In this letter, Eric Francis Coppolino explains the controversy his article caused in the "covid truth” community, and how his investigative team did the work.
Larry, are you reading the articles that I am writing?
I devote half of the original article to her lack of basic scientific knowledge. In an article like this, you don't write a book; I give at least two solid examples.
There is plenty more; she does not get ONE thing right. MIke Donio, one of my science sources in this investigation, says:
She really botched the agarose gel part. Badly.
You wouldn’t never follow up sequencing with a gel. Maybe PCR but it’s qualitative and crude. If she’s doing meta genomic sequencing, like high throughput mass tandem, there’s no way you could do a gel because you have millions of little pieces that you are simultaneously sequencing. I mean she literally says that you “can actually see the little particles of RNA and DNA”.
Not even close.
You see a band. That’s it. And you assume it’s the piece of DNA you think but only based on size. And there wouldn’t be RNA. You probably know this. When sequencing RNA one of the first steps is reverse transcription to convert the RNA to cDNA. Then you amplify with PCR and then sequence. This is actually a slightly more proper application for PCR versus the ridiculous tests. Regardless, she’s way off.
In the video, Eric mentions that other presenters such as RFK Jr. and Del Bigtree will not confront this issue (the existence of viruses). I recently was made aware of the following post which goes into why:
Danny Boy Limerick writes: "I don’t trust Del Bigtree because I believe he (and others) have co-opted the legitimate grassroots “anti-vaccine” movement, and turned it into a more palatable and acceptable “Safer Vaccine Movement” or the “Vaccine Risk Awareness Movement”, as part of an elaborate controlled opposition campaign. This has been obvious to many of us for a long time, but for people who may be new to these concepts, I will lay out some of the basics.
This campaign is designed to take control of the legitimate opposition voice, which understands that all vaccines are dangerous, create new artificial boundaries as to what is and isn’t an acceptable level of resistance and dissent in the public discourse about vaccines, and silence and marginalize the informed and unjected – the real dissidents and the real health and freedom movement – people who understand that there’s no such thing as a safe vaccine."
The Baileys, Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman review Del Bigtree's statements on the virus issue:
Are people not ready for the truth? If they are not ready after two and a half years of fear from the media and mismanagement from health authorities, when will they be ready? Should we trust Del to make that assessment?
I also just realized that Del says that his show, "The Highwire", doesn't have sponsors so that he can say what he likes and seek the truth in order to present it to us. What he is not saying is that his organization has contributors and has received grants from certain parties that benefit from the existence of quackcines, therefore Del seeks safer quackcines, rather than question why they are needed.
I exepct the same dynamic is taking place with RFK Jr. (Children's Health Defense) and Steve Kirsch (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation).
Question the quackine? Ok. We seek better testing of the product, more regulation.
Question the virus? Not Ok. As Steve Kirsch says, the science is settled. What he doesn't say, "that threatens the existence of my foundation and belief in pHARMa."
"This campaign is designed to take control of the legitimate opposition voice, which understands that all vaccines are dangerous" Sorry, just because some of us aren't 100% against vaccines doesn't mean we are "illegitimate" or controlled opposition. I'm just a single person, with no outside funding writing other than my readers, who writes about the dangerous of untested mRNA vaccine technology. I also think that the childhood vaccination schedule has gotten out of control. I'm also against vaccine mandates. But I don't think vaccines are 100% bad, and I just wrote about how necessary the rabies vaccine is:
This quest for ideological purity is counterproductive. There is also no appreciation of small victories or incrementalism. It's either all or nothing, and given that a large portion of the population is pro-vaccine...it will get you nowhere fast.
The thing is, I'd probably have a much more popular Substack if I went the route of being totally against vaccines and going on about 5G and graphene and no viruses. It would get me more traffic and shares likely. I worry that I lose readers when I write what I truly think about vaccines in general, in that I think some vaccines (like rabies, polio, and tetanus) might be warranted. In short, being 100% anti-vaccine and hyberbolic is a far easier route to get notoriety in this space, so consider that when we discuss people like Wagh.
