It turns out that this “International COVID Summit” had little to do with the 705 men and women who call themselves “the European Parliament”. I learned this by stumbling upon an article attributed to “Dr. Adrian Wong”. The article presents 5 alleged facts which I have not thoroughly fact-checked. It’s fact #4 that I want to highlight...."
July 2023: Clarifying the Viral Narratives with David Martin, PhD & Alec Zeck:David not only admitted to Alec that virology is nonsense and viruses have never been demonstrated to exist, but attempted to rewrite history by flat out denying that he ever said or even implied that any virus exists... and asserted that causation can never be determined... except in the case of his friend who he claims died from inhaling anthrax.
Anyone who has heard of the Rockefeller Institute's Simon Flexner polio scam knows that in reality there are no viruses. But how could that happen when 1.4 million people in Ukraine contracted hemorrhagic pneumonia in 14 days in 2009? At least that's what people were told.
May 19, 2023·edited May 24, 2023Liked by Christine Massey FOIs
Hi Christine, thanks you for all the truthful work you did to get the virus truth out.
I use 3 strategies to get truth out.
1) Like yours and Stefan Lanka's 'No virus' one. I now phrase it as 'viruses only exist as an idea, the true virus is the believe that they exist. Stefan Lanka has also made a video that the virus is a mental construct.
2) I use Tom Cowan's contagion myth: contagion could never be proven in experiments and Louis Pasteur admitted his scientific fraud which was the basis for immunology.
3) The effectiveness of the only harmful injections, which can be done in 1 image of a few graphs. Brandy from www.learntherisk.org probably got murdered for it.
Today I have send a letter to 'our' Dutch senators which are going to vote soon over a law that facilitates virus and climate lock downs, masks and more criminal nonsense.
In hindsight I should have chosen an English name as the quality of most Telegram channels about the virus fraud are not that great.
One other thing I like you to know is that a patent is just a claim on an idea, it does not have to exist or work. So we can't proof anything with patents other then the ideas exist since a certain date.
// In the mean time I created an English version and changed the like above.
I'm grateful for your work since idk a couple years ago when Cowan had you on re the FOIAs. A few personal experiences in life had me doubting the med community but I never thought it would become so bad. With so many reasons to doubt info I absorb it's been a privilege to feel as though one aspect of all this covid nonsense (in my opinion the most important) is a slam dunk : virology and all that's downstream of it is purely based in fraud. I was however overly optimistic that the concept would catch on at a faster pace than it has. I like Martin as well but have noticed him speaking out both sides of his mouth in ways you highlight here. For this reason I don't make his appearances a regular stop anymore. I'd be surprised if he's being purposefully misleading but after all he's the one who regularly preaches being deliberate with words we use. In this regard I'd like to know he's sincere and literally come to terms on his messaging and decide publicly to practice what he preaches. Who knows, maybe he's not who he says. I agree with Sam Bailey that this is THE most important issue to address if the masses are to successfully resist the tyrannical measures being leveled against us. It seems so fundamental. Thank you for your persistence!
Thank you for your post. I saw it days ago made a comment somewhere here. I listened to Tom Cowan cover this as well. The NorthernTracey blog he shared was excellent.
I'm trying not to lose my wits over this EU thing, these so called truthers & alternative covid docktors.
I can just imagine what it feels like to have done the work on all those FOI requests, to see these people just ignore it as they travel to Europe to dine, and chat. If you hear screaming, that's me!
There has to be pot of gold for these Leprechaun at the end of their viruses rainbow, reading from the same old script. Ugh, God, save us from the saviours.
I can't believe it, CM, I caught you with a typo... lol
"The additional procedures included PCR tests that don’t test for a virus (as David Icke calls them) and the “point and declare” electron microscopy method (also known as the McCullough method) wherein tiny particles are “just known” to be a virus, even if ..... [they look just other tiny things] .....that aren’t thought to be viruses.' Perhaps "just LIKE" ?
Otherwise, your usual brilliance and excellent writing! I shared this, because I, too, wanted to believe in David Martin as a Fighter for the Good... But I smed something stinky about him a while back, and the courts, using the COURTS... kind of a giveaway. I think they all (the C.O.) have the same script, and there's another clue...
