The vaccine causes deadly blood clots.

Nope. They know viruses exist.

Starting to get real tedious now with this relentless derailing. Every response holds the caveat that the batshit "no viruses" is the defense. Using one absurd conspiracy theory to prop up another. The unvaccinated WERE in a significant majority of hospitalized, maybe the vaccines give immunity against 5g.

Nope. Dude, give it up. The science to back up all your arguments simply doesn't exist.

 

More stuff:


Answering the critics of "Died Suddenly"
I respond to a critic and a "fact checker." You get to decide who is telling you the truth. Dr. Cole's open offer to view the clots: no takers!
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/answering-the-critics-of-died-suddenly

What funeral directors know that you don't
In 78 years, they never had a 15 year old who died from a heart attack. In December 2022, they had 1 a week for three weeks straight. Nobody is talking about it publicly.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/what-funeral-directors-know-that

Medicare data shows the COVID vaccines increase your risk of dying
This is why the CDC has NEVER used the Medicare data to prove the vaccines are safe. And this is why NOBODY in mainstream medicine wants you to see this data. EVER. They ALL want it hidden. FOREVER.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/game-over-medicare-data-shows-the

The most damaging paper of the pandemic was published in The Lancet for <24 hours before they censored it
The COVID vaccines have killed massive numbers of people and the government covered it up. The paper, published as a pre-print, shows 74% of deaths post-vax due to the vax.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-most-damaging-paper-of-the-pandemic

Vaccinated people are over 2X more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated. Whoops!
We are told to get vaccinated to reduce the risk of being infected. But the numbers aren't working out for them. How can they explain this survey?
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/vaccinated-people-are-over-2x-more
See Table here: https://airtable.com/appcRtVQP2AblbiWD/shrfWf7WyJsXS8cxV/tblTbdsvLJWU0dIWu

The FAA has very quietly tacitly admitted that the EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned.
After the vaccine rolled out, the FAA secretly widened the EKG parameter range for pilots so they wouldn't be grounded. It looks like the vax gave at least 50M Americans heart damage.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly

A summary of the evidence against the COVID vaccines
Here's a quick summary of the key pieces of evidence that taken together show that the COVID vaccines are unsafe and that the medical community should not be trusted.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/a-summary-of-the-evidence-against

Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions
file:///C:/Users/user2/Downloads/2024-07-19Correlation-ACMWorld-125countries-Rancourt-Hickey-Linard.pdf
(video explanation) 31 MILLION Excess Deaths: What caused them?
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk

 

More off topic spam. This film is THE perfect yardstick for anyone's credibility, objectivity and gullibility. It is a pack of lies and has been proven so.

 

Clown Review: Steve Kirsch, no medical experience whatsoever.

https://www.tecevhnologyriew.com/20...re-steve-kirsch-covid-vaccine-misinformation/
"This tech millionaire went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader
After boosting unproven covid drugs and campaigning against vaccines, Steve Kirsch was abandoned by his team of scientific advisers—and left out of a job.

In the early days of the pandemic, as billions of dollars poured into the hunt for novel treatments and vaccines, veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch did what he’s always done: He went looking for an underdog.

Since making a fortune as the founder of Infoseek, an early search engine that was the Google of its day, Kirsch has spent tens of millions of dollars fighting humanity’s biggest threats. He prefers iconoclastic approaches, whether by directly funding asteroid detection or advocating for nuclear power to combat global warming.

By March 2020, he’d settled on the idea of searching for covid treatments in the pre-existing pharmacopeia. The premise made sense: Most experts were predicting vaccines would take years, while finding helpful drugswith known safety profiles could shortcut the approval process.

With little government funding available for such work, Kirsch founded the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), putting in $1 million of his own money and bringing in donations from Silicon Valley luminaries: the CETF website lists the foundations of Marc Benioff and Elon Musk as donors. Over the last 18 months, the fund has granted at least $4.5 million to researchers testing the covid-fighting powers of drugs that are already FDA-approved for other diseases.

