process as other coronaviruses but causes plaque-like cytopathic effects in HAE cultures. Cell fusion, apoptosis, destruction of epithelium integrity, cilium shrinking and beaded changes are observed in the plaque regions. Taken together, our results provide important insights into SARS-CoV-2 cell tropism, replication and morphogenesis."

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32764693/

    IOW, they observed and noted cytopathogenic effects caused by cell invasion.
     
  4. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I received a heart ct today. I spoke with several nurses and technicians about their experiences during Covid 19. They got sick from it. They worked long hours. They saw people die and have strokes. 3 different waves and 3 different kinds of medical challenges. Then we have sheltered arm chair geniuses oblivious to the suffering and their sacrifice denying what happened and posing as medical experts.

    Life.
     
  5. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would argue the above the words "Viruses don't exist," in post 177, render any further responses to the above person who stated them pointless.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2023
  6. Navy Corpsman

    Navy Corpsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    93

    Extraordinary work and effort on your part with the above presentation, FACTS and knowledge of the viron FRAUD. :applause::applause::applause:

    Dr. Kaufman was one of the few ethical MD's in New York who refused to play the technocrats "COVID PSYOPS" game as he never required his patients under treatment to wear those "RIDICULOUS" BRAINWASHING masks or stand 6-feet apart from one another as the medical group he worked for and the government megalomaniacs were demanding.

    He's dismantled the whole Sci-Fi virus sham over-and-over again with the purveyors of this viron nonsense very own garbage-in garbage-out pseudo lab work.

    Jon Rappoport is another brilliant mind who has also deconstructed the whole viron hoax and subsequent lies that lesser minds are so easily duped and brainwashed with governments malicious deception.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2023
    gfm7175 likes this.
  7. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They don't all die. In fact, few die, by the death rate is higher for those testing positive for covid who don't take Paxlovid.
    Viruses do exist.
    There's evidence Paxlovid reduces the chances of getting long covid.
    Those infected take antivirals.
    HIV infected persons do take antivirals. They tend to reduce the virus to levels that preclude infecting others.
    Forget the book. I want to see the evidence.
     
  8. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I refer to Kaufman because he's smart enough to understand the medical literature. Watch the many interviews & Q&A videos with Kaufman. You'll see he's very precise in the way he dissects the papers who's authors proclaim the isolation & sequencing of some virus. His arguments are purely factual & logical and cannot be debunked.

    You should read the entire paper.

    * Cell samples were obtained from tracheobronchial epithelial lung tissue from 3 human donors with potential pulmonary disease. So no confirmation that the samples came from healthy tissue can be made. From these tissues, human airway epithelial (HAE) was generated to be used as culture.

    * No attempt at direct observation/photography or detection of viruses in PCR-positive samples was conducted. Instead, a culture was performed.

    * Apical surfaces were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 or human coronavirus NL63 which was determined by both using qRT-PCR specific for SARS-CoV-2 or HCoV-NL63 and titration of infectious particles on monkey kidney (Vero E6 or LLC-MK2) cell lines. Samples were thus claimed to be 'infected' based on PCR-positive tests on 'infected' CPE-sensitive Vero cells. But (1) PCR cannot detect the presence of microbes or infection, and (2) no details of how the inoculated Vero cells were treated/processed was provided.

    * Before microscopy, both the experimental & control (mock infected) HAE supernatants were exposed to paraformaldehyde or paraformaldehyde–2.5% glutaraldehyde & similarly treated with osmium tetroxide, ethanol, epoxy resin, and polymerization. So no valid controls were used to rule out CPE from lab procedures. And no confirmation of virions in microscopy images can be made - only suspected 'viral' particles of unknown origin & biochemical makeup in an unpurified soup of cellular debris.

    * No demonstration of viral isolation or purification - but rather alleged ultracentrifuged 'sediment virus particles' was claimed.

    * No genome sequencing was indicated in this experiment.

    * Authors admit "The underlying pathogenesis and transmission of viral infection remain obscure." So basically a waste of time & money.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
  9. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you've been jabbed, you might want to ask for a D-dimer test which detects micro-clotting.
     
  10. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you. Yes, it's amazing what just a few ethical MDs & medical scientists like Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan, Scoglio and others can accomplish against the voices of the millions of deluded or lying 'experts' pushing the false narrative. No doubt the numbers of dissenting MDs/scientists will continue to grow.

    I used to receive Jon Rappoport's free newsletter years ago. He used to believe in viruses, but not the vaccines. He's now in the no-virus club, which shows an open mind.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
    gfm7175 likes this.
  11. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, their Abstract is nonsense?

    Of course, it is because there are no viruses. :( :roll: :roll:
     
  12. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you not understand anything I posted?? Did you bother reading the entire paper (which is a separate link) particularly the "methods" section?
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
  13. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Few die not because they're taking anti-virals, but because they were never infected by a virus. If any die, it's either because of the anti-virals or from vaccinations, EMF, or other medical drugs/treatments - or a combination of these.
    Still waiting for the evidence. But please read it before you post it. Don't just post something that you never take the time to read & understand.
    Paxlovid is a toxic drug. If you like renal failure & a host of other serious side effects, then more power to you.

    There's no such thing as 'long covid'. People are being injured by vaccines, EMF, and medical drugs/treatments.
    No one's 'infected' by anything. Anti-virals are a toxic & costly scam.
    There's no way to measure the levels of a fictitious microbe. HIV is a scam - period!
    You don't need the book. Do some reading online. There's tons of info if you look and are willing to take the time to learn & read it.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  14. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The above is MISINFORMATION.

    Koch’s Postulate # 3:

    The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

    Process:

    1. A patient with symptoms (continuous dry cough, high fever, loss of sense of smell) provides a lower respiratory secretion sample. RT-PCR test confirms that SARS-CoV-2 is present in the sample.

    2. The virus is isolated from a culture and genomic sequencing and microscopic investigation support that it is the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has been isolated.

    Of course, when discussing virus isolation, Kaufman needs to get up to speed on present day investigative methods rather than relying on older information.