WELL DONE, GRYFFINDOR, yet once again. LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't characterize "ridiculous/cruel/horrific/pointless/unscientific/invalid/unnatural procedures" as entirely meaningless. What can be determined is you are propagating something in cell culture that is certainly inducing cytopathic effects and is the likely causative agent of mice getting sick and that came from a person meeting the (non-specific and artificial) "case definition of SARS." What it does not prove is that the thing you have causing mice to get sick is also what caused a person to get sick or that everyone with "SARS" got sick from the same thing or manner. Because these are standard cell lines, no control is needed because the control has already been done (i.e. cell line supernatant has already been used to inoculate mice and they don't get sick, and this is published as part of the literature that comes with the cell line).
A note on cytopathic effects: this is where Lanka/Kaufman are misleading everyone by saying the mitogens used to propagate the culture themselves induce the effects. They don't - and every virus induces cytopathic effects (i.e. a unique plaque) that are unique and can be differentiated in a Plaque Differentiation assay. One plaque might look cloudy, another might look more crystalline, and these can be characterized (Simian Virus 40 is named from being the "40th distinct cytopathic effect observed in from simian viruses inoculated in the same cell culture.").
Again, I agree SARS-cov2 hasn't been proven to exist and the tests are not validated, and it's really the propaganda style (if it looks like a psyop, it's probably a psyop) and the lack of excess mortality that is clear and convincing. But let's not get into "no viruses exist" because it's simply not true. There are 100+ cold viruses in circulation at any moment and some diseases such as Monkeypox behave exactly how virus theory predicts.
Re "some diseases such as Monkeypox behave exactly how virus theory predicts"
This is because the same people who believe in current virus theory which is made up, also made up Monkeypox. And it's all for money, loads and loads of money.
Lanka has already showed the fraud of virology by performing the control experiment that is always missing from EVERY so-called "isolation" experiment. He performed standard cell culture - 1 with sample added, 1 without. BOTH resulted in CPE, thus proving IT IS THE CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT that cause CPE, not an imaginary unicorn.
Lanka never published his experiment, so it's impossible to verify his claims, and you didn't respond to my criticism of his experiment that CPE are differentiated. You can alternatively conclude that Lanka's lab technique is terrible and he has no idea how to keep a cell culture alive so that any cell culture under his hand is going to show cytopathic effects. He hasn't worked in a lab in a quarter of a century and instead gets funded by his trust fund inheritance to live in his villa on Lake Constance and wax philosophical about the New German Medicine so as to mislead you.
He did publish, just not in a "peer reviewed" journal. Do you honestly expect a journal to be willing to publish a refutation of virology? I will send it to you if you want. I don't have permission to post it online.
The link to his own journal where it is published can be found here:
....and then they use chemically prepared cancer cell lines from these types of cancer, including other prepared cell lines, to detect fictitious "viruses" in culture - cell cultures of embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells or monkey cells with which each time this fraud takes place and whose properties are totally different from those of adult human tissue with addition of chemicals, antibiotics, penicillin, trypsin, bovine serum, etc. etc. have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with reality or with science!!!!
No, and you're mashing up the cruel experiments on mice with the cell cultures.
Cells breaking down is not proof that anything was propagated, or that a propagating thing caused the breakdown. And mice were innoculated with clinical samples, while cell cultures involve more than clinical samples being added to a cell line. So you cannot conclude that any effects in the cell cultures were caused by the same thing that cause some mice to get sick or die.
I have never seen a "virology" animal experiment where the animals were exposed in a natural way. In the patent, they used vague wording: "clinical specimens were inoculated into suckling ICR mice by the intracranial and intraperitoneal routes". So probably they were injected, which would be another major problem with the experiment - an invalid exposure method - on top of the fact that there is not a valid independent variable for making conclusions about "a virus". You can make animals sick with all sorts of stuff that is normally no-problem, by injecting them with it. And they don't mention using any controls with the mice.
Controls are always needed if you want to do a valid study. No adequate control was already published for the cell cultures. It's impossible for this experiment to have adequate control because there are no purified particles even though they draw conclusions about an imaginary virus. The only way to control thoroughly is to have everything the same in experiment and control groups, except for the particles of interest. But there are no specific particles available for study here.
You are talking about a "thing" when there is no "thing" in this study. They used clinical samples which contain all sorts of things.
I stand by my initial description of the useless animal experiments.
