Yes, I was reluctant to read the paper, but it niggled at me after seeing the title of the post. I was expecting little experiments to pick apart, but seeing the methods made my post very easy to write.
We're going to be having computer studies of everything in our lives aren't we? They want us to actually live in the meta verse anyway.
I think it's all coming to a head- Mike Yeadon has said he no longer thinks what we call Covid was caused by a novel virus and is a signatory on the document.
Though I don't really care what the famous people think anymore. I know what I think.
Hiya, I think I agree with her, we just let him finish his tantrum.
I was quite shocked how rude people are too.
I am still hopeful that the challenge to the 5 virology labs will go ahead. I don't think 'they' can wriggle out it and still retain credibility much longer.
he's my 2 Pennies worth Steve you seem to be letting your rather long petticoats of financial vested interest in the virus industry to show.
So we see pictures of different geometric shaped things with EM. The tobacco plant has hollow rod like shapes associated with it when it's diseased, but correlation does not mean causation. Transmission and pathogenicity is not shown.
The experiments you cite do not satisfy Koch or anyone else because they simply do not do controls. If you are going to abuse mice you must also inject large amounts of uninfected cell culture fluid directly into their tiny tracheas and abdomens or up their noses to see if sneezing occurs.
I thought it would be nice if you could get some money in the process! 😄Although he's made a million dollar bet before and someone did debate him and I understand he didn't turn over the cash.
Is is a $million just to debate him. As though he has to pay for people to talk to him?
Who decides who's won? If it's a vote the audience must be of equal 'sides' and will probably just vote with their personal or financial interests anyway? Or who made the funniest and most cutting remarks?
A true debator should be able to convince others of the opposing view to their own. As a scientific debate is all about trawling through the peer reviews and FOI's 'our side' would be arguing there IS evidence of a viral cause. We have spent 2 years looking for it already and can't find it. SK would have to show that there ISN' T any evidence for a virus. Which is easy. He would win the debate!! but then he wouldn't be able to carry on making millions from early intervention drugs, so a win for everyone else.
Grant Genereux's hypothesis that they put Retinoic Acid in the inoculations is supported on a number of fronts; gleaned from his voracious scrubbing of papers for almost ten years now. If you want the full download over here let me know. Steve Kirsch ignored it back in November when he was all about sending vials to an independent lab.
Ran across this paper today, on a combo-search at PubMed - "Retinoic Acid and Tuberculosis".
Omg, I didn't even think an "in silico study" was a thing. People won't even know it was done on a computer. Pathetic.
By the way, I haven't been reading all the SK comments, but are you taking Steve Kirsch up on his challenge? Have you commented on this article?
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-viruses-dont-exist-then-how-can
Hi Nova,
Yes, I was reluctant to read the paper, but it niggled at me after seeing the title of the post. I was expecting little experiments to pick apart, but seeing the methods made my post very easy to write.
We're going to be having computer studies of everything in our lives aren't we? They want us to actually live in the meta verse anyway.
Yes I've made a few comments to Steve about his large financial vested interest showing. Christine Massey has stopped communicating with him now https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-i-now-refuse-to-debate?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2 cos he is behaving like a baby spitting the dummy (my words)!
I think it's all coming to a head- Mike Yeadon has said he no longer thinks what we call Covid was caused by a novel virus and is a signatory on the document.
Though I don't really care what the famous people think anymore. I know what I think.
Jo
Thanks for sharing Christine's post. That's awful. I thought there was a genuine opportunity here, but it is obviously a waste of time.
Hiya, I think I agree with her, we just let him finish his tantrum.
I was quite shocked how rude people are too.
I am still hopeful that the challenge to the 5 virology labs will go ahead. I don't think 'they' can wriggle out it and still retain credibility much longer.
'We' are being relentlessly reasonable and polite which is great to see https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/are-viruses-even-a-scientific-theory:2
Jo
and he's getting seriously ratioed
x
he's my 2 Pennies worth Steve you seem to be letting your rather long petticoats of financial vested interest in the virus industry to show.
So we see pictures of different geometric shaped things with EM. The tobacco plant has hollow rod like shapes associated with it when it's diseased, but correlation does not mean causation. Transmission and pathogenicity is not shown.
The experiments you cite do not satisfy Koch or anyone else because they simply do not do controls. If you are going to abuse mice you must also inject large amounts of uninfected cell culture fluid directly into their tiny tracheas and abdomens or up their noses to see if sneezing occurs.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Jo
I thought it would be nice if you could get some money in the process! 😄Although he's made a million dollar bet before and someone did debate him and I understand he didn't turn over the cash.
Interesting, it would be nice!
Is is a $million just to debate him. As though he has to pay for people to talk to him?
Who decides who's won? If it's a vote the audience must be of equal 'sides' and will probably just vote with their personal or financial interests anyway? Or who made the funniest and most cutting remarks?
A true debator should be able to convince others of the opposing view to their own. As a scientific debate is all about trawling through the peer reviews and FOI's 'our side' would be arguing there IS evidence of a viral cause. We have spent 2 years looking for it already and can't find it. SK would have to show that there ISN' T any evidence for a virus. Which is easy. He would win the debate!! but then he wouldn't be able to carry on making millions from early intervention drugs, so a win for everyone else.
Jo
I just read your comment. Lots of great links for people unfamiliar with the argument and evidence. 👍🏽
thanks, good stuff. Appreciate the link to Christine Massey's work.
puzzling out a few things lately
Broxmeyer's 2011 Nexus article lays the foundation.
https://www.academia.edu/12968949/INFLUENZA_AND_THE_TUBERCULOSIS_CONNECTION_Part_1
Grant Genereux's hypothesis that they put Retinoic Acid in the inoculations is supported on a number of fronts; gleaned from his voracious scrubbing of papers for almost ten years now. If you want the full download over here let me know. Steve Kirsch ignored it back in November when he was all about sending vials to an independent lab.
Ran across this paper today, on a combo-search at PubMed - "Retinoic Acid and Tuberculosis".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033876/
Retinoic acid induces antimicrobial peptides and cytokines leading to Mycobacterium tuberculosis elimination in airway epithelial cells
adds a bit of fuel to the fire