That work has yielded one promising candidate, the antidepressant fluvoxamine; other CETF-funded efforts have been less successful. But that’s not a surprise, according to researchers who conducted them: the vast majority of trials for any drug end in failure.

What has alarmed many of the scientists associated with CETF, though, are Kirsch’s reactions to the work he’s funded—both successes and failures. He’s refused to accept the results of a hydroxychloroquine trial that showed the drug had no value in treating covid, for instance, instead blaming investigators for poor study design and statistical errors.

He’s also publicly railed against what he claims is a campaign against drugs like fluvoxamine and ivermectin. And, according to three members of CETF’s scientific advisory board, he put pressure on them to promote fluvoxamine for clinical use without conclusive data that it worked for covid.

More recently, he’s adopted extremist positions on covid vaccines, which he alleges are “toxic.” He has claimed that one in 1,000 people who have received mRNA vaccines have died as a result, and even claimed the vaccines “kill more people than they save” at an FDA public forum, which was first reported by the Daily Beast.

As Kirsch has gone deeper into the anti-vaccine scene, many professional associates have increasingly distanced themselves from him. In May, all 12 members of CETF’s scientific advisory board resigned, citing his alarming dangerous claims and erratic behavior.

Full article goes into great detail. Casual viewers will recall that a fully experienced biochemist was deemed unacceptable as an expert when his video showed the horrific lies in the horseshit movie "died suddenly". Yet, astoundingly the Steve Kirsch clown, with not an iota of medical experience, an antivax proponent and the skill to spin things is accepted with a dozen links all previously dumped all over the forum in numerous guises. Notice that nowhere is there any attempt at scientific scrutiny for this antivax spin-doctor. Just dump enough batshit on the wall and hope some sticks.

 

What's tedious is your relentless propaganda supporting the 'pandemic' narrative without ever presenting a single scientific paper confirming the existence of a virus.

Do you realize what this means? It means you have no argument in support of 'vaccines', nor any of the other 'pandemic' narratives (masks, distancing, lab leak theory, variants, testing, etc.) that you may try to use in your defense. It also means that every one of your go-to debunkers (credentialed or not) has no argument unless they can first show evidence of an infectious virus.

I already explained it to you, but you still don't get it. So let me repeat:

The numbers are based solely on 'Covid-positive' test results - not on an actual, confirmed infection & subsequent illness by a 'virus.' Covid testing/cases are meaningless. There's also no information on why the patient was hospitalized, nor on comorbidities.

What part of this don't you understand? The tests are scientifically meaningless because not a single one can be used to detect the presence of any alleged pathogen, let alone an infection - and certainly not a 'virus' for which there's no evidence for in the first place. You see how they keep this scam going? They simply perform a slight of hand by juggling between 'testing' and 'vaccination status' whenever they need to - essentially using circular reasoning to 'prove' their claims.

Here's a similar comparison between the vaxxed & unvaxxed from New Zealand, but this one shows clearly the unvaxxed have a lower all-cause mortality (ACM) than the vaxxed. This one is a better comparison because they're not looking at Covid 'test' results or cases (which are meaningless), but on mortality.



Kirsch also brings up a Czech study for comparison:

We know from the Czech data that the ACM for those who opt to be vaccinated runs around half of those who stay unvaccinated. This is due to socio-economic status and other factors (such as people in hospice and hospitals normally don’t get vaccinated). Also, the unvaccinated are hard to count because you don’t show up at a clinic to get your placebo shot so the unvaxxed are undercounted and that makes it appear they die at a higher rate. The mortality benefit in the vaccinated is pure selection bias.

* The vaccinated should have had a significantly lower ACM even if the vaccine doesn’t work at all.
* If the vaccinated have a higher ACM (or statistically the same), that’s a disaster.