I have never even heard Tom Cowan or Stefan Lanka use the word "mitogen". Cite your evidence if you claim they are misleading anyone.
You don't get to make claims about "viruses" here without proving that said "viruses" exist first. Prove any virus exists, cite a valid study. The onus is on you since you're making the positive claim. Good luck, because as you can see: every institution and every hot-shot who gets put in the hot-seat fails.
Presents show up under Christmas trees, just as predicted by Santa theory.
I have already cited the proof of Hepatitis A existence and pathogenicity and given you electron micrographs of the purified particles - a classic disease that behaves exactly like virus theory predicts and satisfies Koch's postulates. You replied within 3 minutes, which means you didn't even read the paper. As for "animal experiment" the one I provided you was performed at Willowbrook State School for the developmentally disabled where orphans were given chocolate milkshakes laced with purified hepatitis A particles obtained from the feces of other orphans with hepatitis, and they then developed hepatitis alongside controls with non-hepatitis-laced milkshakes that had been laced with feces from healthy orphans. This was an example of animals inoculated in the "natural way" because it replicated the unsanitary conditions of the facility and clearly demonstrated the transmission of disease. As for Lanka, he never published (to my knowledge), but if he did, he would have to refer to mitogens such as Interleuken 2 which sustain cell division in culture - but you can explain his results as him simply being incompetent and not knowing how to keep a culture alive because he gets the opposite results from Vincent Raconiello who filmed this really nice proof of the existence of bacteriophages (and incidentally admits that PCR tests are invalid at the end): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGVDYGxqtJ0&t=2s
Lol now I've heard everything. The amount of time it (allegedly - where?) took me to respond to one of your posts is proof of "viruses".
You've posted studies in the past that were easy to refute, and posted the same one more than once.
And even if you had presented electron micrographs of purified particles (which I do not recall), pointing at purified particles is not proof that they behave as viruses. Purification is only step one.
And I do not recall any study involving chocolate milkshakes.
And what else was in those chocolate milkshakes.? So me a fully controlled experiment using purified particles. Pretty sure you have never done that. Post the study.
Presents show up under Christmas trees, as predicted by Santa theory.
Raconiello mentioned noninfectious viruses, which is an oxymoron.
He shows cartoons, and a 2 second EM clip.
He declares that there are "viruses" in a vial.
He describes and shows a totally unnatural procedure (cell culture).
He also added fetal bovine serum to the cell "culture".
No mention of controls.
Because "science".
He claims to be "counting viruses" but never showed that there is any "virus".
He's delusional.
His video does not show where the alleged "viruses" come from, or that they cause any disease let alone a contagious disease. What a waste of time. 10 minutes I will never get back. I won't be watching any more videos. Post a valid study if you can.
The descriptions of the experiments on animals are gut wrenching.
And imagine that there is a difference between the description and the performing of the experiment.
How do scientists learn to deal with the bad feelings they probably have when they commit acts of cruelty during research? Do they become psychopaths as a consequence of their actions?
SO...when there's a law/laws against funding Gain of Function research in the US, & someone has taken US tax $$$$$ and set up bioweapons labs in various countries in order to thwart that law or laws, but "gain of function" doesn't exist because viruses don't exist, how is such a law to be enforced? Do the perps just get to keep the money? AND, they get to file patents for inventing new somethings on the assumed existence of the nonexistent virus, and our regressive tax $$$$$$$$$ are paying the US Patent Office to go along w/ this, etc. etc. Can they to be prosecuted for lying to Congress (can anyone BUT Congress do that?)? Are they to be charged merely with theft? embezzlement? Can that happen, when THE LAW PRESUMES that viruses are real--just as GMOs are presumed "safe" because a court SAID they were. Presumeably, there was actual MONEY, and it went SOMEWHERE. Seems to me that there are problems that "the virus isn't real" doesn't solve.
Don't forget that even Nuremberg was all theatrics. All the "worst of the worst" were taken underground, or swiftly scooped up by US military to create NASA and other programs. This is proof enough for me that there will be no accountability or justice.
But there is still hope and there are still solutions. We just need to be realistic about our expectations and outrage.
They committed fraud and wasted the $$ (or did something even worse with it) so they need to be convicted for that, give back the money, and be held accountable for their role in this terror operation. They also committed fraud in their patents, and must be held accountable for that.
