For those who have trouble comprehending Genbank and why it's one of the greatest accomplishments of our time.
Here's 1 limited study done by the US Defense Deptartment proving that flu vaccines increase certain Viral infections while reducing others. (They had sufficient isolation and sequencing capabilities to differentiate between different viruses and which ones were increased in service members given the flu vax and which ones were decreased in people who got the flu vax)
For those who can process new information, this means viruses do exist and there's many different species, as proven by the past 50+ years of research that "No Viruses" cultists conveniently and consistently ignore.
Who is having trouble understanding that Genbank contains millions of made-up, meaningless, in silico "virus genomes"?
From the Methods of the study that Daniel cited above (which is an observational study, not a controlled experiment capable of demonstrating causation of anything, and wherein the existence of "viruses" was assumed and the authors did not even attempt to demonstrate their existence):
"Laboratory testing completed at USAFSAM and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) included multiplex PCR respiratory pathogen panels... viral culture detecting influenza and other respiratory viruses, and influenza A/B subtyping via PCR [16], [17]".
So meaningless, impossible-to-validate PCR "tests", and "viral cultures".
For anyone new to the topic of "viral cultures" this is code for:
- taking fluid from a so-called "host",
- assuming that "the virus" exists and might be in the fluid,
- adulterating the bodily fluid by adding it to a cell line (typically monkey kidney cells for fake-covid),
- adulterating the bodily fluid further with fetal bovine serum,
- and toxic drugs,
- watching this wildly unnatural manmade brew (that can't tell you anything about what goes on in a living body) for several days, and...
- if the cell line breaks down: wildly, irrationally, illogically, unscientifically assuming and declaring that a "virus" was in the clinical sample, that "the virus" has replicated in the lab dish, that "the virus" caused the cells to break down and that you've "isolated the virus".
No controlled experiment, valid independent variable, no "virus" particle identified, just meaningless procedures never shown to have anything to do with a "virus". Because there are no valid, scientific studies showing the existence of any "virus".
For those who read this article and have arrived at a satisfactory process and logic based conclusion about viruses from the previous article, I should probably clarify why AI + Genbank is so dangerous. From a procedural perspective you have an unknown self programmed system reading and interpreting the all known sequenced DNA (who's full meaning is also unknown).
Unknown x Unknown = Unknown^2
Whether it is dangerous is unknown^2.
Whether it may find the cure to people who've been Gene edited by the mRNA injection is also Unknown^2
Daniel, how can something that hasn't been isolated and proven to exist be sequenced??? Doesn't make sense... because it's not true. Stop being part of the problem.
A failure to click through Genbank and view never "isolated and proven to exist" gene sequences for mice, humans, plants is exactly the willful blindness that cutists of all types have. Repeating a mantra "hasn't been isolated and proven to exist be sequenced" keeps you from looking outside your thought cage.
again, HOW can something be sequenced when it hasn't been proven to exist (ie isolated)??? Answer the question.... deflecting proves you are part of the problem.
How exactly does over 8 million proven to exist instances of 1 subspecies of coronavirus, millions of proven to exist examples of other viruses, and another few million proven to exist macroscopic species "deflect" from your repetitive thought loop? Or are you deliberately not clicking through https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/dna-rna/ (You can access Japanese DNA databases as well from the site.)
Clicking thru doesn't matter... no where is it addressed HOW they determined the DNA was from a virus... WHERE is that step??? There needs to be PROOF that the DNA belongs to a virus... until then, sequencing cannot happen... so pretty please, point it out to me if you can because it's not anywhere you've linked to....
Reverse transcriptase exists to help RNA viruses make more copies of themselves than then could if they stayed RNA.
Modern virology discovered it because viruses that make so many copies that they damage cells from their endless copying are easy to isolate because there's so many of them in the fluids of sick people.
Viruses cause illness by using up cell resources. (Go learn this on your own through pubmed)
Mild viruses only use minimal resources and then move on. Sometimes people barely have a sniffle.
Others use a lot of resources and leave a permanent copy of themselves in the DNA like herpes and pappiloma viruses (warts).
Want to prove viruses exist?
Get some sandpaper, rub your skin raw, and rub that raw skin over someone who has dozens of warts.
If you get warts because you lack enough antibodies from a previous exposure, then go to a doctor, get a viral swab of that wart, and that is proof of transmission, isolation of 1 species from your wart, and that will end your mind trap.
"No, he cited a list of entries about made-up in silico "genomes". The first entry listed at that link relates to the ridiculous Fan Wu study, the next 10 entries don't even have publications, so there are no Methods sections to even read. Daniel has taken it as an article of faith that the entries are legit."
The first lie is her accusation that the Genbank is a list of "made-up" genomes. If you know how to navigate tables on webpages and spreadsheets, you can click on the top bar and arrange all 8.26 million Sars Cov entries by the date, who sequenced it, or the name of the organization that sequenced it.
Lets click on "submitters" so the 8 million list is arranged alphabetically Z to A? (Why? because I think authors with names at the beginning of the alphabet get disproportionate credit in academia.)
If you click on the blue link beside "van der Poel,W.H.M.," and then click on the popup blue link MT457390 on the sidebar, then you go to this page.
So the commenter's accusation there's no publication is also false.
The third false hood is that these genomes were "made up". (Read Dr. van der Poel's entry.)
Either this repeat poster doesn't know how to click on blue links to get to the "publication", click on menu bars, and comprehend the text of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT457390 .
For those who have curiosity of the natural world, Genbank is a testimony to the miracles of nature.
1 individual virus, designed in silico, who's RNA was published in Jan 2020, likely released in Wuhan and a few other places, now is 8.28 million genetically unique individuals!
(And those are just the ones we know about where labs worldwide have sequenced them)
Fact based people who understand Genbank's 1 entry for Sars COV 2 can recognize the immense power of replication and adaptation -- the power of life itself.
Virus deniers are actually power of life deniers. And I suspect that's why "Terrain Theory" uses dehumanizing language describing people as geology.
I use health to describe a person's overall body state.
a virus designed in silico (ie IN A COMPUTER) is NOT real... IT DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE AND PROVES NOTHING ABOUT REAL LIFE... YOU have no proof of claim... i feel sorry for your patients... they are at risk and don't even know it... shame on you!
Hats off for hitting the hornets nest. Keep asking questions. Armor up for the replies.
Terrain and contagion make no sense to be mutually exclusive. We need to keep our bodies, minds, and immune systems strong because the continued assaults of modernist living will not end until a global cataclysm shuts down the entire electrical grid.
Stay strong spiritually, be prepped for emergencies, and be charitable in spirit to all, at least that’s what I’m working on.
The mathematical integral of telling people what to think is telling people HOW to think. This is something @RICKYRANTS is so deeplly programmed that he's unable to do. Every one of my substacks is designed to show people HOW to think.
Just cite a valid study Daniel, because so far you've demonstrated how you repeatedly evade backing up your claim. A database of made-up "genomes" doesn't cut it.
Since you aren't comprehending Genbank and why it's one of the greatest accomplishments of our time. Here's 1 limited study done by the US Defense Dept proving that flu vaccines increase certain Viral infections but not others. (they had sufficient isolation and sequencing capabilities to differentiate between different viruses and which ones were increased by the flu vax and which ones were deacreased)
Meaning viruses do exist and there's many different species, as proven by the past 50+ years of research that "No Viruses" believers conveniently and consistently ignore.
As I already responded under your other similar comment:
Who is having trouble understanding that Genbank contains millions of made-up, meaningless, in silico "virus genomes"?
From the Methods of the study that Daniel cited above (which is an observational study, not a controlled experiment capable of demonstrating causation of anything, and wherein the existence of "viruses" was assumed and the authors did not even attempt to demonstrate their existence):
"Laboratory testing completed at USAFSAM and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) included multiplex PCR respiratory pathogen panels... viral culture detecting influenza and other respiratory viruses, and influenza A/B subtyping via PCR [16], [17]".
So meaningless, impossible-to-validate PCR "tests", and "viral cultures".
For anyone new to the topic of "viral cultures" this is code for:
- taking fluid from a so-called "host",
- assuming that "the virus" exists and might be in the fluid,
- adulterating the bodily fluid by adding it to a cell line (typically monkey kidney cells for fake-covid),
- adulterating the bodily fluid further with fetal bovine serum,
- and toxic drugs,
- watching this wildly unnatural manmade brew (that can't tell you anything about what goes on in a living body) for several days, and...
- if the cell line breaks down: wildly, irrationally, illogically, unscientifically assuming and declaring that a "virus" was in the clinical sample, that "the virus" has replicated in the lab dish, that "the virus" caused the cells to break down and that you've "isolated the virus".
No controlled experiment, no valid independent variable, no "virus" particle identified, just meaningless procedures never shown to have anything to do with a "virus". Because there are no valid, scientific studies showing the existence of any "virus".
If you do not address the heart of the issue but instead some superficial nonsense then the last thing your are doing is showing people how to think. ALL you are doing is placing attention on an open ended discussion that has no end.
The above talk show how you get to the heart of the issue.
The first observation from which a theory stemmed in the field of virology was that people [thought] that sick people make health people sick through the spread of some sort of agent. That is why we are asking you to show proof that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways.
Gene sequencing has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.
Everyone is challenging HOW you think, because you have deemed yourself the arbiter of truth but can’t provide real evidence when you make ridiculous claims. You’re literally no better than the fact checkers. The only difference is you moonlight as a dissident.
The burden of proof is one those making the positive claim that something does exist.
No virus people have gone above and beyond the call of duty by collecting evidence to show that the virus-pushers have zero science on their side, and producing excellent educational materials to help others understand the grossly unscientific, illogical nature of virology, and the unproven nature of contagion.