That’s why I generally refrain from comparing vaccinated with the unvaccinated. So when I see a post like the one below where the vaccinated have a higher ACM, it’s a showstopper.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-simplest-way-to-show-the-covid

 

And not a single point was made in your citation directly addressing Kirsch's numerous articles about what the data shows on vax injuries and deaths, nor the one on excess deaths not authored by Kirsch.

The article you cited also weakens its own position with the following statement:

Unfortunately, as Jeffrey Morris at UPenn points out, public health officials and scientists have done plenty to undermine their own authority, like claiming masks don’t work, downplaying the natural immunity conveyed by previous covid infections, and not doing enough public communication about vaccine safety surveillance systems. ”We don’t want to feed the anti-vaccine trolls, so we actively suppress clear scientific data. Now we’ve lost the high ground,” Morris told me.

Now, why would public health officials & scientists deliberately 'undermine their own authority' unless they've begun to notice that their assessment & predictions about the so-called 'pandemic' & the 'virus' have been wrong? It explains why they're now rejecting masks & acknowledging 'natural immunity'. [NOTE: It's not really 'natural immunity', but rather (1) the body's ability to adjust or somewhat desensitize itself to novel environmental factors (eg, 5G), and (2) the growing public's rejection of the deadly Covid vax.]

So medical/science authorities are basically acknowledging that their alleged 'virus' is not behaving the way they predicted. That is, its 'deadliness' seems to be declining (this is typical of all historic epidemics because there never was a virus), and has also not caused the number of deaths they envisioned. Does anyone ever ask why HIV just fizzled out? Did the virus suddenly decide it would stop killing people, even though there were no effective treatments (only deadly drugs) during the 'pandemic' - nor even a useless 'vaccine'? Have you noticed no one cares anymore about using protection or if their partner might be 'HIV positive'? That's because the govt can't keep such a giant scam going for very long. Whistleblowers, dissenters, and the general public will always begin to ask questions when there's scam. Thus the govt-corporatocracy has to constantly invent new fake 'pandemics'. These scams are not only lucrative on many levels and which further concentrates wealth, but they are also an effective form of public control/oppression.

First of all, it's a different matter when a molecular biologist (Dr. Wilson) tries to debunk an embalmer on an embalming topic vs a molecular biologist who tries to debunk another molecular biologist/microbiologist. The former situation is a joke. Only another embalmer/funeral director, coroner, or pathologist would be qualified to assess an embalmer's story. So why you'd include Dr. Wilson's video to debunk Hirschman is puzzling.

Besides, I saw the video (like his others) and didn't see anything Dr. Wilson said differently than any other pro-vax professional debunker has said regarding Hirschman's movie. I suspect most people who watch Dr. Wilson's videos wouldn't be able to assess the accuracy of his arguments because they don't bother researching the opposing arguments. Like I said, why won't Dr. Wilson debate the people he tries to debunk? This alone is very telling.

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

On Kirsch:

Kirsch is a science/math/data hog, which explains why he once blindly (and stupidly) followed & trusted the medical industry's propaganda and got two Moderna shots himself without first doing research.

He even posted an article about alterations typically seen in the blood of the vaxxed, which his blood also shows:

The blood of COVID-vaccinated people has a strange artifact... mine included!
I met with a doctor who claims that the blood of every COVID vaccinated person all share an artifact that he's never seen before. The question is: what is that artifact?
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-blood-of-covid-vaccinated-people

Apparently he's learned a lot since getting those shots, and has since wanted to share his findings to save people's lives.

Kirsch's material will thus be packed with data/facts/charts to make it easy for the reader to fact-check his claims. That's what I like about his research, as well as his inclusion of corroborating data from foreign nations which American's typically ignore. But does that make any difference to the pro-vax propagandists? Nope - no matter how solid a person's research is, propagandists will target him because he's now a heretic who's putting a dent in big pharma's profit margin & chipping away at the govt's narrative.

My only issue with Kirsch is that he still adheres to the belief that viruses & contagious diseases exist, and that he's a proponent of the use of medical drugs over natural/non-toxic alternative remedies. Other than that, his prodigious research is a great resource for anyone wanting to know the truth about vax-induced casualties.