Agree with you about "ideological purity" as long as free speech and no one is forced to take drugs they don't want to take, including kids who want to attend school. If adults want to take vaccines, I have no problem with that. The problem is that some of them have no benefit at all, in fact I'd say that none of them have any benefit. In fact, little did I know but there has been no control group comparing the vaccinated to the un vaccinated. That's weird right?
There's a good book called Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries who is a nephrologist who discusses how epidemics were on the decline before any vaccine came out.
And I am just still a cog in the medical industrial complex, a nurse, hopefully on my way out in the next few years. I will never take another vaccine, ever.
I think she means that people have different viewpoints and can share them with others without being shunned, I think. For example, some people in the virus skeptic movement may have different ideas about climate change or have different views politically. Some people might be vegan and others die hard meat eaters. Having discussions is how people learn to see things from a different perspective. That's what I meant.
In my personal opinion based on what I have learned over the past 3 years is that vaccines have not been shown to have any benefit and in fact probably cause harm.
I agree the term 'controlled opposition' gets thrown around a lot, probably often where it doesn't apply. Like you, I am a single person with no funding. The article I cited is referring to controlled opposition in relation to anti-vax organizations because they are the ones that have some people's attention and attract funding.
The reason for it being all or nothing is that there is either a virus or there is not. Is this what you call ideological purity? A virus is a physical thing. It is not a quantum particle or force like gravity. If a physical particle is claimed to exist and cause disease we have the right to ask, "how did you determine that"? If the explanation does not follow the established procedures of the scientific method, should we just accept it because there is nothing better to explain our observations, or should we keep looking?
Your worry of losing readers is what I also hear from Del Bigtree. He doesn't want to lose viewers/supporters. Of course any of us who present to the public want an audience, but do we want to be popular at the cost of the truth? Yes, you may lose readers if you think quackcines are warranted if you cannot provide the science. That ties into what type of audience are you seeking? As this is such an important issue, glossing over the science or indirect evidence is not acceptable unless you are satisfied with that type of audience.
Then there is the question of which science is acceptable. As Eric mentions, as humans have become more digital in orientation, some people are accepting that an in silico genome combined with indirect evidence is enough to posit a virus is real. Is it? Where is the connection between digital and analog? Where is the foundational paper that shows viruses constructed with software exist in the mouth/nose of a person or on a mask? The virus skeptics are asking for this foundational paper, and those that have been supplied have logical or methodological errors.
The reason for being 100% anti-quackcine is because if the infectious particle cannot be shown to exist, what are we protecting ourselves against with dubious chemical injections?
If a large portion of the population is pro-quackcine, yes, we will not get there fast, but at least we are not resting on an unproven assertion about what creates illness. Yes, the cause of illness can be complex and difficult to determine, but to say it was a particle that can't be shown to exist and stop there is a disservice to all.
You're about as likely to convince the general public that viruses don't exist that you'll be able to convince them that gravity isn't real. It's a losing strategy. Also, I really don't get this idea that there has been no "foundational paper" to support viruses. There are actual photos of viruses for pete's sake. There's been a vast body of scientific knowledge built up around them. I don't have time to get into the back and forth with you about it, but your idea would presume that every virologist in the past 100 years was lying to help the WEF. It doesn't make sense on its face.
It's interesting how these conversations get narrowed down into technical details. Meanwhile the people who are trying to harm us are continuing to do so and why they are doing this is not fully addressed.
It doesn't matter if she believes in the existence of gravity or viruses, look at what is being done to our liberty and the biosecurity state and the destruction of economies. It's easy to see who they players are. Following the money is pretty easy to do.
I think the language used is confusing I think what is being said is that as defined "infectious particle capable of producing disease" does not exist.
I personally don't know enough to say conclusively that I think viruses "don't exist" at all. I simply have not done enough research yet, but I am skeptical. I think the narrative around viruses is definitely a scam, like "the're gonna kill us all, better get you jab" "it's the only way"
I think that a respectful debate or discussion between honest scientists and skeptics would be very helpful.
I've been reading Peter Duesberg's book Inventing AIDS. He was a virologist who said HIV was a harmless passenger virus, different from viruses don't exist, but his book and evidence is still very interesting and he makes some excellent points. I would highly recommend it even if he is not completely on board with the non existence of viruses as defined.