Official Evidence that Virology is Pseudoscience - June 10 2023
- a 40 minute introduction to the massive body of evidence collected on my website, primarily in the form of freedom of information responses from 217 institutions in 40 countries, including Health Canada, PHAC, CDC, NIAID, FDA, and a ridiculous response from the W.H.O., also correspondences directly with "SARS-COV-2" researchers:
Christmas 1965 at grandmas house. My dad’s fraternal twin brother, our Uncle, had a huge herpes fever blister on his lip.
My parents had made sure my brothers and I all got measles around the same time, then mumps, then chicken pox. Those three illnesses are from viruses. Recovering from them produced lifelong natural immunity.
Not understanding that herpes simplex lives on forever in nerve root ganglia, and thinking exposure to herpes simplex would give his children natural immunity, dad made us all kiss uncle Louis on the face so we would catch herpes.
We didn’t want to because it was hideous. Dad threatened to beat us with his belt if we didn’t get contact infection by refusing to kiss uncle Louis.
Well, we all got fever blisters from the herpes virus now inhabiting our trigeminal nerves.
For the rest of my life, I have suffered outbreaks almost continuously thanks to Dad and Uncle Louis.
The only protection I have comes from using my BEMER daily, getting enough sleep, proper nutritional supplementation. Out breaks still happen at the most devastating times. I travel with Valtrex everywhere. I carry topical colloidal silver everywhere. I use blue LED acne therapeutic light if it comes on.
Herpes simplex is a virus and it’s a fucking lifelong curse.
Is everything being called a virus actually a virus? Certainly not.
If you don’t believe me, keep kissing people on the face right over their active herpes simplex outbreaks and enjoy the thrill of hideous miserable facial blisters for the rest of your life.
Claiming that an immortal "virus" is living in your nerve root ganglia is self-defeating. Maybe you need additional collagen to strengthen the skin? I've heard of people recovering from "herpes" that way.
Correlation does not equal causation... some people getting sick in the house at the same time does not prove viruses are real, nor does it prove contagion... Scientism has you hooked.
Our position has not been to tell people what to believe. It has been to ask questions that CANNOT be answered. Specifically the question for proof of a sick person making a healthy person sick through natural pathways.
I have asked this question several times to Daniel but he diverts the conversation to gene sequencing which is a downstream issue.
If no one can prove that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways then by default EVERYTHING Daniel keeps on referring to is irrelevant because virology's foundation stands on the ASSUMPTION that this has been proven.
Besides the above. It is very interesting that Daniel is unable to discuss the studies he refers us to, which means he assumes that what's in the studies is correct. Giving google search results to thousands of papers is not an argument. It proves that someone makes assumptions without critically reviewing the material.
Exactly! Another false claim by Nagase. When I write, I don’t tell people WHAT to think or even HOW to think. I ask the questions that I feel need to be answered before we can make definitive statements. So far, no one has been able to find a repeatable study that shows isolation, purification, pathogenicity and contagiousness. It should be easy!
Can’t prove the unprovable. Can you? If one does not know, one should admit that. If you cannot show the evidence that a thing exist it means that you cannot show that the non existent is the cause of a thing; that is absurd. So, if you don’t know, it is okay to admit it .
Your criticisms will have some validity when you can demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that, firstly, that viruses are other than figments of your imagination, and secondly, that they are the cause of illnesses or death.
genbank is proof of existance of multiple species, not just covid 19. When one comprehends what genbank is, one understands why it is proof not just of viral existance, but of human existance as well.
Why no one is able to prove existence of alleged nucleotides, immune system, infectious diseases, pathogenic bacteria and biological viruses?
Do you know that:
"The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
Do you realize that people claim that claims about things I aforementioned are not proven to exist?
Conway ~ a thought filled poem asking the questions, neither being right or wrong, I’m with you and your premise of, what happened to love???
Years ago, I was asked if I knew why when birds fly in a formation, one side is always longer than the other. Of course, I thought about it and discussed the aerodynamics and the wind speed as being one of the cause perhaps, but after offering up what I felt were reasonable options, I was simply told, “Nope. There are just more birds on one side.” 😁
This is not what was asked Daniel... Please used your ability to read and comprehend and review his comment again. Maybe you'll get it the second time around...
I find observing the cult of military power fascinating.
Defense1, Modern Warfare Institute and some posting board of Australian fighter pilots talking about the s400 which i can no longer find are things that I read to understand humanity.
It's not dangerous. This guy is a buffoon, none of the tech he presented works in reality. The only dangerous part is when people believe these clowns.
Do you know how to code? Exactly. You don't even know what you're talking about. Either you watched 2 hours of Westpoint officer lecturers in 51 minutes, or you didn't understand it and are making a false statement "none of the tech he presented works in reality". Show me 1 example where you have reverse engineered and hacked a program.
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023Liked by Daniel Nagase MD
Sorry I don't normally get involved. I admire you and dont want to see you targeted and caught up in a bully's games.
I probably didn't even need to say anything. She showed everyone straight off by name calling and making sweeping statements instead of having a respectful and intelligent discussion based on her beliefs and different views.
I deleted my comment which included my son's genetic deletion because I didn't want all the private information out there. I appreciate you giving me your email address. I might email you sometime however my son's issues are so great, his genetic deletion is so large, sometimes it's very daunting.
I wish I were able to get a more detailed genetic test on his gene function. It would be more revealing to know what's going on inside of his genes and how they're reacting together with the loss of function I'm sure he has strong points and weak points and maybe there would be something I could do for him if I had a greater understanding.
There is no treatment for my sons genetic deletion. Doctors do treat some infants born with genetic errors of metabolism. Many of these children are missing the ability to break down a nutrient. Giving them special formula allows them to thrive. Without the formula they would become mentally retarded and many would die.
There's also a woman in Spain treating zelweggers syndrome with a broken down fatty acid which grows the missing part of their brain after they are born. It seems like a miracle. Understanding these genetic defects means being able to help the people who have them.
Daniel, Heidi is a troll. A hysterical one. And also a liar, who has to delete her messages right after she writes them because she is afraid her lies are too obvious.
You don't have discussions with people who disagree with you. You have bullying sessions.
Why would I change my name for a person like you who lied and tried smear me because I didnt agree with you. I told you I want nothing to do with you. I don't want to be your friend. I don't care what you or your followers think of me. It's not my problem it's yours.
You said you love screwing with people, disrespecting them and watching their head spin. You stooped to the sick level of calling me a bad mother because I didn't agree with you. You even claimed that your work helps people like my son when everything you stand for is about denying that people with disabilities like my son even exist. Your comments to me backed this up over and over.
Even as you claim to be helping your covid sick friends you act like people aren't susceptible to severe disease, that covid is harmless... then why were they taking hydroxychloroquine Sasha if covid is harmless. You contradict yourself so that you can slap people in the face with it.
When you insulted me, said you like to torture people like me, I told you I felt sorry for you. Whatever trauma you've gone through that has turned you into such a bully of innocent people I'm sad for but I don't have to put up with it.
Claiming your experience is more than mine which means I should defer to you about even my own son's health problems is exactly what we are fighting against right now...experts going around acting like their word is God.
This is exactly why I told Dr.Nagasi about you, because you fling insults and lies about someone for no reason other than to just be cruel and you want to call yourself an expert and think that will buy you notoriety, friends.
You can put an end to the bickering and put your money where your mouth is. Do the science publish the findings right here for all to see. That’s the only way we will know, once and for all.
If you are not willing to do it, then we will know that you are just another believer. We will, also see that you are willfully blind and that you are no different from those that you criticize.
The proof is in the pudding. If there’s no pudding then there’s nothing to discuss. The pudding, in this case, is not the sequences but rather the thing sequenced.
The reason why I deleted my comment was because I didn't want it to seem like I wanted everone to pick sides or be against Sasha. The only reason I said anything is because I really like Nagasi. He's a very sweet person. I don't like seeing him being attacked as a new target for Sasha to screw with because he doesnt agree with her.
It doesn't matter whether you or her or anyone believes it or not but I am not here to make enemies or divide anyone.
A lot of people who I admire follow Sasha. I think that's great. She is intelligent, has some great content but she's also very cruel at times.
This has nothing to do with research. It was about Sasha doing the exact same thing to me that she did with Daniel right now, coming in making sweeping statements insulting people, not backing up her claims with any research just insulting peoples beliefs.
The reason I deleted my comment was because it was about Sasha and my personal disagreement and I didn't think that everybody needed to read it but if you want to know here it is
I said my son has a genetic deletion once and she got on my comment and said genetic defects don't exist. My son was born with his genetic defect. She didn't end it there she lied and said that she never told me that and then she admitted that she likes to screw with people like me and watch my head spin. She said I'm not a good parent because I'm talking with her about things instead of being a good parent... somehow it makes me not a good parent because I'm talking with her. She said she knows more than me and inferred I should sit back and shut up.
I suppose I could make a substack with the print out of my sons genetic deletion and all that he has suffered in his life-
IUGR Small in the womb, heart defects, scoliosis, etc but it's really nobody's business
I'm not telling anybody how to act but I do think if somebody is going to come into a conversation with a different belief it would be respectful and productive to not come in and insult everyone, instead state why she believes what she does so that we can all understand her. In effect, what she is doing is counting on people believing her because she is "Sasha" the expert. Because she is Sasha that makes her better than everyone else and we should just agree with her instead of Nagasi.
I'm not attributing motives to her I'm just saying this is how her attitude is she doesn't allow anyone to even understand what her beliefs are she just throws insults out and she's done it with me on many occasions because I didn't agree with her ... and why should I have to?
Sasha has said so many lies about me. She once said I was begging her to forgive me and was crying, wanting her to be my friend. Then she deletes it and denies saying it.
I think you know me by now I don't care what Sasha or anyone thinks about me. I'm not here for popularity or to make friends.
She says I changed name because of her she thinks everything is about her I told her I changed my name because I wanted to raise more awareness from my son instead of it just being Heidi Heil. Do I look like I'm hiding My Name Is right Out There on all of my articles, in my profile. She insinuated I needed to hide from people changing my name. When I did change my name I told everybody.