They (everyone involved) are to be investigated and charged with whatever they actually did. All the lies, fraud, terrorism, fake "treatments"/prevention, fake clinical trials, fake tests, bullying people to wear masks, stay home, get jabbed, distance, not visit people in hospital, etc, etc, etc. And this is not just about convid, it's all the fake virology and germ theory crap.
The courts are corrupt. Does anyone actually think that these people would be held properly accountable, no matter what approach is taken, in these corrupt courts? The courts and fake law-enforcement (where they actually enforce pro-profit policies) are a huge problem. With real law enforcement and real courts, operations like convid would never even get off the ground because the perps would know they'll be toast one they're caught.
Telling the truth about viruses can't fix all the problems, obviously. But telling the world lies about "viruses" will only prolong the agony and enable more of the same.
And the problem with people like DM talking nonsense about viruses is only about what happens in courts. People listen to this guy and believe him. Beliefs drive behaviours. Bad things happen to people (and animals) based on the false virus paradigm.
The article from which you pulled the paragraph, "Isolation and Characterization of SARS-CoV" is itself very educational on a number of levels. It's very long, so I didn't read the whole thing, but in the "TERMS" section, a couple of definitions caught my eye:
>Inhibiting or Treating a Disease: Inhibiting the full development of a disease or condition, for example, in a subject who is at risk for a disease such as SARS. “Treatment” refers to a therapeutic intervention that ameliorates a sign or symptom of a disease or pathological condition after it has begun to develop. As used herein, the term “ameliorating,” with reference to a disease, pathological condition or symptom, refers to any observable beneficial effect of the treatment. The beneficial effect can be evidenced, for example, by a delayed onset of clinical symptoms of the disease in a susceptible subject, a reduction in severity of some or all clinical symptoms of the disease, a slower progression of the disease, a reduction in the number of relapses of the disease, an improvement in the overall health or well-being of the subject, or by other parameters well known in the art that are specific to the particular disease.<
In other words, suppressing symptoms is the goal, not cure or finding an actual cause.
>Isolated: An “isolated” microorganism (such as a virus, bacterium, fungus, or protozoan) has been substantially separated or purified away from microorganisms of different types, strains, or species. Microorganisms can be isolated by a variety of techniques, including serial dilution and culturing.<
Interesting that this is their definition, even though they never actually fulfill it with regards to a virus!
Then there was this:
>Purified: The term “purified” does not require absolute purity; rather, it is intended as a relative term. Thus, for example, a purified protein preparation is one in which the subject protein is more pure than in its natural environment within a cell. Generally, a protein preparation is purified such that the protein represents at least 50% of the total protein content of the preparation.<
So 50% pure = purified in "science"!
I really encourage people who want to understand what "science" is talking about in the modern day, to read this whole article. It's so clear that the language is set up to sound very precise, but the practice that the language describes is anything but!
I've added an addendum to this article:
"June 3, 2023 Addendum:
It turns out that this “International COVID Summit” had little to do with the 705 men and women who call themselves “the European Parliament”. I learned this by stumbling upon an article attributed to “Dr. Adrian Wong”. The article presents 5 alleged facts which I have not thoroughly fact-checked. It’s fact #4 that I want to highlight...."
And another addendum:
July 2023: Clarifying the Viral Narratives with David Martin, PhD & Alec Zeck:David not only admitted to Alec that virology is nonsense and viruses have never been demonstrated to exist, but attempted to rewrite history by flat out denying that he ever said or even implied that any virus exists... and asserted that causation can never be determined... except in the case of his friend who he claims died from inhaling anthrax.
https://unite.live/the-way-forward/the-way-forward/19-jul-12-00-clarifying-the-viral-narratives-with-david-martin-phd-alec-zeck?video_id=936
How did you manage to find a way to write to Malone? That in itself is quite a feat.
God bless.
Someone gave me his email :)
Anyone who has heard of the Rockefeller Institute's Simon Flexner polio scam knows that in reality there are no viruses. But how could that happen when 1.4 million people in Ukraine contracted hemorrhagic pneumonia in 14 days in 2009? At least that's what people were told.
🔥
Hi Christine, thanks you for all the truthful work you did to get the virus truth out.
I use 3 strategies to get truth out.
