One argument I've read is that the "original" SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anymore in the wild. Which means that any future isolation would be of a variant, which, they insist, are very different. If this is true, then there is no way to purify and isolate the original virus. Which is very convenient.
One argument I've read is that the "original" SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anymore in the wild. Which means that any future isolation would be of a variant, which, they insist, are very different. If this is true, then there is no way to purify and isolate the original virus. Which is very convenient.
Another argument, "you can buy SARS-CoV-2 from a library of viruses. If there wasn't a virus, they couldn't sell it." I think this "library" sells software, not a real virus. It seems there are laboratories that grow and sell microbes. I'm sure there are a million regulations to make sure a virus so deadly as the original SARS-CoV-2 is not sold to a random person who wants to buy it, for "citizens' research" purposes.
Or maybe it is easy to buy a vial with a colored liquid and a label that reads "ORIGINAL SARS-CoV-2" and there is no regulation applies, because it does not contain a virus. It is just a piece of glass in a tubular shape with colored water and letters writen on it. There is no danger in a regular fraud with thousands of years of history: selling counterfeits. But if there is no original, then it is not even a counterfeit.
These two bad reasonings indicate a damaged intelligence.
Except that it's pretty clear at this point from Christine Massey's work that if anyone had an actual sample of a "covid-19" virus we'd have seen such a confirmation by now. Nope, all they have are software-generated simulations.
That first 'argument' isn't an argument. Come up with an isolate of ANY virus from patient samples. They can't. The lie is so big and blatant, that's why it persists. Too big to fail.
Seems true. The people who know they are following bioinformatics and not analytic chemistry should come clean and explain why they think that this is a valid description of a real microbe in the real world. But I think most microbiologists don't even realize they are being bamboozled by a clever computer fraud, and many wrong assumptions. The psychological need to defend their own territory is very strong. If they ever realize their state, they quietly go to the side of the deniers. Unless they are engaged in politics, which freezes people's minds.
And so, everyone has to live their own life to the best of their abilities, gaining moral autonomy along the way.
I think what they sell is this: combine monkey cells and human cells, starve cells of an essential growth requirement, once cells die, collect liquid and sell as "virus stock."
Have done cell culture for 30yrs including 15yrs training Big Pharma "virologists." Cells typically require 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) for healthy growth- the "virus production" protocol reduces FBS concentration to 1%, thus starving the cells. In some instances, growth in absence of FBS is desirable- in those cases, cells must slowly be weaned off FBS over a period of weeks as sudden withdrawal of FBS always leads to cell death. Even a slow weaning off of FBS results in a majority of cells dying- for virologists to claim this cytopathic effect is due to a virus is patent nonsense.
Perfect, Jon.
One argument I've read is that the "original" SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anymore in the wild. Which means that any future isolation would be of a variant, which, they insist, are very different. If this is true, then there is no way to purify and isolate the original virus. Which is very convenient.
Another argument, "you can buy SARS-CoV-2 from a library of viruses. If there wasn't a virus, they couldn't sell it." I think this "library" sells software, not a real virus. It seems there are laboratories that grow and sell microbes. I'm sure there are a million regulations to make sure a virus so deadly as the original SARS-CoV-2 is not sold to a random person who wants to buy it, for "citizens' research" purposes.
Or maybe it is easy to buy a vial with a colored liquid and a label that reads "ORIGINAL SARS-CoV-2" and there is no regulation applies, because it does not contain a virus. It is just a piece of glass in a tubular shape with colored water and letters writen on it. There is no danger in a regular fraud with thousands of years of history: selling counterfeits. But if there is no original, then it is not even a counterfeit.
These two bad reasonings indicate a damaged intelligence.
Except that it's pretty clear at this point from Christine Massey's work that if anyone had an actual sample of a "covid-19" virus we'd have seen such a confirmation by now. Nope, all they have are software-generated simulations.
That first 'argument' isn't an argument. Come up with an isolate of ANY virus from patient samples. They can't. The lie is so big and blatant, that's why it persists. Too big to fail.
Seems true. The people who know they are following bioinformatics and not analytic chemistry should come clean and explain why they think that this is a valid description of a real microbe in the real world. But I think most microbiologists don't even realize they are being bamboozled by a clever computer fraud, and many wrong assumptions. The psychological need to defend their own territory is very strong. If they ever realize their state, they quietly go to the side of the deniers. Unless they are engaged in politics, which freezes people's minds.
And so, everyone has to live their own life to the best of their abilities, gaining moral autonomy along the way.
I think what they sell is this: combine monkey cells and human cells, starve cells of an essential growth requirement, once cells die, collect liquid and sell as "virus stock."
Have done cell culture for 30yrs including 15yrs training Big Pharma "virologists." Cells typically require 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) for healthy growth- the "virus production" protocol reduces FBS concentration to 1%, thus starving the cells. In some instances, growth in absence of FBS is desirable- in those cases, cells must slowly be weaned off FBS over a period of weeks as sudden withdrawal of FBS always leads to cell death. Even a slow weaning off of FBS results in a majority of cells dying- for virologists to claim this cytopathic effect is due to a virus is patent nonsense.