 

Here are Kirsch's videos.
https://rumble.com/user/stkirsch/videos

 

All those words typed. BATSHIT. "No viruses" claim is the flat earth of covid-19 alongside 5g, it is as moronic a claim as it is possible to have.

Once again an antivax claimant who doesn't understand statistics!

Pathetic excuses.

Your New Zealand Claim Failure:
The vaccinated make up 87% of the population, you show two figures that are very similar. One of them is for 13% of the population. I'd say do the math, but you appear not to understand it. The method is to adjust by proportion. Divide 100 by each proportion gives (100/87) 1.15 and (100/13) 7.7, uses these numbers to multiply against the actual numbers gives relative percentage. As the two totals are quite close you should be able to see how stunningly mistaken you are.

 

Why bring percentages into the equation? ACM per 100k people is a better gauge on how the vaxxed & unvaxxed compare then do percentages.


Taking into account NZ's population of ~5.2 million people, and...

61.2 ACM deaths/100k for vaxxed - 58.1 ACM deaths/100k for unvaxxed = 3.1


For the vaxxed: [(0.87 X 5.2 million)/100,000] X 61.2 = ~2768 ACM deaths, which is...

[(0.87 X 5.2 million)/100,000] X 3.1 = 140 excess ACM deaths


Thus, the ACM deaths for the vaxxed should, in the least, be 2628 if the vax did NOT work, or LESS than 2628 if the vax worked. Yet the figure is greater than 2628. These are very poor figures for a vax that's supposed to 'save lives' amidst an alleged raging, deadly 'pandemic.'

 

Well duh! If you are comparing two totals that are NOT from equal pools it is VERY deceptive to claim one is more than the other.
The two totals need to be adjusted as I have correctly explained to you!

That's complete BS!

Gibberish math! One total comes from only 13% of the population and it is more or less the same as the total for 87% of the population. I do not believe you don't understand the deceptive disparity between the two!

Using the 5.7 million total and 581(unvaccinated) and 612(vaccinated) per million:
Total 3312 people without vaccines died. This comes from 13% of the population!
Total 3488 people with vaccines died. This comes from 87% of the population!

Anyway, what is your explanation for the ASMR in the unvaccinated 13%?

 

Still makes no sense to use percentages, as deaths-per-100k gives a better picture of the actual death rate between two groups.

Where are you getting these figures? This is not from the chart I posted from NZ.

NZ's population was around 5.2 million at that time (and still is), which means 4,524,000 (87%) were vaxxed, and 676,000 (13%) were unvaxxed.

So if the vaxxed ACM is 61.2 deaths/100k, this calculates to ~2768 deaths.
And if the unvaxxed ACM is 58.1 deaths/100k, this calculates to ~393 deaths.
The difference between the two deaths/100k is 3.1, which comes out to around 140 excess deaths for the vaxxed.

Like I said, the vax not only did not work, but it caused a higher rate of death than what was normal.

How would I know unless we're provided the data on the causes of death? I'd suspect the figures (rates) for the unvaxxed are close to the figures of previous years, unless 5G (which was commercially available by December 2019 in NZ) had an impact - depending on how widespread it was. Either way, a higher rate of deaths were observed in the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.

 

Thanks, Scott.

 

Hilarious. "Other than that" you say? By "that" it is basically the entire premise of his research.

Oh what the hell, let's see what ridiculous excuses we get back:

Virus Detection and Identification in Minutes Using Single-Particle Imaging and Deep Learning | ACS Nano

 

His mission is to expose the deadliness (and uselessness) of Covid vaxxes.

Ugh! I didn't feel like wading through another 'study' of so many that you throw at us with the hope that one will stick. But I finally got around to it, and here's what I found.