1) Like yours and Stefan Lanka's 'No virus' one. I now phrase it as 'viruses only exist as an idea, the true virus is the believe that they exist. Stefan Lanka has also made a video that the virus is a mental construct.
2) I use Tom Cowan's contagion myth: contagion could never be proven in experiments and Louis Pasteur admitted his scientific fraud which was the basis for immunology.
3) The effectiveness of the only harmful injections, which can be done in 1 image of a few graphs. Brandy from www.learntherisk.org probably got murdered for it.
Today I have send a letter to 'our' Dutch senators which are going to vote soon over a law that facilitates virus and climate lock downs, masks and more criminal nonsense.
https://telegra.ph/Youve-been-lied-to-by-experts-who-dont-know-any-better--the-hard-virus-truth-05-20
I could not find a way to contact you on Telegram at https://t.me/ChristineMasseyFOIS
But you can contact me at t.me/GerbenNL if you like and my channel is t.me/NLvirusWAAN.
In hindsight I should have chosen an English name as the quality of most Telegram channels about the virus fraud are not that great.
One other thing I like you to know is that a patent is just a claim on an idea, it does not have to exist or work. So we can't proof anything with patents other then the ideas exist since a certain date.
// In the mean time I created an English version and changed the like above.
Thank you Gerben :)
Mallone is suing the Breggins. He does a lot of suing.
Indeed.
I'm grateful for your work since idk a couple years ago when Cowan had you on re the FOIAs. A few personal experiences in life had me doubting the med community but I never thought it would become so bad. With so many reasons to doubt info I absorb it's been a privilege to feel as though one aspect of all this covid nonsense (in my opinion the most important) is a slam dunk : virology and all that's downstream of it is purely based in fraud. I was however overly optimistic that the concept would catch on at a faster pace than it has. I like Martin as well but have noticed him speaking out both sides of his mouth in ways you highlight here. For this reason I don't make his appearances a regular stop anymore. I'd be surprised if he's being purposefully misleading but after all he's the one who regularly preaches being deliberate with words we use. In this regard I'd like to know he's sincere and literally come to terms on his messaging and decide publicly to practice what he preaches. Who knows, maybe he's not who he says. I agree with Sam Bailey that this is THE most important issue to address if the masses are to successfully resist the tyrannical measures being leveled against us. It seems so fundamental. Thank you for your persistence!
Thank you so much Tim.
Thank you for your post. I saw it days ago made a comment somewhere here. I listened to Tom Cowan cover this as well. The NorthernTracey blog he shared was excellent.
I'm trying not to lose my wits over this EU thing, these so called truthers & alternative covid docktors.
I can just imagine what it feels like to have done the work on all those FOI requests, to see these people just ignore it as they travel to Europe to dine, and chat. If you hear screaming, that's me!
There has to be pot of gold for these Leprechaun at the end of their viruses rainbow, reading from the same old script. Ugh, God, save us from the saviours.
I hear you Misha :)
My name is Mia, Christine Massey. Thank you again for your work.
Sorry Mia :)
Great work Christine. Expose the virus BS.
Keep up the amazing work of sounding the trumpet about the elephants in the room!
Thanks Rohan :)
I’ve been calling these docs out since last October. You did it better. Thanks.
Thank you Mike :)
I can't believe it, CM, I caught you with a typo... lol
"The additional procedures included PCR tests that don’t test for a virus (as David Icke calls them) and the “point and declare” electron microscopy method (also known as the McCullough method) wherein tiny particles are “just known” to be a virus, even if ..... [they look just other tiny things] .....that aren’t thought to be viruses.' Perhaps "just LIKE" ?
Otherwise, your usual brilliance and excellent writing! I shared this, because I, too, wanted to believe in David Martin as a Fighter for the Good... But I smed something stinky about him a while back, and the courts, using the COURTS... kind of a giveaway. I think they all (the C.O.) have the same script, and there's another clue...
WELL DONE, GRYFFINDOR, yet once again. LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xo xo
Great eye, WH, thank you :) And thank you for your continued support!!