No matter what I change my name to my name is still on all my articles I published under my name. All of my sons articles, my medical articles they all have my name on it I'm not hiding anything and I'm not hiding from anyone
She also said that all of my substack articles are about her smearing her, as if everything is about her. As if the world revolves around Sasha I really don't like people like that and I don't have to like her. It's ok to not like eachother, to have healthy boundaries
There are a lot of things I agree with Sasha about. In fact there are things where the entire community doesn't agree with Sasha and I agree with her.
I don't know enough about Nagasi's topic to form a belief... and I was unable to consider Sasha's because she didn't state her belief when she made her initial comment. She came in insulting someone elses belief, in effect insulting Nagasi for holding the belief.
It triggered me, reminded me of what she did to me. I'm not sure if you've ever had somebody say things about you that are untrue, cruel, say they like to get a rise out of you, watch your head spin. They even walk back their comments to you just so they can call you a liar in front of everone.
I don't like to see the people around me treated this way. Something I need to work through.
Now I'm faced with wanting to delete my comments because Sasha and my drama is all over Nagasi's page but then Sasha will accuse me of deleting things because I'm lying so it stays.
While I am not a software developer, I have commercialized 100s of academic biomedical patents, and I know from practical experience that 99.5% of them are not worth the paper they are written on, but sound extremely smart and plausible. Anyhow, I have experience figuring out bullshit in academic talks and sales pitches, that's all.
Without knowing the technical details, I look for signs of immaturity to help me decide on which side is gathering the relatively mature. I’ll side with the emotionally mature by default, then I’ll do some research. Job #1, witness who is name-calling and character-assassinating. Zoom out and see on which side are most of these features. This will be the immature side, and therefore most likely the least credible because these people ‘think’ with their emotions.
Making decisions based on emotions is not a very good approach. It is even less so when the first screening is based on emotions of others and where the herd seems to be emotionally heading. Although the latter is a good heuristic to identify some warning signals.
I had worked as a designer in the PPE industry so in that case I had the technical knowledge to shun masking without any further investigation. In the event of the jabs for which I have little knowledge I also shunned that because I noticed 1) carrot and stick, 2) shaming and 2) goodie vs baddie narratives. Emotionally healthy people never apply these disordered, preschool age levers and additionally are hyper-aware that name-calling and character assassination only appeals to non-credible, emotionally immature people. These people know not to stoop to this behaviour because they know very well that is would reveal them as non-credible. The truly immature people never figure this out.
That’s all I need to decide that the source is pathological. Subsequent technical reveals only ever confirm my choice.
If I see one group is unquestioning, morally bankrupt, easily panicked and manipulated and the opposing side is thoughtful and logical, guess which one I’ll gravitate towards? Ya, the really small side.
Making decisions based on my own emotions always requires careful and cautious review first. Making decisions based on evaluating the overall signs of emotional maturity of opposing sides is fantastically powerful and predictable.
We requested a study that proves that a sick person can make a healthy person sick be means of natural pathways but I can understand that you need to divert the conversation to something else because this is where desperation normally sets in. The moment you realize that there is not a single study in more than 120 years that show proof that a sick person can make a healthy person sick. In fact, every time this was attempted they failed.
you haven't read every study in the past 120 years. I observed sick people making other people sick every day in the ER. Sometimes it was bacteria, other times it was parasites, most of the times it was viral, proven by 1 species of virus I sampled from their nose or spit, the absence of other species of viruses in the sample and confirmed in the real world from close contacts who had the same species without any other species, and sick with the same symptoms as the index case.
if you can't comprehend why this paper proves contagious illnesses by a genetic pathogen in the REAL world, there's no reason that can be bestowed upon a cult prisoned mind.
Transmission of viruses allegedly happens in vivo settings, like wet markets, right. We are talking about a physical particle, right? A thing, right? So this thing must be able to be found and shown directly from an in vivo setting, in a pure state. Otherwise none of the claims about transmission, aerosols, wet markets, 6 feet distance, face masks make any sense. If it, the thing, is real, it should be found outside Computers. Or else it's only fiction.
I'm open to all information that improves my knowledge about this and I understand the seemingly valid concerns about isolation, but can't blindly support the no virus position.
A group of people meet for one day, at an occasion like a wedding.
They are only in proximity to each other for 8 or 10 hours.
For most, there is little to no actual physical contact, only their presence in that one location.
Within a week, most, if not all of them have caught "an illness" that they did not have before.
I cannot rationalise this group contagion without the effect of a virus or "airborne pathogen".
This is what is called an observation. To take it further there are a LOT of observational studies that do not limit the amount of variables which means that there are two many factors that can influence the results.
You observation can be influenced by countless variables. Something in the food, something in the wine or soft drinks, something in the air that can all be impacting these people at that location. To say that it can ONLY be because of a virus is not proof of a virus nor is it proof on contagion.
That is why we are asking for a properly controlled study that show that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways. This has been attempted numerous times in the past and it has failed every single time.
Well if you're claiming there is some special sickness caused by a "virus" you're going to have to prove the "virus" or admit you're just telling stories.
There's no onus on anyone to prove a negative - and of course it would be impossible to check every potential "host" on the planet and test every submicroscopic particle found lol. The onus is on people like Daniel who insists "viruses" are real. If you're content to continue believing a weaponized dogma that has only absurd pseudoscience to back it up, your choice.
"The no virus camp" doesn't always get aggressive in "these discussions", so I'm not sure why you'd "have to" question why they do. Seems a little "aggressive" of you to suggest such a thing.
Are you claiming that I've been "aggressive" with you?
What about Daniel, is he being "aggressive" in these posts about no-virus people?
What about Steve Kirsch, would you call his actions that I've documented on my website "aggressive"? For example when he referred to "the Christine Massey problem" and openly wondered how to "punish" me? I could share more examples from yes-virus people, i.e. Sasha Latypova, Sabine Hazan, Roger Hodkinson....
The real reason I now refuse to debate Steve Kirsch (or engage with him, Richard Fleming or Kevin McCairn) (hint: it’s not what Steve tells his readers)
You do not care. Yet you are here commenting on this stuff.
Not to mention repeating illogical conclusions about existence of infectious diseases and bio viruses.
Do you realize that absolute non-existence of something can't be proven and shifting the burden of proof on those who question or deny unsubstantiated claims is a logical fallacy?
Also you should make yourself familiar with other logical fallacies like anecdotal, appeal to authority, argumentum from repetition, argumentum ad populum, bandwagon, begging the question, circular reasoning.
People getting sick at a wedding in NO way proves it's due to a virus or airborne pathogen... maybe the food was bad, maybe they were exposed to toxins... but there is zero proof of any virus existing... so how can someone get sick with something that's never been proven to exist???
base-2 <--> base-64 encoders/decoders are standard utility programs on most serious computer systems (I don't know about M$-Windoze). here's an online base-64 encoder/decoder:
this does not resolve the correspondence between DNA base-pairs and two-digit binary sequences. there are (4*3*2 = 24) possible mappings between {C, G, A, T} <--> {00, 01, 10, 11}, and there is no reason to prefer any one of them over the others; this choice is entirely arbitrary, as it obviously has no biological significance.
once the (arbitrary) correspondence between three-base-pair DNA codons and six-digit binary numbers is established, it seems quite likely that searching through multi-million-codon biological DNA sequences, you would find short strings that would be valid machine instruction sequences for some computer CPU. this is just statistically probable; it would also be true of completely random DNA sequences of the same length.
in either case, it is not at all clear why you would expect such instruction sequences to encode any useful computation. you can get something that resembles English by picking words at random from a dictionary, but it won't actually mean anything.
one really would think that a hypothetical artificial intelligence reading through DNA databanks, would learn a lot more from them by interpreting them as encoding proteins and epigenetic processes (their actual origin), rather than machine instructions for a synthetic computer. the latter interpretation would just seem to be random noise.
unless somebody has deliberately encoded some significant computer program in the DNA of a living organism. that seems highly unlikely, but would be an interesting finding, if true.
Add to that if the encoding was encrypted, where is the key sequence. It's tedious work, which is why I suspect various organizations might have subcontraccted it to an AI.
Daniel repeatedly cited a list of entries about made-up in silico "genomes". The first entry listed at that link relates to the ridiculous Fan Wu study wherein a computer (in silico) sequence was assembled (made up) out of zillions of smaller sequences of unknown provenance and passed off as evidence of "a virus". I checked the next 10 entries and they don't even have publications listed, so there are no Methods sections to even read.
Daniel wants people to assume that the entries in the database are somehow proof that the "genomes" listed there are legit.
This is not how science or logic works. And so, he's been challenged to cite even 1 valid scientific study showing the existence of any alleged virus, if he can.
That's why the lab submitting the sequence is named. You can contact them to see what machine they used to sequence, how they extracted RNA or DNA from the sample. The brands of reagents to dissolve protein coats aren't the same world wide.
If you're willing to call the mammal and human genomes on Genbank fake as well... we'll I'll leave it to you to prove or disprove yourself.
there's no need to contact Fan Wu's team. Their paper is perfectly clear what they did and which machines and software they used. Qiagen RNeasy Plus to chemically break down the millions of genetic particles of human lung, tissue, bacteria, pollen, fungi, food and other DNA into a soup, chemically bind them to a salt, use more chemicals to convert them to RNA and then take 56.5 million strands of short sequences of unknown provenance and assemble them into a genome that had only an 88% match with a bat insilico genome in the computer, despite the same paper claiming there were no bats at the market and despite a human having a closer genetic match to a cat than that. What does Christine's opinion have to do with facts? All three types of genetic sequencing cannot determine long string genetic sequences without pre-determined known primers to target...hence impossible to use to find or determine a "new" novel virus sequence. We read the paper several times, did you?