---------------------------------------
(1) The authors of the study you cited state:

Here, we present a methodology for virus detection and identification that uses a convolutional neural network to distinguish between microscopy images of fluorescently labeled intact particles of different viruses. Our assay achieves labeling, imaging, and virus identification in less than 5 min and does not require any lysis, purification, or amplification steps.

As you can see, we're already off to a rocky start, scientifically speaking, because the authors were working on the presupposition that the particles they were observing were actual viruses. But that was never first confirmed through any properly conducted experiment prior to carrying out this study. In fact, it's never been done. Thus the authors can demonstrate a tool for differentiating the particles they're looking at, but cannot scientifically assert that these particles are viruses - which brings us to my next point.

---------------------------------------
(2) The authors of this investigation are looking at extracellular vesicles (EVs), not viruses. They even discuss a feature of the alleged virions having to do with the particle's zeta potential (ZP) and how it can be altered by changes in pH. By increasing the pH, the ZP of the 'virions' became more negative and thus easier to mark.

"As the virions are more negatively charged at higher pH, they are more efficiently labeled using the cationic solution and more efficiently captured by the charged chitosan surface on the glass slide, leading to more efficient SARS-CoV-2 detection and improved detection accuracy."

Well, as is discussed in the following study, EVs also share this same property as the following study reveals:

Zeta Potential of Extracellular Vesicles: Toward Understanding the Attributes that Determine Colloidal Stability
Overall, ZP became more negative as pH increased (F(2) = 21.66, p = 0.007; Figure Figure8 but appeared to be more variable at alkaline and acidic pH values than at neutral pH 7. Post hoc Tukey’s tests showed that ZP was significantly more negative at pH 10 compared to pH 4 at all PBS concentrations (all p < 0.01). The effect of pH was not influenced by the buffer content, though (F(4) = 1.45, p = 0.304).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7364712/

---------------------------------------
(3) Again, it would appear that the authors are looking at EVs and not viruses. They state the following:

Labeled Virus Particles Can Be Efficiently Detected with TIRF Microscopy.
To demonstrate our ability to label, immobilize, and image virus particles, we initially used infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), an avian coronavirus (CoV). We labeled IBV using a divalent cation (here, Sr2+, which performs very similarly to Ca2+; see below) and a mixture of green and red fluorescent DNAs (labeled with Cy3 or Atto647N fluorophores, respectively), immobilized particles on a chitosan-coated glass slide, and imaged particles using total-internal-reflection fluorescence microscopy (TIRF) (Sup.Figure 1A). Fluorescent labeling was achieved within seconds via a single-step addition of labeling mixture (see Experimental Methods), after which the viruses were immediately immobilized.

And again, this methodology of staining & immobilizing particles in TIRF microscopy has been applied to EVs, as the following studies reveal:

Identifying extracellular vesicle populations from single cells
During cell culture, cells secrete EVs that are immobilized in direct proximity. (v) Secreted and immobilized EVs are immunologically stained. (vi) EVs are then imaged using TIRFM. [...] After the immunostaining of several proteins, immobilized EVs are imaged using four-color total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy (TIRFM) where TIRFM provides the necessary optical sensitivity and lateral resolution to approach the classification of single EVs into 15 unique phenotype populations. We demonstrate that EV subpopulations arise even at the single-cell level and can be identified by the proposed method.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8463870/

Optical Imaging of Single Extracellular Vesicles: Recent Progress and Prospects
EVs characterization is greatly hindered by the small size, the low biomolecule payload, and the high level of heterogeneity. To address these challenges, researchers have adopted sensitive microscopic methods such as single-molecule fluorescence imaging, single-particle dark-field imaging, surface-enhanced Raman scattering, and surface plasmon resonance imaging for single EV analysis. These techniques can detect signals from individual EVs, enabling a detailed study of the heterogeneity. Analysis of EVs cargo has provided insights into the protein/nucleic acid expression and enabled subgroup differentiation. Superresolution mapping has visualized EVs structures, and single EV tracking has offered insights into their release and uptake mechanisms. In this review, we will summarize the recent advances in optical imaging of single EVs, including the biomarkers used for EV labeling, the performance of the reported microscopic methods, and their biological findings.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cbmi.3c00095