It doesn't mean that every virologist was lying, it's that wealthy interests fund research around certain topics and people who want to study something else don't get grants. Same with the climate change issue.
It's a really dense, technical topic, but if you look at the flow of money you'll get an idea of who benefits and it's not the public.
Gravity is easily provable. It is not possible to prove that viruses don't exist, but we can ask where is the proof that they do. It is not a losing strategy to seek the truth and very critically examine the methods that are used to tell us about reality, the threats we are subject to, and the responses we should be taking. As the days go by, it will be easier to show the public that the virus narrative does not explain what we are living through and faced with by those who have been in charge of the response.
The foundational papers that are often referred to, the Enders paper from the 1950s and the Wu paper for the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 have serious methodological errors. The Enders paper even states that it is not conclusive, but the process was considered good enough to begin manufacturing a quackcine, so they proceeded. The Wu paper does not demonstrate the existence of a particle, rather it describes how many fragments were combined and declares that such a particle exists. Has anyone cross checked that result? After reading hundreds of such papers, the virus skeptics say no such paper has been found.
Why are the events we are witnessing not supporting the hypothesis that a pathogenic particle is responsible for disease? Why is there no geometric growth in disease? Why is the 'infection rate' if there is such a thing, fairly steady in its rise and fall, like we would expect for the incidence of chronic disease except for spikes due to the impact of NPIs (non pharmaceutical interventions)? Why were alternate medications prohibited from use? If quackcines work, why the mandates? If quackcines work, why the fear of the unquackcinated?
Why do the quackcines not work? Why the heavy censorship? Why are there over 200 FOIA requests that have come back from governments and health agencies around the world that state they have no record of existence of any samples of SARS-CoV-2? If the science and medicine were clear why is there so much to question? Perhaps you are not aware of how many of the same elements are repeating in accordance with what happened with HIV. Reading RFK Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci is quite revealing in this regard and in terms of what some term the Medical Industrial Complex.
Data is available that shows that deaths are higher in regions that had stricter health measures.
Why more in the US than in Canada? West Germany than East Germany? The ACM (all cause mortality) is telling us a different story than the virus narrative and it is based on hard data, assuming that data is reliable, rather than data on cases, which is not reliable whether it was fudged or not because the PCR test is inadequate and not a diagnostic tool. Deaths are higher after the beginning of the administration of the quackcine program than before.
Yes, there are photos of biological structures. How do we know that they are viruses? What we do know is that they are found when cells breakdown. In Lanka's control experiments (which are not done in viral isolations) he found the same effect without any diseased patient fluids added. This should at least raise reasonable doubt if not outright disproof that the conclusions of virologists are unsupported.
There is a vast body of work on typifying what are thought to be viruses, but there are other cellular structures that have been observed that are the same size as the alleged viruses. These structures have not been demonstrated to be able to pass from one person to another and cause disease.
I am not positing that virologists are lying. They have been trained in a particular method.
There is often circular logic in the papers they publish. There are either no control experiments or they are inadequate. This training has told them that the results of their methodologies are verification of a hypothesis. This is what is being debated. The way that virology is being done does help maintain a narrative that the WEF is taking advantage of.
Steve Kirsch stated his 'expert' had definitive proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists. The paper is a typical example of circular reasoning. The author said he would respond to any questions. To date, I am not aware of any response to the questions that were posed. This should be easy for a veteran virologist.
Something is not right here. The observable evidence tells us that the pattern of deaths does not support viral activity. The papers are lacking in logic and have methodological errors. The authors do not defend them. In fact, they admit no viral purification was done.
All this is telling me and others that the measures taken and the chemicals being injected are far more likely to be the cause of illness and death than a particle that has yet to be proven to exist as a pathogenic entity that is passed from one to another.
But we know what they mean when they say "virus," which is an in silico, metagenomic sequence. Synthetic nucleotide technology. A mimicked human specimen. All the same thing. They DO have something and when you know what that is, you know it's not a replication competent parasite. It's a theoretical, artificial intelligence model.
At some point they transitioned from analog to digital. I am looking forward to Mark Bailey's paper which he said would trace the genomes back through the in silico models. Where did the first one come from? It sounds like turtles all the way down (infinite regress), but they had to start somewhere. I am curious to see what he has found and what connection it had to reality if any.