Steve, it's not even that...he needs to describe the precise NEXT steps after they extract the RNA (forget the sequencing) and I can guarantee you that he won't know what to say....there are IMPORTANT steps he needs to describe before any sequences are submitted anywhere....I am SHREDDING virologists up and down TWITTER re their methods, many much smarter than he.....he will get lost after the "extract RNA" step...I just crushed two virologists on this on TW....I can guarantee you he will not engage me...none of them do anymore ........................(Potente)
OK, so in YOUR OWN WORDS, what was done after they "extracted the RNA" from the sample...can you walk me through the next steps so that I can analyze the methods...understand this.....I do NOT want you to post a link to a paper, I want you to describe in your own words precisely what steps are taken AFTER you extract the RNA...do you understand me, sir? If you cannot do this, if you cannot elucidate next steps, than you will concede that you don't understand the methods purportedly used to isolate and PURIFY purported viral particles from samples.......I will await your reply....
Daniel, can you provide a study that PROPERLY isolated and purified the alleged virus and PROVED it to be a CAUSE of disease... if you can't provide this crucial info, you shouldn't be making claims as they have no foundation to stand on... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
Based on your responses, one can conclude that you're either (a) ignorant of the (improper) methods or (b) engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.......which one is it, sir?
NOPE... not a single mention of the isolation technique in that paper... that study ASSUMES the existence of a virus but NEVER proves it... gonna have to do better than that... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
Adam, they have NEVER in history extracted RNA from a tissue or from sputum and isolated a "virus".....as they claim, there isn't ENOUGH "virus" in the sample, so it needs to be cultured.....most are too dense to understand that sequencing means nothing if you can't establish that you're actually sequencing just a virus and not biological soup of unknown provenance hahahahahahaha...it is pure lunacy at this point and they know it...this guy won't be back....
I just asked a simple question Daniel to which no response so far.
Where are the scientific papers showing:
---- virus isolation
---- illness caused by virus
---- transmission of virus
Then I can toddle off to the no virus people brandishing these papers ... or perhaps you have a response that obviates the requirement for these scientific papers?
Obviously scientific papers have been produced but the no virus people say they don't follow the scientific method so you cannot simply re-supply these papers. You need to argue for their valid science.
When your answer isn't direct then you need some explanation around it. When the question is repeated you don't retort with, "you didn't comprehend". Why should I, as I've said I'm not a scientist or a doctor?
I haven't made any statements I've only asked questions ... which still haven't been answered.
So for argument's sake let's say that we have gene sequences of viruses.
Where is the evidence of causing illness and transmission? If your link is supposed to encompass the answer to those questions, a priori, "Yes I don't comprehend." You'll have to offer more explanation.
We have a theory first of all. That theory is that there is a viral agent that spread from a sick host to a healthy host by means of natural pathways to make the healthy host sick. This is the FIRST step. He cannot provide proof.
Then step two is that we would "isolate' this presumed particle to be able to study it. Virology has completely bastardised the word "isolation" not to mean isolation but to mean CPE in a petri dish. The absurdity of this boggles the mind! It nothing close to isolation but this topic is difficult because when we speak to virologist they have their own definition for "isolation". I do agree that CPE in a petri dish is not "isolation" but rather quackery.
Then they do purification. This is actually what we refer to when normal people talk about "isolation". They settle out the presumed virus after culturing... They admit themselves that it is near impossible to separate so called viruses from extracellular vesicles. Be that as is may, exactly as you suggested. They have never taken this purified virus to this whether it can cause disease through [natural pathways].
He refers us to gene sequencing because it is so far downstream that you cannot even see where this nonsense all started. It is the best trolling tactic out there and most will be none the wiser because they think this topic is complicated.
If you cannot show that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways then EVERYTHING downstream is irrelevant. There is no way in hell Daniel can address this because the publish studies just do NOT provide proof for it.
Pre-existing antibodies, state of health (e.g. not being malnourished) and sputum itself can neutralize viral particles. (Especially if the sick person was starting to produce IGA antibodies during the inflammatory phase. Sputum unless it was collected in the incubation period of the illness before people feel sick, may not have any viral particles.)
You mean the soup mixes that contain a plethora of stuff 'scientists buy and then say they have a virus isolate? That is evil fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you should know that!
more like hundreds of thousands of ASSUMPTIONS... not a single study you posted details the isolation methods... can't have an isolated virus without explaining how it was isolated... why do i need to explain this to an MD??? and computer gene sequencing is not isolating a virus... stop being part of the problem... you cannot be this dumb.
You can't just say viruses exist. It's like every time someone cites that HIV is the cause of AIDS, they're citing a paper that says HIV is the cause of AIDS.
On top of that, there is already a group of "dissenters" calling "no virus" a psyop. What's the purpose of the psyop in the context of what is happening with COVID? There isn't one, because this is simply questioning a claim by looking at the numerous scientific papers that are more than convincing that contagious pathogens cannot be proven.
Lab leak and zoonotic jump is the never-ending debate because they're both wrong. THAT is a psyop. Durrrr. Welcome to military operations my naïve children.
No, it's not for thinking people. He called thinking people who have no skin in the game a psyop. The real thinking people have gone through over a 100 years of research that shows no evidence that contagious pathogens cause disease. It's been organized in a way that the lazy doctor can read a few articles or watch a few videos.
His response to that fact is posting a link of sequences that has nothing to do with pathogenicity and saying "learn biology." A retarded 8-year-old could have come up with a better response. I hope your "freedom" account is a joke, because you're following frauds to your demise. Nagase is pushing a paradigm that enslaves.
Oh my! You need an x to prove x causes y. And you do not have an x - on the biology side, how can you jump to in silico if you do not have the biological particle to start with? Viroliegy is just that: a pack of lies! You are googiligut whdhdfirnfnfkfkd = making no science sense!
Others are aggressively attacking his thoughts but completely free of character assassination, ad hominems and name -calling. This discussion is for adults only.
For those who have trouble comprehending Genbank and why it's one of the greatest accomplishments of our time.
Here's 1 limited study done by the US Defense Deptartment proving that flu vaccines increase certain Viral infections while reducing others. (They had sufficient isolation and sequencing capabilities to differentiate between different viruses and which ones were increased in service members given the flu vax and which ones were decreased in people who got the flu vax)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126676/
For those who can process new information, this means viruses do exist and there's many different species, as proven by the past 50+ years of research that "No Viruses" cultists conveniently and consistently ignore.
Who is having trouble understanding that Genbank contains millions of made-up, meaningless, in silico "virus genomes"?
From the Methods of the study that Daniel cited above (which is an observational study, not a controlled experiment capable of demonstrating causation of anything, and wherein the existence of "viruses" was assumed and the authors did not even attempt to demonstrate their existence):
"Laboratory testing completed at USAFSAM and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) included multiplex PCR respiratory pathogen panels... viral culture detecting influenza and other respiratory viruses, and influenza A/B subtyping via PCR [16], [17]".
So meaningless, impossible-to-validate PCR "tests", and "viral cultures".
For anyone new to the topic of "viral cultures" this is code for:
- taking fluid from a so-called "host",
- assuming that "the virus" exists and might be in the fluid,
- adulterating the bodily fluid by adding it to a cell line (typically monkey kidney cells for fake-covid),
- adulterating the bodily fluid further with fetal bovine serum,
- and toxic drugs,
- watching this wildly unnatural manmade brew (that can't tell you anything about what goes on in a living body) for several days, and...
- if the cell line breaks down: wildly, irrationally, illogically, unscientifically assuming and declaring that a "virus" was in the clinical sample, that "the virus" has replicated in the lab dish, that "the virus" caused the cells to break down and that you've "isolated the virus".
No controlled experiment, valid independent variable, no "virus" particle identified, just meaningless procedures never shown to have anything to do with a "virus". Because there are no valid, scientific studies showing the existence of any "virus".
For those who read this article and have arrived at a satisfactory process and logic based conclusion about viruses from the previous article, I should probably clarify why AI + Genbank is so dangerous. From a procedural perspective you have an unknown self programmed system reading and interpreting the all known sequenced DNA (who's full meaning is also unknown).
Unknown x Unknown = Unknown^2
Whether it is dangerous is unknown^2.
Whether it may find the cure to people who've been Gene edited by the mRNA injection is also Unknown^2
Daniel, how can something that hasn't been isolated and proven to exist be sequenced??? Doesn't make sense... because it's not true. Stop being part of the problem.
A failure to click through Genbank and view never "isolated and proven to exist" gene sequences for mice, humans, plants is exactly the willful blindness that cutists of all types have. Repeating a mantra "hasn't been isolated and proven to exist be sequenced" keeps you from looking outside your thought cage.
again, HOW can something be sequenced when it hasn't been proven to exist (ie isolated)??? Answer the question.... deflecting proves you are part of the problem.
How exactly does over 8 million proven to exist instances of 1 subspecies of coronavirus, millions of proven to exist examples of other viruses, and another few million proven to exist macroscopic species "deflect" from your repetitive thought loop? Or are you deliberately not clicking through https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/dna-rna/ (You can access Japanese DNA databases as well from the site.)
Clicking thru doesn't matter... no where is it addressed HOW they determined the DNA was from a virus... WHERE is that step??? There needs to be PROOF that the DNA belongs to a virus... until then, sequencing cannot happen... so pretty please, point it out to me if you can because it's not anywhere you've linked to....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
Here is a link you might be able to comprehend.
Reverse transcriptase exists to help RNA viruses make more copies of themselves than then could if they stayed RNA.
Modern virology discovered it because viruses that make so many copies that they damage cells from their endless copying are easy to isolate because there's so many of them in the fluids of sick people.
Viruses cause illness by using up cell resources. (Go learn this on your own through pubmed)
Mild viruses only use minimal resources and then move on. Sometimes people barely have a sniffle.
Others use a lot of resources and leave a permanent copy of themselves in the DNA like herpes and pappiloma viruses (warts).