    In December, 2019, the full genome of SARS-CoV-2 had been published. Thousands of genomes have been added to the international public virus database by numerous researchers in various countries around the world. These genomic sequences are produced by extremely specialized and sophisticated methods. Rather than banging on and on about — ‘There is no virus’, perhaps Kaufman should familiarize himself with what science can actually do these days.

    3. After the virus has been isolated, infect a health host with the isolated virus. If an infective agent is present the healthy host will become ill. Scientists did this by infecting Syrian hamsters with virus isolated from a sick patient. The isolates of SARS-CoV-2 replicated in the lungs of Syrian hamsters and caused ‘severe pathological lesions’ in the lungs of the hamsters similar to the commonly reported ‘imaging features’ of covid-19 patients. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2009799117). There other studies like this.

    This demonstrates Koch’s Postulate #3.

    I just want to add here, that the information I post here is not for those that choose to believe in faulty scientific beliefs, it’s for those who might be interested in information related to why the information posted related to Kaufman is MISINFORMATION.

    More on Exosomes

    Kaufman stated exosomes and viruses look the same and can’t be distinguished from each other. Nope. There are many many different viruses and they all have different shapes and look nothing like exosomes. For example, coronaviruses have large spikes on there outer surface, exosomes do not.

    Kaufman claimed that exosomes are produced by sick cells in the lungs. Nope. Exosomes are present in most cells, healthy and infected cells.

    Kaufman claims the virus is ‘fully’ an exosomes. Nope. Exosomes do not have the spikes on their outer surface as do coronaviruses and exosomes to not reproduce. If you put one hundred exosomes in a culture medium and leave the culture medium, you will have one hundred exosomes at the end of the culture time. If you put one hundred coronaviruses in culture medium, they will replicate exponentially.

    It is total BS that there is no evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it has been fully sequenced. Thousands of scientists have provided the genomic sequences which were produced by extremely powerful sequencers.

    As an aside here — I don’t see Kaufman denying the sequencing of the whole human genome. Sequencing machines use saliva or blood samples and translate the information into a digital file of letters. The letters correspond to a patients DNA. Yet, he denies the sequencing of viruses.

    Kaufman claims that COVID-19 has other causes than a virus (such as toxins). Nope, the symptoms can specifically be related to the virus.

    Kaufman claims that the causes of COVID-19 are mostly environmental. Nope. The symptoms spread like an infectious disease.

    Oh puleez. By October 2019, in fifty Chinese cities including Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Beijing, and Shanghai 5G was fully operational — Where was their pneumonia?

    If the symptoms of Covid-19 were caused by 5G as Kaufman claimed, why were there initially lots of areas with 5G networks that didn’t have infections, and lots of areas without 5G networks that had infections.

    Cities notorious for polluted air throughout the world are: Bhiwadi, India; Ghaziabad, India; Hotan, China; Delhi, India; Jaunpur, India; Faisalabad, Pakistan; Noida, India; Bahawalpur, India; Bagpat, India. Where were all the people getting sick with pneumonia in these cities and why did the illness with very specific symptoms start in 2019 when the pollution has existed for years? Why did the sickness start in Wuhan and move across the world to places that have little pollution.

    I could go on but it’s obvious that Kaufman is promoting misinformation. Critical thinking and logic go a long way.
     
  15. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Already off to a bad start with the PCR test, which can't detect either a microbe or infection. PCR can only detect pre-selected sequences (which is where the primers come in), and thus - in the case of 'viruses' - requires confirmation that said target sequence was genuinely sourced from a physically isolated, lysed, and sequenced virion. Sequencing for all 'viruses' is carried out via computer modeling/bioinformatics - which, like PCR, also requires a target or reference sequence.

    The following are the major limitations to PCR. (Note especially the last item. All 'viral' samples run through a PCR consist of billions of gene fragments, and thus renders ALL PCR-based 'covid testing' meaningless.)

    * PCR cannot be used to amplify unknown sequences. A pre-selected target sequence is necessary to design the primers.
    * DNA polymerases are prone to error, which potentially causes mutations in PCR products.
    * Only a tiny segment of the alleged virus's genome is targeted (copied) - never its entire genome (which hasn't even been confirmed to begin with).
    * PCR is very sensitive to contamination. A small amount of contaminating DNA could result in misleading or ambiguous results.

    Further issues:

    THE CORONA VIRUS PCR TEST: FACTS AND MYTHS - WHY TEST RESULTS VARY AND MAY NOT MATCH CLINICAL SUSPICION
    *** Unlike most other routine laboratory tests where testing conditions and parameters are well standardized, all current SARS-CoV-2 testing are performed under Emergency Use Authorization (an “EUA”) from the FDA which requires that performance data on sensitivity and specificity be submitted to and reviewed by the FDA.
    *** There is marked variability in viral primer and probes utilized in various tests (see attached listing); although there are some common targets, there are significant variations among EUA approved tests.
    *** Variability in nucleic acid amplification methods: although most assays are RT-PCR based, some use a lower efficiency isothermal amplification method (e.g. rapid Abbott ID NOW).
    *** Laboratories may define different criteria and thresholds for calling positivity: Limits of detection vary between tests and when multiple targets are used, the significance of a single positive target varies. In some settings, a single positive probe may called presumptive positive, in others, the same scenario may be called inconclusive.

    https://uthsc.edu/coronavirus/documents/uthsc-sars-cov2-pcr-facts-myths.pdf

    Nope (again). As usual, a specific & highly inbred Vero cell line culture is used in which a CPE is induced as a result of chemical & temperature manipulation. Sequencing, if carried out, is always performed with computational modeling (in silico) that follows a specific algorithm based on a database-derived reference genome. No physical virus required.

    What virologists call 'isolation' is the cytopathic effect, which they assume is the result of a virus. There's no actual (physical) viral isolation, let alone purification, involved in their so-called 'isolation.'