The pressure is mine... that's a joke. It IS a pleasure, yes, indeedie! xo
I wouldn't characterize "ridiculous/cruel/horrific/pointless/unscientific/invalid/unnatural procedures" as entirely meaningless. What can be determined is you are propagating something in cell culture that is certainly inducing cytopathic effects and is the likely causative agent of mice getting sick and that came from a person meeting the (non-specific and artificial) "case definition of SARS." What it does not prove is that the thing you have causing mice to get sick is also what caused a person to get sick or that everyone with "SARS" got sick from the same thing or manner. Because these are standard cell lines, no control is needed because the control has already been done (i.e. cell line supernatant has already been used to inoculate mice and they don't get sick, and this is published as part of the literature that comes with the cell line).
A note on cytopathic effects: this is where Lanka/Kaufman are misleading everyone by saying the mitogens used to propagate the culture themselves induce the effects. They don't - and every virus induces cytopathic effects (i.e. a unique plaque) that are unique and can be differentiated in a Plaque Differentiation assay. One plaque might look cloudy, another might look more crystalline, and these can be characterized (Simian Virus 40 is named from being the "40th distinct cytopathic effect observed in from simian viruses inoculated in the same cell culture.").
Again, I agree SARS-cov2 hasn't been proven to exist and the tests are not validated, and it's really the propaganda style (if it looks like a psyop, it's probably a psyop) and the lack of excess mortality that is clear and convincing. But let's not get into "no viruses exist" because it's simply not true. There are 100+ cold viruses in circulation at any moment and some diseases such as Monkeypox behave exactly how virus theory predicts.
Re "some diseases such as Monkeypox behave exactly how virus theory predicts"
This is because the same people who believe in current virus theory which is made up, also made up Monkeypox. And it's all for money, loads and loads of money.
'money ok px' is an anagram of 'Monkeypox.'.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/06/07/monkey-pox-the-latest/
Prove viruses exist... show any research that PROPERLY isolated and purified any virus and PROVED it to be a CAUSE of disease... bet you can't.
I have already done that multiple times on my substack with links to the proof of existence and pathogenicity of the Hepatitis A virus.
Unsupported claim.
Lanka has already showed the fraud of virology by performing the control experiment that is always missing from EVERY so-called "isolation" experiment. He performed standard cell culture - 1 with sample added, 1 without. BOTH resulted in CPE, thus proving IT IS THE CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT that cause CPE, not an imaginary unicorn.
Lanka never published his experiment, so it's impossible to verify his claims, and you didn't respond to my criticism of his experiment that CPE are differentiated. You can alternatively conclude that Lanka's lab technique is terrible and he has no idea how to keep a cell culture alive so that any cell culture under his hand is going to show cytopathic effects. He hasn't worked in a lab in a quarter of a century and instead gets funded by his trust fund inheritance to live in his villa on Lake Constance and wax philosophical about the New German Medicine so as to mislead you.
He did publish, just not in a "peer reviewed" journal. Do you honestly expect a journal to be willing to publish a refutation of virology? I will send it to you if you want. I don't have permission to post it online.
The link to his own journal where it is published can be found here:
https://johnblaid.substack.com/p/clarification-regarding-lankas-control
Read here at Materials and Methods
https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(17)32838-7/pdf
and here
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.68.12.2913
Ethylene Oxide - Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/ethyleneoxide.pdf
Glyphosate, DDT, asbestos etc. - of course, all this had/has no effect on humans, animals and the environment at all...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190214093359.htm
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0304389421011225-ga1_lrg.jpg - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389421011225
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887
https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/public-health-aspects-of-the-new-insecticides/?sfw=pass1677778165
https://www.asbestossafety.gov.au/what-we-do/news-and-announcements/chrysotile-asbestos-fact-sheet
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567576901001722?via%3Dihub
https://pmj.bmj.com/content/80/940/72 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1742940/
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124704
....and then they use chemically prepared cancer cell lines from these types of cancer, including other prepared cell lines, to detect fictitious "viruses" in culture - cell cultures of embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells or monkey cells with which each time this fraud takes place and whose properties are totally different from those of adult human tissue with addition of chemicals, antibiotics, penicillin, trypsin, bovine serum, etc. etc. have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with reality or with science!!!!
No, and you're mashing up the cruel experiments on mice with the cell cultures.
Cells breaking down is not proof that anything was propagated, or that a propagating thing caused the breakdown. And mice were innoculated with clinical samples, while cell cultures involve more than clinical samples being added to a cell line. So you cannot conclude that any effects in the cell cultures were caused by the same thing that cause some mice to get sick or die.