Want to prove viruses exist?
Get some sandpaper, rub your skin raw, and rub that raw skin over someone who has dozens of warts.
If you get warts because you lack enough antibodies from a previous exposure, then go to a doctor, get a viral swab of that wart, and that is proof of transmission, isolation of 1 species from your wart, and that will end your mind trap.
Genbank is a FRAUD
There's one comment I'd like to share because the poster puts some thought into her writing, but unfortunately makes a number of false statements, upon which she builds an argument that she repeats pathologically not seeing that it is entirely built on false foundations. She says about Genbank: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&VirusLineage_ss=SARS-CoV-2,%20taxid:2697049)
"No, he cited a list of entries about made-up in silico "genomes". The first entry listed at that link relates to the ridiculous Fan Wu study, the next 10 entries don't even have publications, so there are no Methods sections to even read. Daniel has taken it as an article of faith that the entries are legit."
The first lie is her accusation that the Genbank is a list of "made-up" genomes. If you know how to navigate tables on webpages and spreadsheets, you can click on the top bar and arrange all 8.26 million Sars Cov entries by the date, who sequenced it, or the name of the organization that sequenced it.
Lets click on "submitters" so the 8 million list is arranged alphabetically Z to A? (Why? because I think authors with names at the beginning of the alphabet get disproportionate credit in academia.)
If you click on the blue link beside "van der Poel,W.H.M.," and then click on the popup blue link MT457390 on the sidebar, then you go to this page.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT457390
This page is a "publication".
So the commenter's accusation there's no publication is also false.
The third false hood is that these genomes were "made up". (Read Dr. van der Poel's entry.)
Either this repeat poster doesn't know how to click on blue links to get to the "publication", click on menu bars, and comprehend the text of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT457390 .
Or
She's lying, not just to us, but herself as well.
An intelligent person asks why?
For those who have curiosity of the natural world, Genbank is a testimony to the miracles of nature.
1 individual virus, designed in silico, who's RNA was published in Jan 2020, likely released in Wuhan and a few other places, now is 8.28 million genetically unique individuals!
(And those are just the ones we know about where labs worldwide have sequenced them)
Fact based people who understand Genbank's 1 entry for Sars COV 2 can recognize the immense power of replication and adaptation -- the power of life itself.
Virus deniers are actually power of life deniers. And I suspect that's why "Terrain Theory" uses dehumanizing language describing people as geology.
I use health to describe a person's overall body state.
Terrain is for rocks.
a virus designed in silico (ie IN A COMPUTER) is NOT real... IT DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE AND PROVES NOTHING ABOUT REAL LIFE... YOU have no proof of claim... i feel sorry for your patients... they are at risk and don't even know it... shame on you!
Hats off for hitting the hornets nest. Keep asking questions. Armor up for the replies.
Terrain and contagion make no sense to be mutually exclusive. We need to keep our bodies, minds, and immune systems strong because the continued assaults of modernist living will not end until a global cataclysm shuts down the entire electrical grid.
Stay strong spiritually, be prepped for emergencies, and be charitable in spirit to all, at least that’s what I’m working on.
He's not asking questions. He's telling people they need to believe in something he can't prove exists.
And you’re telling people they need to believe in a position you haven’t proven doesn’t exist. Same difference.
The mathematical integral of telling people what to think is telling people HOW to think. This is something @RICKYRANTS is so deeplly programmed that he's unable to do. Every one of my substacks is designed to show people HOW to think.
Just cite a valid study Daniel, because so far you've demonstrated how you repeatedly evade backing up your claim. A database of made-up "genomes" doesn't cut it.
Since you aren't comprehending Genbank and why it's one of the greatest accomplishments of our time. Here's 1 limited study done by the US Defense Dept proving that flu vaccines increase certain Viral infections but not others. (they had sufficient isolation and sequencing capabilities to differentiate between different viruses and which ones were increased by the flu vax and which ones were deacreased)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126676/
Meaning viruses do exist and there's many different species, as proven by the past 50+ years of research that "No Viruses" believers conveniently and consistently ignore.
As I already responded under your other similar comment:
Who is having trouble understanding that Genbank contains millions of made-up, meaningless, in silico "virus genomes"?
From the Methods of the study that Daniel cited above (which is an observational study, not a controlled experiment capable of demonstrating causation of anything, and wherein the existence of "viruses" was assumed and the authors did not even attempt to demonstrate their existence):
"Laboratory testing completed at USAFSAM and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) included multiplex PCR respiratory pathogen panels... viral culture detecting influenza and other respiratory viruses, and influenza A/B subtyping via PCR [16], [17]".
So meaningless, impossible-to-validate PCR "tests", and "viral cultures".
For anyone new to the topic of "viral cultures" this is code for:
- taking fluid from a so-called "host",
- assuming that "the virus" exists and might be in the fluid,
- adulterating the bodily fluid by adding it to a cell line (typically monkey kidney cells for fake-covid),
- adulterating the bodily fluid further with fetal bovine serum,
- and toxic drugs,
- watching this wildly unnatural manmade brew (that can't tell you anything about what goes on in a living body) for several days, and...
- if the cell line breaks down: wildly, irrationally, illogically, unscientifically assuming and declaring that a "virus" was in the clinical sample, that "the virus" has replicated in the lab dish, that "the virus" caused the cells to break down and that you've "isolated the virus".
No controlled experiment, no valid independent variable, no "virus" particle identified, just meaningless procedures never shown to have anything to do with a "virus". Because there are no valid, scientific studies showing the existence of any "virus".
If you do not address the heart of the issue but instead some superficial nonsense then the last thing your are doing is showing people how to think. ALL you are doing is placing attention on an open ended discussion that has no end.
A great talk by Dewey B. Larson on "inductive vs inventive reasoning" - Reciprocal System of Theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdS6V2GK7zk
The above talk show how you get to the heart of the issue.
The first observation from which a theory stemmed in the field of virology was that people [thought] that sick people make health people sick through the spread of some sort of agent. That is why we are asking you to show proof that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways.
Gene sequencing has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.
Everyone is challenging HOW you think, because you have deemed yourself the arbiter of truth but can’t provide real evidence when you make ridiculous claims. You’re literally no better than the fact checkers. The only difference is you moonlight as a dissident.
The burden of proof is one those making the positive claim that something does exist.
No virus people have gone above and beyond the call of duty by collecting evidence to show that the virus-pushers have zero science on their side, and producing excellent educational materials to help others understand the grossly unscientific, illogical nature of virology, and the unproven nature of contagion.
Official Evidence that Virology is Pseudoscience - June 10 2023
- a 40 minute introduction to the massive body of evidence collected on my website, primarily in the form of freedom of information responses from 217 institutions in 40 countries, including Health Canada, PHAC, CDC, NIAID, FDA, and a ridiculous response from the W.H.O., also correspondences directly with "SARS-COV-2" researchers:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gvu4NbieSuVb/
“So What The Hell Is Going On?"
(how perps pulled off fake-covid without a virus, the meaninglessness of the tests, etc)
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/what-the-hell-is-going-on/
Hepes simplex.
Christmas 1965 at grandmas house. My dad’s fraternal twin brother, our Uncle, had a huge herpes fever blister on his lip.
My parents had made sure my brothers and I all got measles around the same time, then mumps, then chicken pox. Those three illnesses are from viruses. Recovering from them produced lifelong natural immunity.
Not understanding that herpes simplex lives on forever in nerve root ganglia, and thinking exposure to herpes simplex would give his children natural immunity, dad made us all kiss uncle Louis on the face so we would catch herpes.
We didn’t want to because it was hideous. Dad threatened to beat us with his belt if we didn’t get contact infection by refusing to kiss uncle Louis.
Well, we all got fever blisters from the herpes virus now inhabiting our trigeminal nerves.
For the rest of my life, I have suffered outbreaks almost continuously thanks to Dad and Uncle Louis.
The only protection I have comes from using my BEMER daily, getting enough sleep, proper nutritional supplementation. Out breaks still happen at the most devastating times. I travel with Valtrex everywhere. I carry topical colloidal silver everywhere. I use blue LED acne therapeutic light if it comes on.
Herpes simplex is a virus and it’s a fucking lifelong curse.
Is everything being called a virus actually a virus? Certainly not.
If you don’t believe me, keep kissing people on the face right over their active herpes simplex outbreaks and enjoy the thrill of hideous miserable facial blisters for the rest of your life.
Do vaccines work? Hell no. Never have.
Your anecdotal story is not proof of any "virus".
Claiming that an immortal "virus" is living in your nerve root ganglia is self-defeating. Maybe you need additional collagen to strengthen the skin? I've heard of people recovering from "herpes" that way.
This is an excellent article to get you started on your path to informed discussions of neurobiology, neuropathology, and neuro immunology.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21505594.2021.1982373
Correlation does not equal causation... some people getting sick in the house at the same time does not prove viruses are real, nor does it prove contagion... Scientism has you hooked.
Our position has not been to tell people what to believe. It has been to ask questions that CANNOT be answered. Specifically the question for proof of a sick person making a healthy person sick through natural pathways.
I have asked this question several times to Daniel but he diverts the conversation to gene sequencing which is a downstream issue.
If no one can prove that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways then by default EVERYTHING Daniel keeps on referring to is irrelevant because virology's foundation stands on the ASSUMPTION that this has been proven.
Besides the above. It is very interesting that Daniel is unable to discuss the studies he refers us to, which means he assumes that what's in the studies is correct. Giving google search results to thousands of papers is not an argument. It proves that someone makes assumptions without critically reviewing the material.
Exactly! Another false claim by Nagase. When I write, I don’t tell people WHAT to think or even HOW to think. I ask the questions that I feel need to be answered before we can make definitive statements. So far, no one has been able to find a repeatable study that shows isolation, purification, pathogenicity and contagiousness. It should be easy!