    Here's a quick summary of the basic steps: The cell culture method involves taking the host fluids, which have been added to “viral” transport medium (VTM) containing antibiotics, antifungals, fetal bovine blood, and other nutrients and chemicals, and mixing it into either an animal or cancer cell maintained within the same materials - which is also treated with chemicals, a starvation media, and temperature manipulation. This unpurified mixture of host and foreign elements is incubated for days until the cell dies. This death, known as the cytopathogenic effect, is used as indirect evidence that a 'virus' is present within the original fluids and has replicated as a result of the culture. The images we see of 'viruses' take place after this process as, according to the CDC, the 'viral' particles are unable to be purified, isolated, and visualized without cell culturing. Further biological manipulation takes place if the culture supernatant is prepared for electron microscopy. And sequencing, if carried out, is performed entirely by metagenomic computer modeling.

    [​IMG]

    Keep in mind: In EM photos, the alleged 'viruses' pointed out are never from a purified sample, but from a non-purified source (eg, culture supernatant). Also, no independent variables are established, so no valid controls can be implemented.
     
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  16. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, this doesn't prove a virus was sickening the hamsters because no virus had yet been isolated & then purified (for inoculation) from the sample taken from the 'sick' patient.

    Also, the PNAS.org study you cited has several issues:

    (1) The animal models were not 'healthy'. Syrian hamsters were used as test models because they're already prone to & bred for disease - particularly cancer, heart disorders, respiratory diseases, reproductive disorders, and metabolic disorders, among others. These are poor models not only because they're not human, but also because they're highly inbred & already in a compromised state, being that they're genetically predisposed to multiple chemical sensitivities & metabolic disorders - not to mention they're studied outside of their natural habitat which enhances their susceptibility to disease. (Highly inbred, disease-prone mice are also used for this reason.) Not that I support the use of animals in lab experiments, but why don't researchers ever use healthy animals or humans for this kind of study?

    Look at the laundry list of health disorders these specially bred lab hamsters are prone to (pay particular attention to the numerous respiratory/lung disorders):

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149563/

    (2) I looked for, but could not find any details on the exact chemical makeup of the inoculated viral agent (UT-NCGM02) that allegedly contains SARS-CoV-2 - let alone how UT-NCGM02 was processed to allegedly contain 'SARS-CoV-2'. If there is anything else other than purified viral particles in the inoculant (eg, chemical toxins, antibiotics, bacterial/cellular debris, fungus, live bacteria, foreign genes, etc.), then this would invalidate the study. But we're not given this information.

    The paper states, "Hamsters were infected with 105.6 plaque-forming units (PFU) or with 103 PFU of UT-NCGM02 through a combination of the intranasal and ocular routes; the ocular inoculation route was included because conjunctivitis has been reported among COVID-19 patients."

    An undeclared mix of chemicals in the inoculant is highly likely since it was sourced from a culture, and would explain the following result stated in the paper:

    "High dose-infected animals had more severe lung abnormalities (CT severity score ranging from 0 to 18 [mean 8.62, median 8.50]) than low dose-infected animals (CT severity score ranging from 0 to 15 [mean 6.23, median 5.79])."

    It should be mentioned that The National Center for Global Health & Medicine (NCGM) is a research institute associated with Center Hospital of the National Center for Global Health and Medicine. One of the study's author (Yoshihiro Kawaoka) is Center Director, and the lead author (Masaki Imai) is Director of the NCGM's Respiratory Viral Infection Dept. - the very source of the mysterious 'viral' inoculant (UT-NCGM02) administered to the hamsters. At least two more authors are Special Fellows and Research Fellows at the same institute. So there may be a potential conflict of interest here.

    (3) Again we see the use of CPE-susceptible Vero cell lines for culture rather than a purified sample of viral particles, in 'propagating the virus', and in 'virus titration.' So this absence of isolation & purification of the virus would invalidate any claim of alleged 'infection' in any of the animals.

    (4) The details of the mock-infected hamsters is absent. Were the mock-infected subjects exposed only to PBS and nothing else? We don't know.

    (5) Once euthanized, the hamsters were analyzed for 'virus titers' & tissue abnormalities. 'Virus titration' involves 'quantifying viruses' through end-point titrations performed in Vero E6 cells - which again introduces a CPE-susceptible culture yielding a mix of unpurified cellular debris after processing, and consisting of millions of genetic fragments of unknown origin. Thus again the absence of purified viral specimens.

    (6) Unnatural vectors of exposure to the 'infectious' inoculant were administered in liquid form through deliberate intranasal and ocular routes. If the alleged 'viruses' are so infectious, why not simply aerosolise a purified sample of the virus into the animal cages and allow them to inhale it? Apparently with regard to the alleged covid virus, it has been calculated that, "one sneeze of a covid-19 patient contains 200 million viruses." However, if we obtain even a physically larger sample directly from a subject’s nose or lungs there are precisely none to be found. So, to aerosolise a sample to simulate natural infection can't be done, because to do this they first need to isolate & purify a sample of the virus - which has never been achieved.

    (7) The post-infection injection of convalescent serum results don't tell us anything about the presence of any virus. Because of the absence of evidence for any virus throughout the experiment, it's likely the post-infection serum (presumably of plasma) contained an endogenous 'anti-toxin' against the administered UT-NCGM02 in the rechallenge experiment. However, the authors don't provide details of the exact composition of the serum, so we don't know.

    For the passive transfer experiments, eight hamsters were infected with 105.6 PFU (in 110 μL) or with 103 PFU (in 110 μL) of UT-NCGM02 via a combination of the intranasal and ocular routes. ... On day 1 or 2 postinfection, hamsters were injected intraperitoneally with the postinfection serum or control serum (2 mL per hamster). The animals were killed on day 4 postinfection, and the virus titers in the nasal turbinates and lungs were determined by means of plaque assays in VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells.

    [8] The hamsters were euthanized only days after being 'infected'. Other than not allowing for the development of observable symptom to manifest (other than weight change), these animals were already prone to developing lung/respiratory abnormalities - which apparently were found after examination of the dead hamsters. But it's not clear whether the lung lesions were already present or not before 'infection'. Only virus titers were performed - no observation of symptoms - and the titers were performed by use of plaque assays in Vero cells. (Note: Other than plaque assays, other methods commonly used for titers include RT-PCR, Western Blot, ELISA, or flow cytometry - none of which uses a purified specimen.)