And why are we being injected with toxic chemicals? And the mandates and thee digitization of citizens? It's not just to make money. They have enough money by now.
Good questions. It may not be a matter of them having enough money but where the money flows and where it doesn't flow. When pHARMa charges billions for the quackcines, public money goes towards that instead of to something that would benefit us.
>>"The reason for being 100% anti-quackcine is because if the infectious particle cannot be shown to exist, what are we protecting ourselves against with dubious chemical injections?"
Even if the particle existed as a transmissible pathogen, and I'm not saying it does, but even from the perspective of a germ being real, the injections can be shown to be ineffective and harmful. Look at the injections historically, plenty of evidence diseases on the decline before the injections came out and that clearly they don't stop any disease.
I think there are a few different narratives that refute the germ-vaccine money making scheme, the virus skeptic narrative is not the only one IMO at this point in time.
One must ask themselves why is this being done? Is it part of a greater scheme to enslave the population to create a bio-security state, digital ID, tracking and tracing slavery grid? I think it most definitely is. It's not only a money making scheme but to kill and maim reducing the population and controlling the population to enact a technocratic control grid. Also, what about the federal reserve system, the banking cartel? John Titus is working on exposing that and only mentions pandemic as a cover for the collapse. His expertise is not in biochemistry but his work is outstanding in the banking system.
People need to look at the big picture too, expand out, zoom out and see the multiple levels of what is happening.
Sorry, no, I am not going down that rabbit hole because no amount of evidence pleases you people. FWIW, I am a holistic practitioner and we don't just rely on "scientific method." Some of what we know and understand is based on observation - i.e., we see a dog with certain symptoms (aggression/foaming at the mouth/hydrophobia) bite a human, who then shows similar symptoms (aggression/foaming at the mouth/hydrophobia) and then dies within a few weeks of the bite. At some point, some of this is common sense and if you want to deny the entire history of people dealing with rabies then that's your choice, but I'm not going to try to convince you.
So let's talk holistic. You may observe that a condition is contagious. But that does not make it based on replication-competent genetic material; and it leaves open a lot of possibilities.
Additionally, in the entire United States, CDC says that about 60 to 70 dogs are reported to be rabid every year. So that is about 1 or so per state, per year. How many have you seen exactly? You would first need to convince me that you had seen a case, ever. Because based on these numbers, the odds are overwhelming that you have not. And if you have seen one, you are unlikely to have another case to compare to.
"and it leaves open a lot of possibilities." Bacterial, viral, fungal, or parasite. In the absence of finding the other 3, then viral is likely, no?
Rabies is mostly under control in the US due to animal and wildlife vaccination programs. However, it's becoming a problem in India (places like Kerala) where stray dogs are biting and killing people, who often aren't able to get the rabies vaccine in time...and the vaccine isn't going to help if the dog bites your face or neck and the virus gets into your CNS before the vaccine has a chance to work.
Look, if someone comes up with a better rabies cure, I'm all for it.
<< "and it leaves open a lot of possibilities." Bacterial, viral, fungal, or parasite. In the absence of finding the other 3, then viral is likely, no? >>
Stephanie, you're a holistic practitioner and you've never heard of poison?
You said or implied that you had seen cases. What cases have you seen with your own eyes, of canine rabies, and then canine to human transmission of rabies?
"Scientific proof is not a rabbit hole, it is the ONLY way for humans to determine if something is REAL or not." This is so wrong on multiple levels but I don't have the time to get into it. Scientific studies are just one method to measure something. They are an indication of what is real but aren't necessary to determine what is real. We can also use reason and our experience and our senses.
Again you repeat the same nonsense on the issue which reads as an ode to your egoism. Even given you may be right about the academic credientials of this researcher you use what you seem to think is the weak link in critical thinkers who question the single note covid narrative to attack an entire, interational body of evidence by highly credentialed and experienced medical researchers and practitioners and throw them all into the same barrel. Your inability to see beyond your own biases is quite amazing. If you even listened to the narrative you support with a critical eye you would have to ask why there is only 1 side to the story. Nothing in science is ever one sided and the essence of science is the ability to question and debate. This seems to have escaped you.