The arrogance of some doctors is astounding. https://open.substack.com/pub/rickyrants/p/this-british-play-honestly-examines
Can’t prove the unprovable. Can you? If one does not know, one should admit that. If you cannot show the evidence that a thing exist it means that you cannot show that the non existent is the cause of a thing; that is absurd. So, if you don’t know, it is okay to admit it .
Your criticisms will have some validity when you can demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that, firstly, that viruses are other than figments of your imagination, and secondly, that they are the cause of illnesses or death.
The burden is on you. Don’t expect hypotheses.
Burden of proof is on the people making claims.
“PsYoP! A DuRrRrRp!” 🤡
Claiming there are no viruses is making a claim. Enjoy a funny song https://youtu.be/6ZlLQLFq_H4
No. Saying viruses as defined have never been proven to exist is a fact. See the difference?
Nope. Herpes.
You can't prove something to not exist. This can only be done the other way around. Prove the existence and everything is fine. The onus is on you
genbank is proof of existance of multiple species, not just covid 19. When one comprehends what genbank is, one understands why it is proof not just of viral existance, but of human existance as well.
Why no one is able to prove existence of alleged nucleotides, immune system, infectious diseases, pathogenic bacteria and biological viruses?
Do you know that:
"The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
Do you realize that people claim that claims about things I aforementioned are not proven to exist?
Assumptions prove nothing...
What makes birds fly in formation
Or the fish swim in their schools
What makes the hive swarm
Or man, so tribal
Is it a king, or a chief
Or a queen, or a witch
Is it malleable like water
Or stubborn and fixed
Is it salesmen and poets
Or courage and strength
Is it fear of suffering
Or seduction and sex
What makes birds fly in formation
Why flock to the fray
And allow our own ignorance
To flourish away
For questions unanswered
Will ask them all day
But silence is deafened
So death shall decay
As man will stay blinded
And blinded obey
Questions unanswered
Are asking away
So why do birds fly
In formations above?
And yet we bicker and argue
Without thinking
Or love
Thank you for your poem.
I always appreciate creativity from others.
Watching other people's imaginations at work brings me joy.
Conway ~ a thought filled poem asking the questions, neither being right or wrong, I’m with you and your premise of, what happened to love???
Years ago, I was asked if I knew why when birds fly in a formation, one side is always longer than the other. Of course, I thought about it and discussed the aerodynamics and the wind speed as being one of the cause perhaps, but after offering up what I felt were reasonable options, I was simply told, “Nope. There are just more birds on one side.” 😁
YOU ARE IN A CULT CALLED ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE.
IT'S THE CULT OF ROCKEFELLER.
YOUR CULT LEADER THANKS YOU.
There's still been 0 scientific papers out of MILLIONS that show a pure isolate causing illness and spreading. 0. <---science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&VirusLineage_ss=SARS-CoV-2,%20taxid:2697049
Hundreds of thousands of isolations and gene sequences of viruses, bacteria and mammals
Like I said before, ignorance allows people to make false statements like you do repeatedly.
How about getting all the different opiners together for a journal club discussion?
This is not what was asked Daniel... Please used your ability to read and comprehend and review his comment again. Maybe you'll get it the second time around...
If that link is all you have, then you have nothing scientific.
On a side note regarding cults.
I find observing the cult of military power fascinating.
Defense1, Modern Warfare Institute and some posting board of Australian fighter pilots talking about the s400 which i can no longer find are things that I read to understand humanity.
It's not dangerous. This guy is a buffoon, none of the tech he presented works in reality. The only dangerous part is when people believe these clowns.
Do you know how to code? Exactly. You don't even know what you're talking about. Either you watched 2 hours of Westpoint officer lecturers in 51 minutes, or you didn't understand it and are making a false statement "none of the tech he presented works in reality". Show me 1 example where you have reverse engineered and hacked a program.
I always told my son’s “pay attention when people show you who they are”
“Sasha” tells us who he/she is:
“ I could not become a prof artist, so I became a Pharma and medical device R&D executive”
OMG! You found out all my secrets that I was trying to keep very secret by writing them on my Substack profile. You must be clairvoyant.
Redacted
Thank you. I didn't know this about her.
Sorry I don't normally get involved. I admire you and dont want to see you targeted and caught up in a bully's games.
I probably didn't even need to say anything. She showed everyone straight off by name calling and making sweeping statements instead of having a respectful and intelligent discussion based on her beliefs and different views.
If you'd like to talk about gene deletions privately, dnagase@dal.ca
I am curious. My fascination with every thing that goes right and wrong in biology still burns bright.
I deleted my comment which included my son's genetic deletion because I didn't want all the private information out there. I appreciate you giving me your email address. I might email you sometime however my son's issues are so great, his genetic deletion is so large, sometimes it's very daunting.
I wish I were able to get a more detailed genetic test on his gene function. It would be more revealing to know what's going on inside of his genes and how they're reacting together with the loss of function I'm sure he has strong points and weak points and maybe there would be something I could do for him if I had a greater understanding.
There is no treatment for my sons genetic deletion. Doctors do treat some infants born with genetic errors of metabolism. Many of these children are missing the ability to break down a nutrient. Giving them special formula allows them to thrive. Without the formula they would become mentally retarded and many would die.
There's also a woman in Spain treating zelweggers syndrome with a broken down fatty acid which grows the missing part of their brain after they are born. It seems like a miracle. Understanding these genetic defects means being able to help the people who have them.
Daniel, Heidi is a troll. A hysterical one. And also a liar, who has to delete her messages right after she writes them because she is afraid her lies are too obvious.
Thank you. 🙏
Hi Heidi (I don't normally get involved, troll) OMG, hilarious. You will have to change your name yet again!
Bullying isn't going to work with me Sasha.
You don't have discussions with people who disagree with you. You have bullying sessions.
Why would I change my name for a person like you who lied and tried smear me because I didnt agree with you. I told you I want nothing to do with you. I don't want to be your friend. I don't care what you or your followers think of me. It's not my problem it's yours.
You said you love screwing with people, disrespecting them and watching their head spin. You stooped to the sick level of calling me a bad mother because I didn't agree with you. You even claimed that your work helps people like my son when everything you stand for is about denying that people with disabilities like my son even exist. Your comments to me backed this up over and over.
Even as you claim to be helping your covid sick friends you act like people aren't susceptible to severe disease, that covid is harmless... then why were they taking hydroxychloroquine Sasha if covid is harmless. You contradict yourself so that you can slap people in the face with it.
When you insulted me, said you like to torture people like me, I told you I felt sorry for you. Whatever trauma you've gone through that has turned you into such a bully of innocent people I'm sad for but I don't have to put up with it.
Claiming your experience is more than mine which means I should defer to you about even my own son's health problems is exactly what we are fighting against right now...experts going around acting like their word is God.
This is exactly why I told Dr.Nagasi about you, because you fling insults and lies about someone for no reason other than to just be cruel and you want to call yourself an expert and think that will buy you notoriety, friends.
You can take your Malone playbook someone else.
You can put an end to the bickering and put your money where your mouth is. Do the science publish the findings right here for all to see. That’s the only way we will know, once and for all.
If you are not willing to do it, then we will know that you are just another believer. We will, also see that you are willfully blind and that you are no different from those that you criticize.
The proof is in the pudding. If there’s no pudding then there’s nothing to discuss. The pudding, in this case, is not the sequences but rather the thing sequenced.
The reason why I deleted my comment was because I didn't want it to seem like I wanted everone to pick sides or be against Sasha. The only reason I said anything is because I really like Nagasi. He's a very sweet person. I don't like seeing him being attacked as a new target for Sasha to screw with because he doesnt agree with her.
It doesn't matter whether you or her or anyone believes it or not but I am not here to make enemies or divide anyone.
A lot of people who I admire follow Sasha. I think that's great. She is intelligent, has some great content but she's also very cruel at times.
This has nothing to do with research. It was about Sasha doing the exact same thing to me that she did with Daniel right now, coming in making sweeping statements insulting people, not backing up her claims with any research just insulting peoples beliefs.
The reason I deleted my comment was because it was about Sasha and my personal disagreement and I didn't think that everybody needed to read it but if you want to know here it is
I said my son has a genetic deletion once and she got on my comment and said genetic defects don't exist. My son was born with his genetic defect. She didn't end it there she lied and said that she never told me that and then she admitted that she likes to screw with people like me and watch my head spin. She said I'm not a good parent because I'm talking with her about things instead of being a good parent... somehow it makes me not a good parent because I'm talking with her. She said she knows more than me and inferred I should sit back and shut up.
I suppose I could make a substack with the print out of my sons genetic deletion and all that he has suffered in his life-
IUGR Small in the womb, heart defects, scoliosis, etc but it's really nobody's business
I'm not telling anybody how to act but I do think if somebody is going to come into a conversation with a different belief it would be respectful and productive to not come in and insult everyone, instead state why she believes what she does so that we can all understand her. In effect, what she is doing is counting on people believing her because she is "Sasha" the expert. Because she is Sasha that makes her better than everyone else and we should just agree with her instead of Nagasi.
I'm not attributing motives to her I'm just saying this is how her attitude is she doesn't allow anyone to even understand what her beliefs are she just throws insults out and she's done it with me on many occasions because I didn't agree with her ... and why should I have to?
Sasha has said so many lies about me. She once said I was begging her to forgive me and was crying, wanting her to be my friend. Then she deletes it and denies saying it.
I think you know me by now I don't care what Sasha or anyone thinks about me. I'm not here for popularity or to make friends.
She says I changed name because of her she thinks everything is about her I told her I changed my name because I wanted to raise more awareness from my son instead of it just being Heidi Heil. Do I look like I'm hiding My Name Is right Out There on all of my articles, in my profile. She insinuated I needed to hide from people changing my name. When I did change my name I told everybody.