TIRF Microscopy as a Tool to Determine Exosome Composition
The precise assessment of EV content is relevant for the selection of specific vesicles with specialized biological activities, whose content is hardly visualized due to their small size. We describe herein a protocol for the determination of the content of individual EVs through microscopy imaging and user-friendly analysis using TIRF microscopy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32930980/

Methods to analyze extracellular vesicles at single particle level
TIRF microscopy is an optical technology that enables high resolution and intuitive analysis of the biological complexity of single EVs without additional data analysis. The thin evanescent field region penetrated during total internal reflection enables EV analysis near the surface. [...] In addition, methods using TIRF microscopy for the analysis of sub-populations of single EVs flowing along micro-channels are currently being developed.
https://mnsl-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40486-022-00156-5

Imaging of Isolated Extracellular Vesicles Using Fluorescence Microscopy
High-resolution fluorescence microscopy approaches enable the study of single objects or biological complexes. Single object studies have the general advantage of uncovering heterogeneity that may be hidden during the ensemble averaging which is common in any bulk conventional biochemical analysis. The implementation of single object analysis in the study of extracellular vesicles (EVs) may therefore be used to characterize specific properties of vesicle subsets which would be otherwise undetectable. We present a protocol for staining isolated EVs with a fluorescent lipid dye and attaching them onto a glass slide in preparation for imaging with total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy (TIRF-M) or other high-resolution microscopy techniques. [...] TIRF-M has been widely applied since it permits a high signal to noise ratio, the detection of single molecules, and a facile calibration of measurements to the single molecule level. These approaches can be efficiently applied to the study of EVs and identify different subpopulation of EVs present in a given sample.
https://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Ter-Ovanesyan_2017.pdf

Nanoimager product feature
TIRF only excites fluorophores on the surface of molecules in the first 200 nm, so other fluorophores are not excited and do not emit light. As a result, background noise is significantly reduced. This improvement means that TIRF has become a leading technique in the study of single molecules. It is useful for samples with fine structures, sitting close to the coverslip, as well as for studying molecules attached to a surface or on a membrane.
https://oni.bio/nanoimager/


Continued............

 

Continued............


---------------------------------------
(4) Different 'viruses', including 'negative' samples, were allegedly analyzed, but they were not exposed (in culture) to the same treatment. How they were treated depended on the type of virus believed to be present. By simply changing their environment, one could potentially alter the composition and/or appearance of different particles - physical differences which a trained computer algorithm ('deep learning') could pick up on.

The authors of your cited study state:

The coronavirus IBV (Beau-R strain) (22) was grown in embryonated chicken eggs and titered by plaque assay (1 × 106 PFU/mL). Influenza and IBV were inactivated by the addition of 2% formaldehyde before use. SARS-CoV-2 was grown in Vero E6 cells and titered by plaque assay (1.05 × 106 PFU/mL). The virus was inactivated by addition of 4% formaldehyde before use.

The positive & negative samples ('determined' by RT-PCR) were also treated differently:

Having demonstrated our assay on laboratory-grown viruses, we next assessed clinical samples (workflow in Figure 4A). Throat swabs from 33 patients negative for virus (as determined by RT-PCR) or positive for SARS-CoV-2, seasonal hCoVs (OC43, HKU1, or NL63), or human influenza A (as determined by RT-PCR) were inactivated with formaldehyde before being labeled and immobilized (see Experimental Methods).

And, as expected, 'deep learning' was (more or less) accurate on picking up these differences:

Cluster analysis of the super-resolved localizations revealed that the fluorescent signals observed in the diffraction limited images of labeled samples correspond to particles of the correct size and shape of virions, and that different virus classes appear to have subtle differences in their labeling density, area, and shape (Sup.Figure 3). These small differences, as well as more abstract image features such as pixel correlations, can be exploited by deep learning algorithms to classify the viruses.