I have never seen a "virology" animal experiment where the animals were exposed in a natural way. In the patent, they used vague wording: "clinical specimens were inoculated into suckling ICR mice by the intracranial and intraperitoneal routes". So probably they were injected, which would be another major problem with the experiment - an invalid exposure method - on top of the fact that there is not a valid independent variable for making conclusions about "a virus". You can make animals sick with all sorts of stuff that is normally no-problem, by injecting them with it. And they don't mention using any controls with the mice.
Controls are always needed if you want to do a valid study. No adequate control was already published for the cell cultures. It's impossible for this experiment to have adequate control because there are no purified particles even though they draw conclusions about an imaginary virus. The only way to control thoroughly is to have everything the same in experiment and control groups, except for the particles of interest. But there are no specific particles available for study here.
You are talking about a "thing" when there is no "thing" in this study. They used clinical samples which contain all sorts of things.
I stand by my initial description of the useless animal experiments.
I have never even heard Tom Cowan or Stefan Lanka use the word "mitogen". Cite your evidence if you claim they are misleading anyone.
You don't get to make claims about "viruses" here without proving that said "viruses" exist first. Prove any virus exists, cite a valid study. The onus is on you since you're making the positive claim. Good luck, because as you can see: every institution and every hot-shot who gets put in the hot-seat fails.
Presents show up under Christmas trees, just as predicted by Santa theory.
I have already cited the proof of Hepatitis A existence and pathogenicity and given you electron micrographs of the purified particles - a classic disease that behaves exactly like virus theory predicts and satisfies Koch's postulates. You replied within 3 minutes, which means you didn't even read the paper. As for "animal experiment" the one I provided you was performed at Willowbrook State School for the developmentally disabled where orphans were given chocolate milkshakes laced with purified hepatitis A particles obtained from the feces of other orphans with hepatitis, and they then developed hepatitis alongside controls with non-hepatitis-laced milkshakes that had been laced with feces from healthy orphans. This was an example of animals inoculated in the "natural way" because it replicated the unsanitary conditions of the facility and clearly demonstrated the transmission of disease. As for Lanka, he never published (to my knowledge), but if he did, he would have to refer to mitogens such as Interleuken 2 which sustain cell division in culture - but you can explain his results as him simply being incompetent and not knowing how to keep a culture alive because he gets the opposite results from Vincent Raconiello who filmed this really nice proof of the existence of bacteriophages (and incidentally admits that PCR tests are invalid at the end): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGVDYGxqtJ0&t=2s
Lol now I've heard everything. The amount of time it (allegedly - where?) took me to respond to one of your posts is proof of "viruses".
You've posted studies in the past that were easy to refute, and posted the same one more than once.
And even if you had presented electron micrographs of purified particles (which I do not recall), pointing at purified particles is not proof that they behave as viruses. Purification is only step one.
And I do not recall any study involving chocolate milkshakes.
And what else was in those chocolate milkshakes.? So me a fully controlled experiment using purified particles. Pretty sure you have never done that. Post the study.
Presents show up under Christmas trees, as predicted by Santa theory.
Raconiello mentioned noninfectious viruses, which is an oxymoron.
He shows cartoons, and a 2 second EM clip.
He declares that there are "viruses" in a vial.
He describes and shows a totally unnatural procedure (cell culture).
He also added fetal bovine serum to the cell "culture".
No mention of controls.
Because "science".
He claims to be "counting viruses" but never showed that there is any "virus".
He's delusional.
His video does not show where the alleged "viruses" come from, or that they cause any disease let alone a contagious disease. What a waste of time. 10 minutes I will never get back. I won't be watching any more videos. Post a valid study if you can.
The descriptions of the experiments on animals are gut wrenching.
And imagine that there is a difference between the description and the performing of the experiment.
How do scientists learn to deal with the bad feelings they probably have when they commit acts of cruelty during research? Do they become psychopaths as a consequence of their actions?