In case you don't know, and I guess you dont given what you write, people who have been advisors to the CDC and FDA and Congress for years have been questioning the government narrative with actual science, something you cannot fathom and which is never provided the public in mainstream thinking and media.
If you even had an inkling of science in general and of all the many people who have been speaking out since the very beginning you would never write the biased nonsense that you do. You would do yourself good to sign up for Robert F Kennedy jr's newsletter Chidlren's Health Defense and while at it buy and read his heavily documented book The Real Fauci. It would be a good education for you.
I am also curious what nonsense — the part about questioning virus existence, or the part about calling for standards and practices? That makes sense to just about everyone I know.
Eric, your interview with Poornima was outstanding. I think you are uniquely qualified. I know of probably no one else that could have asked her those insightful, incisive questions. You drilled right into the most significant stuff. Amazing work. Yes your interview with Regis was fantastic. Mike Stone's analysis is also superb.
Celia Farber took down her response, which is a shame. Wagh raised red flags for me from the first time I heard her as well, but I want to put this into a larger context: the 2009 split between Rethinking AIDS and the Perth Group which really weakened the AIDS dissident movement. I went back and re-read the public thread behind the split today, and it is ugly: http://www.tig.org.za/Rethinking_'Rethinking_AIDS'_at_AME.html
I think the AIDS dissenters have come of age and recognized AIDS and now Corona for the psyop implemented by global intelligence agencies they so obviously are. In the past, it was just about debating science and maybe asking about the psychology of scientific consensus or power of government, but now it's clear: this is an Intelligence Operation backed with very sophisticated propaganda, and dissenters have to learn to analyze propaganda, disinformation, and psychological warfare. Fake and misleading "scientific studies" are themselves vehicles for propaganda, as are scientific journals. The editors are controlled by the intelligence agencies. The "academics" owe their jobs due to signing with the devil to enforce intelligence agency fictions.
Even those who get it right such as the obvious asset Andrew Kaufman have a propaganda function: to be fed the truth "Corona doesn't exist" (it does not) and then pied-piper style mislead folks by saying no viruses exist (they do - monkeypox is very real).
the "science" on monkeypox as a viral disease is garbage. Can you show me the studies adding up to the Gold Standard? Where is the proof positive that the "virus" causes the claimed disease? Why did the WHO emergency committee vote down the idea of a pandemic — twice?
Note the density grade purification verified by electron microscopy, meaning you can extract molecular material from known particles that appear in abundance suitable for forming a plaque (satisfaction of Koch's first postulate - you find lots and lots of it in people with the disease) and there's none of this in-silico stuff. As for specific symptoms, look at the actual pictures of the thing. That's not just reclassified "ingrown hairs." epidemiologically, it's behaving like an infectious disease actually should, which is why I think this monkeypox thing (which could be a bioattack- hand out pox-contaminated sexual lube samples at gay leather parties with lots of tourists) is gaslighting all the "there are no viruses" folks. It's what we should have seen with the phony 'AIDS' and 'Corona' and actually follows Farr's law.
As for the WHO committee - MVPX has traditionally not had epidemiological characteristics suitable for maintaining a global outbreak, so there is a bias here. What you have are 50 "mutations" on a DNA virus that actually has changed its function (ie. sexually transmissable between promiscuous humans in semen). Keep in mind, the WHO is packed with intelligence assets as well.
What I've been screaming about is: yes, there are some real viruses. Corona and HIV do not exist. Hep A does. The trick is to ask, "what should we see to prove a virus exists?" and compare it to ones we're pretty confident about. That's exactly what the Perth Group actually did. They compared HIV isolation to Rous Sarcoma Virus isolation, and found HIV didn't meet the RSV standard.
As for cytopathic effects - this is where Kaufmann is misleading. Every different virus has a different pattern of cytopathic effects, and this can be used to differentiate between possible infectious agents in cell culture. That's where SV-40 comes from. It was the 40th type of cytopathic effect observed in the same cell culture. Each different simian virus gave a different cytopathic effect. This is why Lanka is deceiving you: he misleads by claiming all cytopathic effects look the same. Why doesn't Sam Bailey ask HIM for his photos of cytopathic effects to prove his studies? He hasn't bothered to publish his results. Nobody's verified him. Everyone just takes his word for it because they've been lead down the primrose path of "there are no viruses." And here he comes along, just like Poorima.