No matter what I change my name to my name is still on all my articles I published under my name. All of my sons articles, my medical articles they all have my name on it I'm not hiding anything and I'm not hiding from anyone
She also said that all of my substack articles are about her smearing her, as if everything is about her. As if the world revolves around Sasha I really don't like people like that and I don't have to like her. It's ok to not like eachother, to have healthy boundaries
There are a lot of things I agree with Sasha about. In fact there are things where the entire community doesn't agree with Sasha and I agree with her.
I don't know enough about Nagasi's topic to form a belief... and I was unable to consider Sasha's because she didn't state her belief when she made her initial comment. She came in insulting someone elses belief, in effect insulting Nagasi for holding the belief.
It triggered me, reminded me of what she did to me. I'm not sure if you've ever had somebody say things about you that are untrue, cruel, say they like to get a rise out of you, watch your head spin. They even walk back their comments to you just so they can call you a liar in front of everone.
I don't like to see the people around me treated this way. Something I need to work through.
Now I'm faced with wanting to delete my comments because Sasha and my drama is all over Nagasi's page but then Sasha will accuse me of deleting things because I'm lying so it stays.
I published on this video several weeks ago, so I did watch it in full. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/134574604?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
While I am not a software developer, I have commercialized 100s of academic biomedical patents, and I know from practical experience that 99.5% of them are not worth the paper they are written on, but sound extremely smart and plausible. Anyhow, I have experience figuring out bullshit in academic talks and sales pitches, that's all.
Without knowing the technical details, I look for signs of immaturity to help me decide on which side is gathering the relatively mature. I’ll side with the emotionally mature by default, then I’ll do some research. Job #1, witness who is name-calling and character-assassinating. Zoom out and see on which side are most of these features. This will be the immature side, and therefore most likely the least credible because these people ‘think’ with their emotions.
Making decisions based on emotions is not a very good approach. It is even less so when the first screening is based on emotions of others and where the herd seems to be emotionally heading. Although the latter is a good heuristic to identify some warning signals.
I had worked as a designer in the PPE industry so in that case I had the technical knowledge to shun masking without any further investigation. In the event of the jabs for which I have little knowledge I also shunned that because I noticed 1) carrot and stick, 2) shaming and 2) goodie vs baddie narratives. Emotionally healthy people never apply these disordered, preschool age levers and additionally are hyper-aware that name-calling and character assassination only appeals to non-credible, emotionally immature people. These people know not to stoop to this behaviour because they know very well that is would reveal them as non-credible. The truly immature people never figure this out.
That’s all I need to decide that the source is pathological. Subsequent technical reveals only ever confirm my choice.
If I see one group is unquestioning, morally bankrupt, easily panicked and manipulated and the opposing side is thoughtful and logical, guess which one I’ll gravitate towards? Ya, the really small side.
correct
Making decisions based on my own emotions always requires careful and cautious review first. Making decisions based on evaluating the overall signs of emotional maturity of opposing sides is fantastically powerful and predictable.
Yes, by the numbers you are absolutely correct. The only guaranteed loss in an impossible battle is to give up. I haven't yet.
You just found out that majority of people are not smart? Sorry, but that's the reality.
I always question, ‘not smart….or profoundly emotionally immature.?’
We all witness highly educated and successful, capable people behaving in COVID like they had a brick drop on their head.
Posting a link to genbank was not the question...
We requested a study that proves that a sick person can make a healthy person sick be means of natural pathways but I can understand that you need to divert the conversation to something else because this is where desperation normally sets in. The moment you realize that there is not a single study in more than 120 years that show proof that a sick person can make a healthy person sick. In fact, every time this was attempted they failed.
you haven't read every study in the past 120 years. I observed sick people making other people sick every day in the ER. Sometimes it was bacteria, other times it was parasites, most of the times it was viral, proven by 1 species of virus I sampled from their nose or spit, the absence of other species of viruses in the sample and confirmed in the real world from close contacts who had the same species without any other species, and sick with the same symptoms as the index case.
if you can't comprehend why this paper proves contagious illnesses by a genetic pathogen in the REAL world, there's no reason that can be bestowed upon a cult prisoned mind.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126676/
In order to get out of a cult, the person has to be willing to look outside. There's no proving anything if you can't see.
Transmission of viruses allegedly happens in vivo settings, like wet markets, right. We are talking about a physical particle, right? A thing, right? So this thing must be able to be found and shown directly from an in vivo setting, in a pure state. Otherwise none of the claims about transmission, aerosols, wet markets, 6 feet distance, face masks make any sense. If it, the thing, is real, it should be found outside Computers. Or else it's only fiction.
I'm open to all information that improves my knowledge about this and I understand the seemingly valid concerns about isolation, but can't blindly support the no virus position.
A group of people meet for one day, at an occasion like a wedding.
They are only in proximity to each other for 8 or 10 hours.
For most, there is little to no actual physical contact, only their presence in that one location.
Within a week, most, if not all of them have caught "an illness" that they did not have before.
I cannot rationalise this group contagion without the effect of a virus or "airborne pathogen".
This is what is called an observation. To take it further there are a LOT of observational studies that do not limit the amount of variables which means that there are two many factors that can influence the results.
You observation can be influenced by countless variables. Something in the food, something in the wine or soft drinks, something in the air that can all be impacting these people at that location. To say that it can ONLY be because of a virus is not proof of a virus nor is it proof on contagion.
That is why we are asking for a properly controlled study that show that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways. This has been attempted numerous times in the past and it has failed every single time.
Here is a growing list:
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence
Why don't people notice that people who share the same space also share the same environment? They'd notice if there was smoke in the air.
Nowhere did I state it could ONLY be because of a virus.
Nothing else other than a bacterial, viral, or some other non contact pathogen, currently make sense to me though.
I would never say it could only be a single "anything".
It's more to question the likelihood of it being a bacteria, EMF, noise, air quality, spontaneous human something or other.
People often overdo it with food, alcohol, etc when getting together for a party.
Not that type of sick.
Well if you're claiming there is some special sickness caused by a "virus" you're going to have to prove the "virus" or admit you're just telling stories.
I am claiming nothing.
I am just voicing an idea.
Nobody here can prove conclusively that all those people were NOT infected by a virus, just as I can't prove they were.
Maybe the no virus camp can publicly prove beyond doubt that there are not any viruses?
I really don't care either way, as it makes absolutely no difference to my existence.
I have to question why the no virus camp always gets aggressive in these discussions?
There's no onus on anyone to prove a negative - and of course it would be impossible to check every potential "host" on the planet and test every submicroscopic particle found lol. The onus is on people like Daniel who insists "viruses" are real. If you're content to continue believing a weaponized dogma that has only absurd pseudoscience to back it up, your choice.
"The no virus camp" doesn't always get aggressive in "these discussions", so I'm not sure why you'd "have to" question why they do. Seems a little "aggressive" of you to suggest such a thing.
Are you claiming that I've been "aggressive" with you?
What about Daniel, is he being "aggressive" in these posts about no-virus people?
What about Steve Kirsch, would you call his actions that I've documented on my website "aggressive"? For example when he referred to "the Christine Massey problem" and openly wondered how to "punish" me? I could share more examples from yes-virus people, i.e. Sasha Latypova, Sabine Hazan, Roger Hodkinson....
The real reason I now refuse to debate Steve Kirsch (or engage with him, Richard Fleming or Kevin McCairn) (hint: it’s not what Steve tells his readers)
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/why-i-now-refuse-to-debate-steve-kirsch-or-richard-fleming-or-kevin-mccairn/
How many times have you been in group with a sick person and no one else got sick?
Almost never.
"pseudo·science
[ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns]
NOUN
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method:"
Now show us a scientific or logical proof that existence of alleged biological viruses or pathogenic bacteria is proven.
Do you want to do this by identification of variable in nature and experimentation on it in a form of independent variable?
Or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with identified variable?
No. I don't, because I really don't care if they exist or not.
Other commenters seem to quickly lose their shit over it though.
You do not care. Yet you are here commenting on this stuff.
Not to mention repeating illogical conclusions about existence of infectious diseases and bio viruses.
Do you realize that absolute non-existence of something can't be proven and shifting the burden of proof on those who question or deny unsubstantiated claims is a logical fallacy?
Also you should make yourself familiar with other logical fallacies like anecdotal, appeal to authority, argumentum from repetition, argumentum ad populum, bandwagon, begging the question, circular reasoning.
People getting sick at a wedding in NO way proves it's due to a virus or airborne pathogen... maybe the food was bad, maybe they were exposed to toxins... but there is zero proof of any virus existing... so how can someone get sick with something that's never been proven to exist???
Which answers nothing about the situation.
If it's not open to questioning, then it's dogma and not science.
The fact that something has never been proven to exist, likely means that it has never been disproven either.
The burden of proof is on people like Nagase who claim it’s true. Until proven otherwise it’s a foundational lie in society.
I'm guessing that it's also impossible to prove that they do not exist.
It seems to me that the responsibility lies with both sides.
I could care less either way.
base-2 <--> base-64 encoders/decoders are standard utility programs on most serious computer systems (I don't know about M$-Windoze). here's an online base-64 encoder/decoder:
https://www.base64decode.org/
this assumes that the base-64 data is encoded using the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, +, /, as base-64 digits, explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64
this does not resolve the correspondence between DNA base-pairs and two-digit binary sequences. there are (4*3*2 = 24) possible mappings between {C, G, A, T} <--> {00, 01, 10, 11}, and there is no reason to prefer any one of them over the others; this choice is entirely arbitrary, as it obviously has no biological significance.
once the (arbitrary) correspondence between three-base-pair DNA codons and six-digit binary numbers is established, it seems quite likely that searching through multi-million-codon biological DNA sequences, you would find short strings that would be valid machine instruction sequences for some computer CPU. this is just statistically probable; it would also be true of completely random DNA sequences of the same length.
in either case, it is not at all clear why you would expect such instruction sequences to encode any useful computation. you can get something that resembles English by picking words at random from a dictionary, but it won't actually mean anything.
one really would think that a hypothetical artificial intelligence reading through DNA databanks, would learn a lot more from them by interpreting them as encoding proteins and epigenetic processes (their actual origin), rather than machine instructions for a synthetic computer. the latter interpretation would just seem to be random noise.
unless somebody has deliberately encoded some significant computer program in the DNA of a living organism. that seems highly unlikely, but would be an interesting finding, if true.