SO...when there's a law/laws against funding Gain of Function research in the US, & someone has taken US tax $$$$$ and set up bioweapons labs in various countries in order to thwart that law or laws, but "gain of function" doesn't exist because viruses don't exist, how is such a law to be enforced? Do the perps just get to keep the money? AND, they get to file patents for inventing new somethings on the assumed existence of the nonexistent virus, and our regressive tax $$$$$$$$$ are paying the US Patent Office to go along w/ this, etc. etc. Can they to be prosecuted for lying to Congress (can anyone BUT Congress do that?)? Are they to be charged merely with theft? embezzlement? Can that happen, when THE LAW PRESUMES that viruses are real--just as GMOs are presumed "safe" because a court SAID they were. Presumeably, there was actual MONEY, and it went SOMEWHERE. Seems to me that there are problems that "the virus isn't real" doesn't solve.
Don't forget that even Nuremberg was all theatrics. All the "worst of the worst" were taken underground, or swiftly scooped up by US military to create NASA and other programs. This is proof enough for me that there will be no accountability or justice.
But there is still hope and there are still solutions. We just need to be realistic about our expectations and outrage.
They committed fraud and wasted the $$ (or did something even worse with it) so they need to be convicted for that, give back the money, and be held accountable for their role in this terror operation. They also committed fraud in their patents, and must be held accountable for that.
They (everyone involved) are to be investigated and charged with whatever they actually did. All the lies, fraud, terrorism, fake "treatments"/prevention, fake clinical trials, fake tests, bullying people to wear masks, stay home, get jabbed, distance, not visit people in hospital, etc, etc, etc. And this is not just about convid, it's all the fake virology and germ theory crap.
The courts are corrupt. Does anyone actually think that these people would be held properly accountable, no matter what approach is taken, in these corrupt courts? The courts and fake law-enforcement (where they actually enforce pro-profit policies) are a huge problem. With real law enforcement and real courts, operations like convid would never even get off the ground because the perps would know they'll be toast one they're caught.
Telling the truth about viruses can't fix all the problems, obviously. But telling the world lies about "viruses" will only prolong the agony and enable more of the same.
And the problem with people like DM talking nonsense about viruses is only about what happens in courts. People listen to this guy and believe him. Beliefs drive behaviours. Bad things happen to people (and animals) based on the false virus paradigm.
Also the US patent office is actually run by a corrupt British company called Serco, so there’s that.
Yeah, that was by Tracey Northern, an article she posted 6/29/21.
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/06/30/the-amino-age-and-the-new-abnormal-doctors/
The Amino Age and The New abNormal Doctors, Northern Tracey. 6/3021.
The article from which you pulled the paragraph, "Isolation and Characterization of SARS-CoV" is itself very educational on a number of levels. It's very long, so I didn't read the whole thing, but in the "TERMS" section, a couple of definitions caught my eye:
>Inhibiting or Treating a Disease: Inhibiting the full development of a disease or condition, for example, in a subject who is at risk for a disease such as SARS. “Treatment” refers to a therapeutic intervention that ameliorates a sign or symptom of a disease or pathological condition after it has begun to develop. As used herein, the term “ameliorating,” with reference to a disease, pathological condition or symptom, refers to any observable beneficial effect of the treatment. The beneficial effect can be evidenced, for example, by a delayed onset of clinical symptoms of the disease in a susceptible subject, a reduction in severity of some or all clinical symptoms of the disease, a slower progression of the disease, a reduction in the number of relapses of the disease, an improvement in the overall health or well-being of the subject, or by other parameters well known in the art that are specific to the particular disease.<
In other words, suppressing symptoms is the goal, not cure or finding an actual cause.
>Isolated: An “isolated” microorganism (such as a virus, bacterium, fungus, or protozoan) has been substantially separated or purified away from microorganisms of different types, strains, or species. Microorganisms can be isolated by a variety of techniques, including serial dilution and culturing.<
Interesting that this is their definition, even though they never actually fulfill it with regards to a virus!
Then there was this:
>Purified: The term “purified” does not require absolute purity; rather, it is intended as a relative term. Thus, for example, a purified protein preparation is one in which the subject protein is more pure than in its natural environment within a cell. Generally, a protein preparation is purified such that the protein represents at least 50% of the total protein content of the preparation.<
So 50% pure = purified in "science"!
I really encourage people who want to understand what "science" is talking about in the modern day, to read this whole article. It's so clear that the language is set up to sound very precise, but the practice that the language describes is anything but!
https://patents.justia.com/patent/7220852?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thank you. I've never read the whole thing either. It's really amazing what they get away with!