    -------------------------------------------------

    Here's another point that's worth considering, but is not talked about by virologists. It has to do with the absence of confirmed mechanisms by which 'viruses' cause parthenogenesis. In addressing this question, only conjectural possibilities are provided - and no studies exist demonstrating how many virions would be necessary to cause cell death. Additionally, no explanation is provided as to why 'viruses' can't be directly identified & photographed in intercellular/other fluids despite the conventional narrative that cell death through lyses is the cause of disease. If the narrative was true, there should be millions of viruses visible. From Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology, we read:

    By virology’s definition the hypothesised particles are passive and do not produce any waste products so it is thus a mystery as to how they inflict ill health on a human host. Pfizer suggested to the layperson that, “the immune system reacts to the injury of these bodily cells by revving up,” but did not cite any scientific evidence for this imaginative claim. The 4th edition of Medical Microbiology ventured further and stated that:

    "Direct cell damage and death from viral infection may result from (1) diversion of the cell's energy, (2) shutoff of cell macromolecular synthesis, (3) competition of viral mRNA for cellular ribosomes, (4) competiton of viral promoters and transcriptional enhancers for cellular transcriptional factors such as RNA polymerases, and inhibition of the interferon defense mechanisms. Indirect cell damage can result from integration of the viral genome, induction of mutations in the host genome, inflammation, and the host immune response."

    Essentially, the virologists have offered multiple hypothetical pathogenetic mechanisms for a particle hypothesised to exist in an organism such as a human. And again, even if these speculative mechanisms were at play, it would require enormous numbers of cells to be affected to produce symptoms. But enormous numbers of cells would result in astronomical amounts of viral particles coming out of them — so why can no viral particles ever be found? Virology has a habit of diverting attention away from such aspects that raise doubts about its phantasmal model.
     
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  17. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    (1) The question is already irrelevant because there's no scientific confirmation that what is alleged to be 'viruses' in EM photos are actually something different than commonly observed EVs/MVBs. No pathogenic/infectious virus has yet been identified & confirmed to exist through isolation & purification and subsequent physical, biochemical & biological characterization. This means that the so-called viruses with spikey-looking envelopes haven't been confirmed to be anything other than common endogenous EVs/MVBs.

    (2) The staining technique in EM preparations is responsible for the corona effect on some EVs. In transmission electron micrographs in which tissue-thin sections are stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, coated vesicles have an electron-dense studded surface that appears identical to the “corona” comprising the spike protein that decorates all “coronaviruses,” including “SARS-CoV-2 virions”

    This technique was first used in an experiment by EM expert June Almeida in 1967 after which she coined the term "coronavirus." She was provided samples by D. A. Tyrrell & Dorothy Hamre which were claimed (without evidence, nor visually) to have contained viruses (the B814 strain & 229E strain respectively) Almeida & Tyrrell together carried out an experiment which led to them believing they had visually discovered a novel virus she called a 'coronavirus.' The name was derived from the surface peplomers or spikes that give the viral particles the appearance of having a solar corona. Almeida claimed to use a new negative staining approach for her electron microscope images on unpurified samples in order to characterize the three uncharacterized 'viruses.'

    Mike Stone points out that "it is stated that Almeida created a new EM technique requiring gold labels and specific antibodies to interact and stain the particles she wanted to identify as 'viruses.' However, without having first purified, isolated, and characterized the 'virus,' it would be impossible to know which antibodies are specific to it." You can read the rest of Stone's excellent review of Almeida's paper here:

    https://viroliegy.com/2021/12/07/june-almeida-and-the-first-coronavirus-em-images-1967/

    And here's Almeida's original 1967 paper which began the whole 'coronvirus' myth that endures today:

    The Morphology of Three Previously Uncharacterized Human Respiratory Viruses that Grow in Organ Culture
    https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-1-2-175

    As the following paper points out, "Knowledge of coronavirus ultrastructure and morphogenesis is paramount to avoiding errors in identification." This paper, whose lead author is a specialist in electron microscopy, discusses the need to consult EM experts because of the frequent misinterpretation by virologists of EVs to be 'viruses.' let's look at the reason why the spikey EVs are commonly observed & mistaken for 'coronaviruses.' (Note that the authors believe in viruses, and assume that the staining technique can identify actual 'coronaviruses', but also identical looking spikey cellular organelles. And this, despite the fact that no original virus has first ever been isolated & characterized.)

    Difficulties in Differentiating Coronaviruses from Subcellular Structures in Human Tissues by Electron Microscopy
    In attempts to attribute pathology of COVID-19 patients directly to tissue damage caused by SARS-CoV-2, investigators have inaccurately reported subcellular structures, including coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, and vesiculating rough endoplasmic reticulum, as coronavirus particles. ... In addition, although the characteristic spikes of coronaviruses may be visible on the virus surface, especially on extracellular particles, they are less evident in thin sections than in negative stain preparations.
    [...]
    The virus is coated with the stain, which penetrates between spikes protruding on the virus surface, making them visible. Thus, negative stain EM images readily show the prominent spikes that are associated with coronaviruses (Figure 1, panel A).
    [...]
    Before declaring the presence of viruses, particularly complex enveloped viruses with multiple appearances in different stages of maturation, we recommend consulting with a trained diagnostic EM professional who has extensive knowledge of viral ultrastructure. ... One should only use the term virus or a more specific term, such as coronavirus, when the particles in question can be positively identified.
    [...]
    In each case of erroneously identified coronavirus particles, the structures mistaken for virus are common cellular organelles. These misinterpretations are easy to make without extensive training and are made easier by the publication of incorrectly identified viral structures.

    [See also Table: Structures misidentified as coronavirus particles by transmission electron microscopy in publications, March–November 2020. You will see how often spiked vesicles are misinterpreted to be 'viruses'.]
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349464247_Difficulties_in_Differentiating_Coronaviruses_from_Subcellular_Structures_in_Human_Tissues_by_Electron_Microscopy

    (3) There are EVs called 'virus-like particles' (VLPs) which are not considered viruses, but look identical to viruses. It appears that virologists avoid having to admit viruses don't exist by inventing a new label - 'VLP'. You can google these images and compare to alleged 'real viruses'. Here are a couple examples:

    https://www.jci.org/articles/view/78450/figure/2
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015559

    (4) The authors of the following paper note that some EVs can have a "protein corona."