Where does Stefan Lanka get his money, anyway? He lives on a posh villa by Lake Constance and wears fancy clothes and has no job and hasn't published a thing in three decades. Looks like a BND asset IMHO.
How does this meet the Gold Standard? How does this study prove that the thing they claim they isolated causes the disease they claim exists? I see a purification protocol, not a clinical study proving an intracellular, replication-competent parasite.
While it is important to point out that Poornimah does not have the PhD's that she has claimed, it would be even more valuable to point out the specific scientific claims that she makes that have been debunked. Your posts have not gone there. I wonder if you could identify which of her scientific claims are wrong.
OK, got it. I just read Mike Stone (viroliegy.com) wrt to Poornima. He says most of her information was correct and well presented. Yet he strongly feels it is good that she has been "found out." Could be that she is merely an imperfect messenger.
MIke Donio, one of my science sources in this investigation, says:
She really botched the agarose gel part. Badly.
You wouldn’t never follow up sequencing with a gel. Maybe PCR but it’s qualitative and crude. If she’s doing meta genomic sequencing, like high throughput mass tandem, there’s no way you could do a gel because you have millions of little pieces that you are simultaneously sequencing. I mean she literally says that you “can actually see the little particles of RNA and DNA”.
Not even close.
You see a band. That’s it. And you assume it’s the piece of DNA you think but only based on size. And there wouldn’t be RNA. You probably know this. When sequencing RNA one of the first steps is reverse transcription to convert the RNA to cDNA. Then you amplify with PCR and then sequence. This is actually a slightly more proper application for PCR versus the ridiculous tests. Regardless, she’s way off.
I have reported repeatedly that they do not pass the scientific method because the results of RT-PCR cannot be repeated in more than half of the experiments. It's a scam, particularly when reverse transcription is involved. Without RT and low CT I am sure you can find the mold in the wine or cannabis.
Wow if it can't replicate DNA that was an expensive $300 million patent. It definitely amplified DNA in Kary Mullis's mind. But he was high on acid! Tells the story here -
Larry, are you reading the articles that I am writing?
I devote half of the original article to her lack of basic scientific knowledge. In an article like this, you don't write a book; I give at least two solid examples.
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/charlatans-web
There is plenty more; she does not get ONE thing right. MIke Donio, one of my science sources in this investigation, says:
She really botched the agarose gel part. Badly.
You wouldn’t never follow up sequencing with a gel. Maybe PCR but it’s qualitative and crude. If she’s doing meta genomic sequencing, like high throughput mass tandem, there’s no way you could do a gel because you have millions of little pieces that you are simultaneously sequencing. I mean she literally says that you “can actually see the little particles of RNA and DNA”.
Not even close.
You see a band. That’s it. And you assume it’s the piece of DNA you think but only based on size. And there wouldn’t be RNA. You probably know this. When sequencing RNA one of the first steps is reverse transcription to convert the RNA to cDNA. Then you amplify with PCR and then sequence. This is actually a slightly more proper application for PCR versus the ridiculous tests. Regardless, she’s way off.
Let me know if you have any questions.
In the video, Eric mentions that other presenters such as RFK Jr. and Del Bigtree will not confront this issue (the existence of viruses). I recently was made aware of the following post which goes into why:
Danny Boy Limerick writes: "I don’t trust Del Bigtree because I believe he (and others) have co-opted the legitimate grassroots “anti-vaccine” movement, and turned it into a more palatable and acceptable “Safer Vaccine Movement” or the “Vaccine Risk Awareness Movement”, as part of an elaborate controlled opposition campaign. This has been obvious to many of us for a long time, but for people who may be new to these concepts, I will lay out some of the basics.
This campaign is designed to take control of the legitimate opposition voice, which understands that all vaccines are dangerous, create new artificial boundaries as to what is and isn’t an acceptable level of resistance and dissent in the public discourse about vaccines, and silence and marginalize the informed and unjected – the real dissidents and the real health and freedom movement – people who understand that there’s no such thing as a safe vaccine."
http://dannyboylimerick.website/del-bigtree-exposed/
Reposted by Greg Wyatt. His site has lots of other interesting info on the anti-quackcine 'industry'
https://gregwyatt.net/del-bigtree-exposed/
The Baileys, Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman review Del Bigtree's statements on the virus issue:
Are people not ready for the truth? If they are not ready after two and a half years of fear from the media and mismanagement from health authorities, when will they be ready? Should we trust Del to make that assessment?