Add to that if the encoding was encrypted, where is the key sequence. It's tedious work, which is why I suspect various organizations might have subcontraccted it to an AI.
Daniel repeatedly cited a list of entries about made-up in silico "genomes". The first entry listed at that link relates to the ridiculous Fan Wu study wherein a computer (in silico) sequence was assembled (made up) out of zillions of smaller sequences of unknown provenance and passed off as evidence of "a virus". I checked the next 10 entries and they don't even have publications listed, so there are no Methods sections to even read.
Daniel wants people to assume that the entries in the database are somehow proof that the "genomes" listed there are legit.
(Here's a listing of Santa Claus sightings. It's proof that Santa exists, right? https://ispotsanta.com/santa-claus-sightings/)
This is not how science or logic works. And so, he's been challenged to cite even 1 valid scientific study showing the existence of any alleged virus, if he can.
Let's discuss the methods, Daniel!
That's why the lab submitting the sequence is named. You can contact them to see what machine they used to sequence, how they extracted RNA or DNA from the sample. The brands of reagents to dissolve protein coats aren't the same world wide.
If you're willing to call the mammal and human genomes on Genbank fake as well... we'll I'll leave it to you to prove or disprove yourself.
So you've been operating on faith, and you're not able to cite a valid scientific study?
there's no need to contact Fan Wu's team. Their paper is perfectly clear what they did and which machines and software they used. Qiagen RNeasy Plus to chemically break down the millions of genetic particles of human lung, tissue, bacteria, pollen, fungi, food and other DNA into a soup, chemically bind them to a salt, use more chemicals to convert them to RNA and then take 56.5 million strands of short sequences of unknown provenance and assemble them into a genome that had only an 88% match with a bat insilico genome in the computer, despite the same paper claiming there were no bats at the market and despite a human having a closer genetic match to a cat than that. What does Christine's opinion have to do with facts? All three types of genetic sequencing cannot determine long string genetic sequences without pre-determined known primers to target...hence impossible to use to find or determine a "new" novel virus sequence. We read the paper several times, did you?
Steve, it's not even that...he needs to describe the precise NEXT steps after they extract the RNA (forget the sequencing) and I can guarantee you that he won't know what to say....there are IMPORTANT steps he needs to describe before any sequences are submitted anywhere....I am SHREDDING virologists up and down TWITTER re their methods, many much smarter than he.....he will get lost after the "extract RNA" step...I just crushed two virologists on this on TW....I can guarantee you he will not engage me...none of them do anymore ........................(Potente)
OK, so in YOUR OWN WORDS, what was done after they "extracted the RNA" from the sample...can you walk me through the next steps so that I can analyze the methods...understand this.....I do NOT want you to post a link to a paper, I want you to describe in your own words precisely what steps are taken AFTER you extract the RNA...do you understand me, sir? If you cannot do this, if you cannot elucidate next steps, than you will concede that you don't understand the methods purportedly used to isolate and PURIFY purported viral particles from samples.......I will await your reply....
Daniel, can you provide a study that PROPERLY isolated and purified the alleged virus and PROVED it to be a CAUSE of disease... if you can't provide this crucial info, you shouldn't be making claims as they have no foundation to stand on... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
see pinned comment.
Based on your responses, one can conclude that you're either (a) ignorant of the (improper) methods or (b) engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.......which one is it, sir?
NOPE... not a single mention of the isolation technique in that paper... that study ASSUMES the existence of a virus but NEVER proves it... gonna have to do better than that... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
Adam, they have NEVER in history extracted RNA from a tissue or from sputum and isolated a "virus".....as they claim, there isn't ENOUGH "virus" in the sample, so it needs to be cultured.....most are too dense to understand that sequencing means nothing if you can't establish that you're actually sequencing just a virus and not biological soup of unknown provenance hahahahahahaha...it is pure lunacy at this point and they know it...this guy won't be back....
yes, i'm well aware
Did you verify if existence of alleged nucleotides is scientifically or logically proven?
Yes or No?
I just asked a simple question Daniel to which no response so far.
Where are the scientific papers showing:
---- virus isolation
---- illness caused by virus
---- transmission of virus
Then I can toddle off to the no virus people brandishing these papers ... or perhaps you have a response that obviates the requirement for these scientific papers?
Obviously scientific papers have been produced but the no virus people say they don't follow the scientific method so you cannot simply re-supply these papers. You need to argue for their valid science.
This was the response: You obviously did not comprehend how it answers your question.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&VirusLineage_ss=SARS-CoV-2,%20taxid:2697049
Hundreds of thousands of isolations and gene sequences of viruses, bacteria and mammals
Like I said before, ignorance allows people to make false statements as you do repeatedly.
When your answer isn't direct then you need some explanation around it. When the question is repeated you don't retort with, "you didn't comprehend". Why should I, as I've said I'm not a scientist or a doctor?
I haven't made any statements I've only asked questions ... which still haven't been answered.
So for argument's sake let's say that we have gene sequences of viruses.
Where is the evidence of causing illness and transmission? If your link is supposed to encompass the answer to those questions, a priori, "Yes I don't comprehend." You'll have to offer more explanation.
We have a theory first of all. That theory is that there is a viral agent that spread from a sick host to a healthy host by means of natural pathways to make the healthy host sick. This is the FIRST step. He cannot provide proof.
Then step two is that we would "isolate' this presumed particle to be able to study it. Virology has completely bastardised the word "isolation" not to mean isolation but to mean CPE in a petri dish. The absurdity of this boggles the mind! It nothing close to isolation but this topic is difficult because when we speak to virologist they have their own definition for "isolation". I do agree that CPE in a petri dish is not "isolation" but rather quackery.
Then they do purification. This is actually what we refer to when normal people talk about "isolation". They settle out the presumed virus after culturing... They admit themselves that it is near impossible to separate so called viruses from extracellular vesicles. Be that as is may, exactly as you suggested. They have never taken this purified virus to this whether it can cause disease through [natural pathways].
He refers us to gene sequencing because it is so far downstream that you cannot even see where this nonsense all started. It is the best trolling tactic out there and most will be none the wiser because they think this topic is complicated.
If you cannot show that a sick person can make a healthy person sick through natural pathways then EVERYTHING downstream is irrelevant. There is no way in hell Daniel can address this because the publish studies just do NOT provide proof for it.
1918 pandemic- studies to infect healthy persons with sputum, whatever, from infected individuals proved unsuccessful!
Pre-existing antibodies, state of health (e.g. not being malnourished) and sputum itself can neutralize viral particles. (Especially if the sick person was starting to produce IGA antibodies during the inflammatory phase. Sputum unless it was collected in the incubation period of the illness before people feel sick, may not have any viral particles.)
Thank-you. We'd have to revisit the study(s). A point well taken. Thanks!
You mean the soup mixes that contain a plethora of stuff 'scientists buy and then say they have a virus isolate? That is evil fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you should know that!
more like hundreds of thousands of ASSUMPTIONS... not a single study you posted details the isolation methods... can't have an isolated virus without explaining how it was isolated... why do i need to explain this to an MD??? and computer gene sequencing is not isolating a virus... stop being part of the problem... you cannot be this dumb.
My July 2022 email exchange: with Daniel, wherein he failed to cite any "virus" science:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Daniel-Nagase-July-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
August 2022 emails:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Daniel-Nagase-Aug-2022-round-2.pdf
So, you straight up lied about what the comments said.
People responded to your NIH nonsense: https://open.substack.com/pub/danielnagase/p/part-1-psyop?r=247bv&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=39877986
You can't just say viruses exist. It's like every time someone cites that HIV is the cause of AIDS, they're citing a paper that says HIV is the cause of AIDS.
NO METHODS.
NO SCIENCE
YOU = CULT.
On top of that, there is already a group of "dissenters" calling "no virus" a psyop. What's the purpose of the psyop in the context of what is happening with COVID? There isn't one, because this is simply questioning a claim by looking at the numerous scientific papers that are more than convincing that contagious pathogens cannot be proven.
Lab leak and zoonotic jump is the never-ending debate because they're both wrong. THAT is a psyop. Durrrr. Welcome to military operations my naïve children.
Ricky this is for thinking people. Say something free of shaming or go elsewhere for attention.
No, it's not for thinking people. He called thinking people who have no skin in the game a psyop. The real thinking people have gone through over a 100 years of research that shows no evidence that contagious pathogens cause disease. It's been organized in a way that the lazy doctor can read a few articles or watch a few videos.
His response to that fact is posting a link of sequences that has nothing to do with pathogenicity and saying "learn biology." A retarded 8-year-old could have come up with a better response. I hope your "freedom" account is a joke, because you're following frauds to your demise. Nagase is pushing a paradigm that enslaves.
I don’t think there are many that could successfully debate Dr. Nagase, or top his logic. Honestly, I am starting to see him as quite genius.
Everyone can do what I do. All I do is take a very simple thought process and repeat it. Eventually there's an endpoint which is sometimes a surprise.
He's speaking in hyperbole. Don't mistake it for truth.
he has no proof of claim... that's not genius level
Daniel, what “"famous” psychiatrist on the other side of the world" were you referring to in your previous article?
Oh my! You need an x to prove x causes y. And you do not have an x - on the biology side, how can you jump to in silico if you do not have the biological particle to start with? Viroliegy is just that: a pack of lies! You are googiligut whdhdfirnfnfkfkd = making no science sense!
Others are aggressively attacking his thoughts but completely free of character assassination, ad hominems and name -calling. This discussion is for adults only.