    “Essentially both are encapsulated by a lipid membrane, rich in membrane proteins and contain nucleic acids. The composition of the lipid membrane is very similar, with some viruses (e.g. HIV and HepC) shown to have tetraspanins on their surface. Viruses can vary greatly in size but there is certainly a significant number in the sub 200 nm range, SARS-CoV2 is itself around 60-140 nm in diameter. There is some evidence that extracellular vesicles can also have a protein corona which may contribute towards functional effects. this, along with sizing and density similarities makes it hard to distinguish between the two using EM. How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in the sample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”

    Extracellular Vesicles in Viral Infections: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
    https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_Viral_Infections_Two_Sides_of_the_Same_Coin

    (5) In the following paper the authors noted how the use of antibiotics in cultures (which are always used) seemed to enhance the propagation of 'viruses.' Note that the use of antibiotics is a common chemical in cell cultures that leads to CPEs, and yields the production/expulsion of EVs that are mistaken for 'viruses.'

    Antimycotic-Antibiotic Amphotericin B Promotes Influenza Virus Replication in Cell Culture
    We describe here the enhancing effect of the polyene antibiotic amphotericin B (AmB) on influenza virus growth in Vero cells. ... Our results indicate that the use of AmB may facilitate influenza virus isolation and production in Vero cells.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194987/

    (6) In the next paper, the particles assumed to be exosomes were created by the same cell culture process utilized by virologists with materials from HEALTHY animals. No 'viral' sample was necessary in order to create the same exact EM images as seen by virologists. So, because the same 'viral' particles were found in healthy subjects, these results obviously could not stand as it would destroy the very foundation that virology was built upon. Thus, the 'virus-like particles' were given a different name and function in order to keep the 'virus' myth intact. As Mike Stone writes, "The exosome became the escape clause for researchers to fall back on so that virology could continue marching ahead unscathed by these contradictory findings."

    Vesicle formation during reticulocyte maturation. Association of plasma membrane activities with released vesicles (exosomes)
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3597417/

    -------------------------------

    Thus it's no surprise that virologists (who believe in viruses) repeatedly point out the fact that trying to distinguish 'viruses' from EVs/MVBs is virtually impossible, and that currently there's no way to do so

    I've already posted several science papers that discuss this insurmountable challenge, but here are just a few more examples of many:

    Hunting coronavirus by transmission electron microscopy - a guide to SARS-CoV-2-associated ultrastructural pathology in COVID-19 tissues
    Compared to other in-situ techniques, transmission electron microscopy is the only method to visualise assembled virions in tissues, and will be required to prove SARS-CoV-2 replication outside the respiratory tract. In practice, documenting in tissues the characteristic features seen in infected cell cultures seems to be much more difficult than anticipated. In our view, the hunt for coronavirus by transmission electron microscopy is still on.
    [​IMG]
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32981112/
    https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/13/the-mimickers-of-sars-cov-2/

    Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses
    Not all the viruses encased in cell-derived envelopes are fully intact and functional. Many are the equivalent of lemons in a used car lot: secondhand and not operational. These viral trash heaps covered in membrane can’t infect other cells or perpetuate disease outbreaks. Yet in some cases, on the surface, these vesicles carrying viral junk look nearly identical to those carrying cellular RNA.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-talk-in-a-language-that-looks-like-viruses-20180502/

    Purification methods and the presence of RNA in virus particles and extracellular vesicles
    The fields of extracellular vesicles (EV) and virus infections are marred in a debate on whether a particular mRNA or non-coding RNA (i.e., miRNA) is packaged into a virus particle or copurifying EV and similarly, whether a particular mRNA or non-coding RNA is contained in meaningful numbers within an EV. Key in settling this debate, is whether the purification methods are adequate to separate virus particles, EV and contaminant soluble RNA and RNA:protein complexes. Differential centrifugation/ultracentrifugation and precipitating agents like polyethylene glycol are widely utilized for both EV and virus purifications. EV are known to co-sediment with virions and other particulates, such as defective interfering particles and protein aggregates.
    https://exosome-rna.com/purificatio...n-virus-particles-and-extracellular-vesicles/

    Exosomes Derived from HIV-1-infected Cells Contain Trans-activation Response Element RNA
    Exosomes are nano-sized vesicles produced by healthy and virus-infected cells. Exosomes derived from infected cells have been shown to contain viral microRNAs (miRNAs). ... Exosomes contain lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids (mRNAs and miRNAs). ... Exosomal components have been explored as potential biomarkers of the cellular disease state, particularly in cancers. [...] The exact mechanisms that mediate fusion of exosomes with target cells remain a subject of intense investigation. ... Collectively, our data demonstrate that exosomes derived from HIV-1-infected cells are likely to have profound influences on host-virus interaction and disease progression.
    https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)45711-4/pdf

    Extracellular Vesicles Exploit Viral Entry Routes for Cargo Delivery
    Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have emerged as crucial mediators of intercellular communication, being involved in a wide array of key biological processes. Eukaryotic cells, and also bacteria, actively release heterogeneous subtypes of EVs into the extracellular space, where their contents reflect their (sub)cellular origin and the physiologic state of the parent cell. Within the past 20 years, presumed subtypes of EVs have been given a rather confusing diversity of names, including exosomes, microvesicles, ectosomes, microparticles, virosomes, virus-like particles, and oncosomes, and these names are variously defined by biogenesis, physical characteristics, or function. The latter category, functions, in particular the transmission of biological signals between cells in vivo and how EVs control biological processes, has garnered much interest. EVs have pathophysiological properties in cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, infectious disease, and cardiovascular disease, highlighting possibilities not only for minimally invasive diagnostic applications but also for therapeutic interventions, like macromolecular drug delivery. Yet, in order to pursue therapies involving EVs and delivering their cargo, a better grasp of EV targeting is needed. Here, we review recent progress in understanding the molecular mechanisms underpinning EV uptake by receptor-ligand interactions with recipient cells, highlighting once again the overlap of EVs and viruses. Despite their highly heterogeneous nature, EVs require common viral entry pathways, and an unanticipated specificity for cargo delivery is being revealed. We discuss the challenges ahead in delineating specific roles for EV-associated ligands and cellular receptors.
    https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/MMBR.00063-15
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2023
    Navy Corpsman likes this.
  18. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You misunderstood Kaufman. He wasn't stating that exosomes are ONLY produced by sick cells and/or ONLY in lung cells, but that virologists are mistaking the exosomes observed (in vitro) in diseased lung tissue for 'viruses.' keep in mind, Kaufman is MIT educated and a medical doctor with extensive education in lab biology & microbiology. He knows very well that exosomes are produced & utilized by most cells. Also, why would Kaufman claim exosomes are only produced by diseased lung cells when some 'viral cultures' showing the presence of exosomes are devoid of lung tissue?