---------------------------------------
(5) The authors further discredit virology by relying on the RT-PCR to 'test' for the presence of different viruses (SARS-CoV-2, hCoVs, or influenza A). If you understood how the RT-PCR works, you'd know that it only amplifies pre-selected sequences. The RT-PCR is unable to detect or confirm a previously unknown genome, nor the presence of any microbe, let alone any 'infection'. No isolation, nor purification of the alleged viral particles, and no physical extraction of genetic material was ever carried out on said virions. This means that 'viral' genomes are never sequenced from whole/complete genomes. Instead, genomes are pieced together from tens of millions of short reads in silico - meaning, they are a complete fabrication using mNGS (metagenomic Next Generation Sequencing) computer software platforms for de novo algorithm-based assembly. This software constructs a hypothetically larger sequence (with no idea of how large the 'viral' RNA is) from tens of millions of smaller reads from an unpurified brew of random genetic fragments of unknown provenance. This larger genomic sequence is then labeled as 'virus X', submitted to GenBank, and made available for use to all virologists. These 'viral' genomes/sequences simply don't exist anywhere in nature.

Even the origin of RT by itself is dubious - and is also unreliable, as the following study confirms:

Commercial reverse transcriptase as source of false-positive strand-specific RNA detection in human cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21689721/

The maker of SMARTScribe RT makes the following claim:

SMARTScribe Reverse Transcriptase is a high-performance enzyme that performs unbiased cDNA synthesis, allowing for amplification and library construction from any RNA transcript. SMARTScribe RT is a modified Moloney Murine Leukemia Virus reverse transcriptase that generates long, full-length cDNA (up to 14.7 kb) while preserving the relative transcript proportions of the original RNA sample. Our proprietary purification process and rigorous quality control standards ensure that virtually all contaminating nucleases have been removed from SMARTScribe RT. It has been specially formulated for use with all of our SMART kits.“ [...] The reverse transcriptase (RT) of Moloney murine leukemia virus (MMLV-RT) is the most widely used enzyme for cDNA synthesis and RNA amplification due to its robust catalytic activity and high fidelity (Kimmel and Berger 1987; Kievits et al. 1991). Although recombinant MMLV-RT has been produced in Escherichia coli (Tanese et al. 1985; Roth et al. 1985; Kotewicz et al. 1985), the expression and purification conditions were not detailed, and the four- to five-step purification strategy makes it necessary to design an alternative simple and quick method for producing this enzyme in a soluble and active form.”

RT is claimed to have been discovered in so-called 'retroviruses' in the 1970s prior to the invention of sophisticated sequencing technology. Regarding this issue, Mike Stone states on his website:

Even today, sequencing technology said to be far more advanced is prone to limitations, errors, and unreproducible results. It stretches the imagination to believe that this was possible 50 years ago when it still isn’t possible today. [...] While I couldn’t find the exact process used to create this specific RT, judging from the descriptions of numerous other M-MLV RT products out there, it was most likely generated synthetically in a lab by “isolation” from E. coli expressing a portion of the pol gene of the M-MLV on a plasmid gene. In other words, it is a recombinant genetically-modified creation from multiple sources. This RT was used to create the synthetic cDNA in order to sequence the genome of “SARS-COV-2.” [...] The converting of RNA to cDNA takes many leaps in logic in order to believe that what is claimed to happen actually takes place. What occurs within these chemical reactions is entirely unobservable. The stories created around these experiments are entirely hypothetical. The legitimacy of this process hinges on the existence of an unseen “virus” used to create the synthetic reverse transcriptase enzyme in order to change RNA into synthetic cDNA so that a theoretical genome can be created for other unseen “viruses.” To say that belief in this process takes a great deal of blind faith is an understatement.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/02/19/the-hypothetical-conversion-of-rna-to-cdna/

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

So basically your cited study is a demonstration of the ability of a computer algorithm to differentiate between different EVs - not 'viruses.' I'm certain experts like Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey and others could find additional flaws in this study, but I'll leave it at that.