    Have you ever wondered why there are so few 'viruses' observed in EM photos that allegedly show cell destruction due to an explosion of virions? Considering the size of 'viruses', shouldn't a cell killed by a virus be spilling out hundreds of thousands or millions of virions?

    It wasn't Kaufman that said the virus "is fully an exosome" (although Kaufman does believe this). That phrase is credited to Dr. James Hildreth of John Hopkins whose 'specialty' is HIV. Despite Hildreth's belief that viruses exist, he stated, “the [HIV] virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word.”

    The spikes issue I covered above.

    This is again a moot argument because no infectious 'virus' has yet been confirmed to exist, let alone biologically & biochemically characterized.

    'Extremely powerful sequencers'? You mean computational sequencing in which a software system stitches together a series of gene fragments from a sample of billions of gene fragments of unknown origin into a novel sequence claimed to be the genome of some fictitious 'virus' per some arbitrarily pre-selected reference genome - and all performed without ever confirming the presence of an infectious virus.

    You need to learn how sequencing is actually done. This is not a debatable topic.

    * (video) Kaufman details the steps virologists carry out to sequence a 'virus'.

    The Fraudulent Science of Modern Virology Pt 4: What is an in silico genome?
    https://ugetube.com/watch/dr-andrew...at-is-a-in-silico-genome_rPpez4qPblLcRvI.html

    * (video) Interview with Dr. Jerneja Tomsic discussing the pseudoscience behind the use of PCR and metagenomic sequencing by virologists.

    The Linchpin is PCR with Jerneja Tomsic
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/fXMwlsUj4ITX/

    * For those who don't get it, Christine Massey lays out in layman's terms how sequencing is carried out.

    Using Metagenomics to find Shakespeare in Vintage Magazines
    https://apocalypticyoga.substack.co...id=112046510&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

    That's because the human chromosomal genome exists. It's not a fictitious object like viruses.

    What 'symptoms'? How do these symptoms differ from those of other diseases? Is there a clinical diagnostic test for it?

    And NO. The PCR & rapid-antigen 'tests' don't count because they cannot detect either a microbe or infection.

    What specific 'symptoms' are you talking about? How do they differ from other diseases? Is there a clinical diagnostic test for it - or is it just assumed via guesswork, suspicion, assumption, or the meaningless PCR & rapid antigen 'tests'?

    If it really was an 'infectious' disease, it wouldn't spread quickly around the world. What did spread quickly was the rollout of 5G in April 2019 (with 4G already having been in place for years and already sickening people), with the first case of 'covid' reported in January 10, 2020 in Wuhan. Ten days later on Jan 20, S. Korea got its first case. Then later in December 2020 the covid vaccines were introduced, which then caused massive injuries & death wherever it was introduced (and which was blamed on a 'coronavirus').

    Wuhan, China
    * May 2019 - Wuhan is one of 3 pilots cities in Hubei province to set up 300 5G base stations.
    * Oct 2019 - ~10,000 5G antennas activated
    * Jan 10, 2020 - First case of 'covid' in the world reported in Wuhan.

    South Korea
    * April 2019 - First ever country to roll out 5G.
    * Jan 20, 2020 - First case of 'covid' reported in S. Korea, with the claim that it was 'imported' from Wuhan.

    Keep in mind, specific & consistent symptoms need to be established to label a novel disease. Eg, diabetes has specific & consistent symptoms that are well defined both clinically & by blood work. 'Covid' lacks any of this, which is evident by millions of cases showing a huge variety of symptoms & no confirmation of an infectious 'virus.'
     
  19. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your argument is lacking because your knowledge is lacking.

    (1) Wuhan was one of the pilot cities in Hubei province to receive 5G. Hubei province (of which Wuhan is its capital) set up 300 5G base stations in May 2019 - several months earlier than Oct 2019 when many other cities throughout China got 5G.
    https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/27/c_138094302.htm

    By Oct 2019, Wuhan activated ~10,000 antennas, the most densely 5G-covered city in China at the time. By Jan 10, 2020 the first case of 'covid' was reported.

    Obviously they had to choose one place as the 'origin' of the scam - I mean, 'virus'. So what better place than Wuhan, China whose autocratic state govt is already in a position to impose its 'pandemic' agenda without resistance?

    (2) The evidence for EMF in general causing a multitude of health disorders is vast & historic. Here is an extensive paper on the health effects of wireless radiation, including the link between 5G and 'Covid-19'.

    * NOTE: The authors of this publication believe viruses exist, but were nevertheless astute enough to note the obvious link between health disorders and radio frequencies.
    * NOTE: Notice the term 'hypoxia' in the paper. Hypoxia (oxygen starvation) is a common bio-effect of EMF exposure, and has been noted in medical literature for decades. Isn't it interesting that 'lack of oxygen' (even WITH ventilators) is a common symptom reported in 'covid' patients? (Note also that loss of taste & smell is a common symptom of both influenza & 'covid'. All influenza-like epidemics are caused by EMF, just as the Spanish Flu was caused by the newly constructed radio towers.)

    Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G
    Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public health policy has focused on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and its effects on human health while environmental factors have been largely ignored. In considering the epidemiological triad (agent-host-environment) applicable to all disease, we investigated a possible environmental factor in the COVID-19 pandemic: ambient radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication systems including microwaves and millimeter waves. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, surfaced in Wuhan, China shortly after the implementation of city-wide (fifth generation [5G] of wireless communications radiation [WCR]), and rapidly spread globally, initially demonstrating a statistical correlation to international communities with recently established 5G networks. ... By crossing boundaries between the disciplines of biophysics and pathophysiology, we present evidence that WCR may: (1) cause morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that can contribute to hypercoagulation; (2) impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplify immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increase cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals resulting in vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increase intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsen heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.
    [...]
    Wuhan is unique in that it was among the first cities in the world to offer citywide 5G service starting on October 31, 2019, with purportedly 10,000 antennas reaching approximately 8 million citizens. The average distance between antennas was approximately 1,000 feet, meaning that every citizen was no farther than 500 feet from the nearest 5G antenna in the Wuhan metropolitan region. In other urban centers around the world where 5G had been partially installed by late 2019, the area of 5G coverage was typically limited to only certain neighborhoods. However, the aggressive 5G rollout during 2020 has most certainly increased 5G coverage dramatically.
    [...]
    Historically the former Soviet Union has conducted much more in-depth research in this field than Western industrialized countries. Pakhomov and Murphy, two researchers with military backgrounds, published a seminal paper comprehensively reviewing some 1,200 research reports. While a great number of specific effects were reported, the brief summary discerns the following trends:

    * The studies emphasized RF-induced changes in the nervous system function.
    * Many studies convincingly demonstrated significant bioeffects of pulsed microwaves.
    * Modulation was often the determining factor in substantial differences between pulsed and CW radiation at comparable time-averaged intensities.
    * Many bioeffects from low-intensity pulsed microwaves reported clearly pathogenic effects.
    * The specific mechanisms of interaction are not well understood.

    Conclusion: There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19. [...] WCR exposure is a widespread, yet often neglected, environmental stressor that can produce a wide range of adverse bioeffects. For decades, independent research scientists worldwide have emphasized the health risks and cumulative damage caused by WCR [42,45]. The evidence presented here is consistent with a large body of established research. Healthcare workers and policymakers should consider WCR a potentially toxic environmental stressor. Methods for reducing WCR exposure should be provided to all patients and the general population.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/

    The following links will take you to a huge list of further studies demonstrating the harmful biological effects of EMF. Note that the adverse effects of EMF also include psychological disorders & abnormalities - eg, depression, anxiety, irritability, mood swings, cognitive decline, dementia/memory loss & Alzheimer's, and so on.

    https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp#es
    https://ehtrust.org/science/recent-scientific-publications-by-the-eht-scientific-team/
    https://www.emf-portal.org/en
    https://www.aihbonline.com/searchresult.asp?I1.x=0&I1.y=0&search=EMF+brain
    https://quwave.com/research-reference.html
    https://www.electricsense.com/emf-scientific-research/
    https://kompetenzinitiative.com/english-brochures/

    List of documentaries on Cell Phone Radiation, Wireless, Electromagnetic Fields, MCS and EHS hypersensitivity
    https://ehtrust.org/films-on-cell-p...il&utm_medium=cc&utm_campaign=recommendations

    You should also read Arthur Firstenberg's book, The Invisible Rainbow, and Dr. Samuel Milham's book, Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization.

    (3) Over 180 scientists and doctors in almost 35 countries are warning the world about 5G health risks. These scientists' response to "Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe" spells it out quite succinctly:

    "We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment."
    https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

    (4) The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMF (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, otherwise known as "wireless radiation") as a Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011 based on credible evidence that linked long-term wireless exposure to brain cancer.
    https://ehtrust.org/science/whoiarc-position-on-wireless-and-health/

    (5) Insurance Authorities Rate 5G and Electromagnetic radiation as "high Risk"
    Insurance companies do not want to insure for electromagnetic radiation because it is simply to risky. Please see on this webpage the reports, white papers and news articles where companies report on the liability issue.
    https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/

    (6) If 5G is So Safe Then Why Do Wireless Companies Warn Their Shareholders but Not Consumers?
    https://theodora-scarato.medium.com...r-shareholders-but-not-consumers-23171885cabc

    Corporate Company Investor Warnings contained in Annual Reports filed on Form 10-K (or Form 20-F or 40-F for foreign companies) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    “We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.

    Cell phone manufacturers and providers of their infrastructure are aware that the radiation from their products could be risky and warn their shareholders. See below excerpts from statements in their annual reports that indicate these companies are informing their shareholders that they may incur significant financial losses related to electromagnetic fields.

    Insurance companies will not insure these companies for harm from the radiation from their products and networks. As Crown Castle states, “We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters. “

    https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/corp...ports-10k-filings-cell-phone-radiation-risks/

    There's so much more, but you get the idea. The evidence for EMF-induced chronic diseases is overwhelming, but hardly anyone considers it because (1) it's been with us since the early 19th Century, (2) the medical literature on this subject has been both buried & denied, and (3) more studies were conducted by foreign & military institutions than by American institutions.
     
  20. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't recall Kaufman making that specific statement, although I know he's mentioned wireless radiation being a potential factor in chronic illness. That 5G claim was made by me, as well as Arthur Firstenberg, among others. But it's not just 5G, all EMF (both wired & wireless) causes health issues. This was noted early during the days when telegraph lines were first installed - the effects of which became more notable when telegraph lines were densely strewn throughout large cities like spiderwebs.

    You're talking about 'infections', which requires testing. Testing didn't spread as rapidly as did 5G. Only when testing was expanded did so-called 'infections' (ie, cases) also spread. But this is a moot point anyway because there's no 'test' for a fictitious microbe. But it's a great way to scare people into believing there's a pandemic.

    And if you employ a useless test for a fictitious microbe, you can find 'infections' virtually anywhere you like - 5G or no 5G.

    I don't know what the pneumonia rate or pneumonia death rate is in each of these cities or other regions. The health of city dwellers, even in heavily polluted areas, is also influenced by the season, climate, altitude, solar cycles, age, diet/nutrition, lifestyle & habits, EMF exposure, vaccinations, medical & recreational drug use, pre-existing conditions, health care standards, stress levels, and other man-made toxins - not just fossil fuel pollution.