Essentially, the field of 'virology' is like the blind leading the blind.

As Dr. Mark Bailey summarizes the scam of genomic sequencing in virology in his treatise, A Farewell to Virology:

Computing resources are no longer a problem for the virologists as they mine information from their completely anti-scientific "wet-lab pipeline" methodologies involving crude samples and feed these generated unfiltered reads into their theoretical "dry-lab pipeline" and its in silico models.

 

Oh, you didn't need to write all that down. I'm not going to read any of it. It's batshit "no-viruses", the flat-earth of covid-19. Whatever was I thinking.

Keep up the campaign.

Nope.

History is replete with cranks who tried to change the course of science with nonsense.

 

Keep these quotes in mind.

 

Err no. Forgotten with that last post of yours. I don't know what motivates you in this mad conspiracy, but you won't get me to debate it. It is batshit akin to flat earth.

 

Another doctor talking about the clots...

The Embalmer Analysis Results Will Blow Your Mind



Be sure to check out the comment section.

 

Tell the "viewers" why Dr Batshit is believable and the tens of thousands of non-Dr. Batshits aren't!?

in what world of totally crazy batshittery are the loons who frequent and comment on these mad videos worth listening to?

 

More on clots...

How mRNA Vaccine Affects Cells: Dr. Charles Hoffe
https://concernedamericandad.com/2021/08/21/how-mrna-vaccine-affects-cells-dr-charles-hoffe/
(excerpts)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

• The spike protein in the vaccine can lead to the development of multiple, tiny blood clots because it becomes part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium; these cells are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly, but the spike protein means there are “spiky bits sticking out”
• Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine; 62% have evidence of clotting
• The long-term outlook is very grim, Hoffe said, because with each successive shot, it will add more damage as you’re getting more damaged capillaries

--------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bhakdi explained, post-vaccination it’s possible to end up with so many blood clots throughout your vascular system that your coagulation system is exhausted, resulting in bleeding (hemorrhaging).10 Hoffe now has patients who get out of breath much more easily than they used to because “they’ve clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs.” This is only the first problem, as it can lead to more significant, permanent damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The end result can be pulmonary artery hypertension, which is basically high blood pressure in your lungs, because the blood can’t get through due to the many vessels that are blocked. “People with this usually die of right-sided heart failure within three years,” Hoffe said. “So the huge concern about this mechanism of injury is that these shots are causing permanent damage and the worst is yet to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Once again another clown doctor is referenced:
Citation re: Dr. Charles Douglas Hoffe | College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (cpsbc.ca)

B.C. doctor to face disciplinary panel over 'misleading, incorrect or inflammatory' claims about COVID-19 | CBC News
"Dr. Charles Hoffe told patients to buy veterinary ivermectin, made false claims about vaccines, college says
Bethany Lindsay · CBC News · Posted: Feb 23, 2022 1:50 PM EST | Last Updated: February 23, 2022 - a citation has been issued for family physician Dr. Charles Hoffe of Lytton for "publishing statements on social media and other digital platforms that were misleading, incorrect or inflammatory about vaccinations, treatments and public measures relating to COVID-19."

 

As I've already told you several times, alternative info is consistent with what I see first-hand and mainstream info is not consistent with what I see first-hand. Being a layman, that's about as far as I can go. Why don't you just address it directly? You're exaggerating my importance.

 

And the spam response.

Advocating any scientific process! Look for data to prove/disprove it. Look for data that suggests the source is trustworthy! See batshit, post batshit is NOT scientific!

Why should anyone reply to your claims when you ignore EVERY one of the responses?

 

Here's my response.

I'm a layman who knows his limits. All I can do is look at statistics and observe the world around me and see which side it's consistent with. If you're so sure it's disinfo, why don't you address it directly and explain why it's disinfo?