    You can't just name off some polluted cities and claim they're all going to have the same rate of pneumonia. The point, however, is that pneumonia is a common illness, and there are factors that increase the risk.

    For example:

    * Certain people are more likely to become ill with pneumonia: adults 65 years or older; children younger than 5 years old; people who have ongoing medical conditions (like asthma, diabetes or heart disease); and people who smoke cigarettes.

    * In children, under-nutrition (or 'child wasting') is the major contributor to pneumonia mortality in the world, with indoor air pollution from solid fuels coming in second.
    https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia#undernutrition-is-the-major-contributor-to-pneumonia-mortality

    * The top two pneumonia risk factors for people aged 70 and older are particulate matter pollution & smoking.
    https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia#pneumonia-risk-factors-for-people-aged-70-and-older

    What 'specific symptoms' are you referring to? Are they different than regular influenza, pneumonia, or other common respiratory illnesses?

    Also, keep in mind that 5G was rolled out in 2019.

    What 'sickness' specifically? Are you talking about symptoms or about 'positive test' cases?

    If you're talking about symptoms, then you need to be specific about what they are. If you talking about 'positive test' cases, the tests are meaningless.

    You call it 'misinformation', yet no one can debunk any of Kaufman's arguments.
     
  21. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The evidence is that excess deaths more closely follow covid infection spikes than covid vaccinations.
    You would do well to follow your own advice.
    Your EVIDENCE people shouldn't take Paxlovid is what?
    More unsupported provocative comments.
    You have quite the imagination.
    Good advice.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It doesn't matter if the public have "moved on."
     
  23. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What "covid infection"? No one has yet cited a study proving the existence of said pathogenic/infectious virus - and which therefore renders any 'testing' or 'diagnostics' (clinical or otherwise) meaningless.

    This leaves us with only one conclusion: All people that have died since the start of the so-called pandemic either died from a pre-existing condition, medical drugs, vaccines (including pre-covid vaccines), hospital treatment, or EMF - or a combination of the above.

    With that said, we do have data of excess deaths since the introduction of the covid shots:

    Secret CDC Report confirms over 1.1m Americans have ‘Died Suddenly’ since the COVID Vaccine Roll-Out; & further Government reports confirm the Vaccines are to blame
    Official reports quietly published by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirm that over 6 million Americans have died ever since the U.S. Food & Drug Administration granted emergency use authorisation to a Covid-19 vaccine in December 2020; with 2021 being a record-breaking year for deaths. This sadly means that at least 1.1 million Americans may have ‘died suddenly’ during this time frame because according to the CDC reports there have been 1,106,079 excess deaths compared to the 2015-2019 five-year average. And with further official Government figures confirming that mortality rates per 100,000 are highest among the vaccinated population in every single age group, it would appear Covid-19 vaccination is almost entirely to blame.

    Compared to other countries, the U.S. Government has been terrible at publishing relevant and up-to-date data allowing us to analyse the consequences of rolling out the Covid-19 injections. However, we have finally managed to stumble upon it thanks to an institution known as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEC).

    https://expose-news.com/2023/04/23/over-6-million-americans-dead-covid-vaccine/

    Further corroborating data, including data from other parts of the world:

    GAME OVER: Medicare data shows the COVID vaccines increase your chance of dying
    This is why the CDC has never used the Medicare data to prove the vaccines are safe.
    https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworl...ows-the?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

    CDC Data confirms COVID Vaccination knocks up to 24 years off a Man’s life
    https://expose-news.com/2023/02/08/cdc-confirm-c19-vaccine-knocks-24years-off-mans-life/

    UK government tacitly admits the COVID vaccines are killing working age people in the UK in record numbers
    Their total silence on the excess death numbers in the UK is a tacit admission that the vaccines caused the deaths. There is no other intervention that could have caused numbers like these.
    https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/...id=116784213&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

    Investigate UK excess deaths not related to Covid
    On the week ending the 28th of October the ONS reported excess deaths were 12.5% above the 5 year average. With only 717 deaths out of 12,861 involving Covid. This alarming excess death percentage, needs investigating by the Government and the root causes laid out in a public report.
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628188?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    Excess deaths correlated with covid vaccines in Germany
    https://drtrozzi.org/2022/12/20/the-relationship-between-c19-vaccines-dying-in-germany/

    Australian NSW data showing the quadrupled COVID mRNA vaccinated (4 shots) have massive spikes in hospitalization & death! Data as of December 2022 and NOTE: dose response & no vaxx
    https://palexander.substack.com/p/d...tack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

    Australia begins to reap what it has sown. It's grim. All cause mortality goes significantly excess in April 2021 for all age/sex groups bar one...
    Apparently, it’s really difficult for our ONS to produce deaths by date of occurrence by sex and age until 7 months after year end. This means we won’t get any reliable death data for 2021 until July this year. Fortunately, Australia is a little more timely with their data releases so we can get a little insight from down under. [...] ...much like every other country of the world, Australia has had more COVID death since the COVID vaccine was introduced in Feb 2021 and substantially more excess death from other causes. By the end of the period, more than 90% of the adult population has been jabbed.
    https://metatron.substack.com/p/australia-begins-to-reap-what-it

    And much more on this topic is available that makes it clear how toxic the covid injections are.

    What makes you think I don't?

    (1) Serious side effects
    (2) Viruses don't exist - so Paxlovid (like the 'vaccine') is nothing but a useless added cost & a health risk

    The truth is often provocative - which makes it difficult for many to accept.

    Not imagination. Just Science + Logic.
     
  24. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, sure... :roll:
     
  25. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Absolutely which is why I choose no longer to respond to him either. One could invite a virologist and/or immunologist with years of accumulated knowledge to present him with real scientific facts and he would go to his favourite websites full of skewed information, misinformation, and pseudoscientific information and argue with these knowledgeable scientists just because he doesn’t know enough to realize what he is promoting is lies and misinformation.
     

Share This Page