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Viruses-Baileys-Cowan-Kaufman-Respond-To-Del-Bigtree:b
Brian thank you for framing this in its larger context.
I also just realized that Del says that his show, "The Highwire", doesn't have sponsors so that he can say what he likes and seek the truth in order to present it to us. What he is not saying is that his organization has contributors and has received grants from certain parties that benefit from the existence of quackcines, therefore Del seeks safer quackcines, rather than question why they are needed.
I exepct the same dynamic is taking place with RFK Jr. (Children's Health Defense) and Steve Kirsch (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation).
Question the quackine? Ok. We seek better testing of the product, more regulation.
Question the virus? Not Ok. As Steve Kirsch says, the science is settled. What he doesn't say, "that threatens the existence of my foundation and belief in pHARMa."
Brian would you get in touch? I want to develop what you're saying here into an article. This is the angle to go after them.
This is your basic NYPIRG approach.
"This campaign is designed to take control of the legitimate opposition voice, which understands that all vaccines are dangerous" Sorry, just because some of us aren't 100% against vaccines doesn't mean we are "illegitimate" or controlled opposition. I'm just a single person, with no outside funding writing other than my readers, who writes about the dangerous of untested mRNA vaccine technology. I also think that the childhood vaccination schedule has gotten out of control. I'm also against vaccine mandates. But I don't think vaccines are 100% bad, and I just wrote about how necessary the rabies vaccine is:
https://wholistic.substack.com/p/rabies-get-vaccinated-or-prepare
This quest for ideological purity is counterproductive. There is also no appreciation of small victories or incrementalism. It's either all or nothing, and given that a large portion of the population is pro-vaccine...it will get you nowhere fast.
The thing is, I'd probably have a much more popular Substack if I went the route of being totally against vaccines and going on about 5G and graphene and no viruses. It would get me more traffic and shares likely. I worry that I lose readers when I write what I truly think about vaccines in general, in that I think some vaccines (like rabies, polio, and tetanus) might be warranted. In short, being 100% anti-vaccine and hyberbolic is a far easier route to get notoriety in this space, so consider that when we discuss people like Wagh.
Agree with you about "ideological purity" as long as free speech and no one is forced to take drugs they don't want to take, including kids who want to attend school. If adults want to take vaccines, I have no problem with that. The problem is that some of them have no benefit at all, in fact I'd say that none of them have any benefit. In fact, little did I know but there has been no control group comparing the vaccinated to the un vaccinated. That's weird right?
There's a good book called Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries who is a nephrologist who discusses how epidemics were on the decline before any vaccine came out.
And I am just still a cog in the medical industrial complex, a nurse, hopefully on my way out in the next few years. I will never take another vaccine, ever.
Would someone explain me "ideological purity"? I need the concept and some examples. I am not following you all here.
I think she means that people have different viewpoints and can share them with others without being shunned, I think. For example, some people in the virus skeptic movement may have different ideas about climate change or have different views politically. Some people might be vegan and others die hard meat eaters. Having discussions is how people learn to see things from a different perspective. That's what I meant.
In my personal opinion based on what I have learned over the past 3 years is that vaccines have not been shown to have any benefit and in fact probably cause harm.
I agree the term 'controlled opposition' gets thrown around a lot, probably often where it doesn't apply. Like you, I am a single person with no funding. The article I cited is referring to controlled opposition in relation to anti-vax organizations because they are the ones that have some people's attention and attract funding.
The reason for it being all or nothing is that there is either a virus or there is not. Is this what you call ideological purity? A virus is a physical thing. It is not a quantum particle or force like gravity. If a physical particle is claimed to exist and cause disease we have the right to ask, "how did you determine that"? If the explanation does not follow the established procedures of the scientific method, should we just accept it because there is nothing better to explain our observations, or should we keep looking?
Your worry of losing readers is what I also hear from Del Bigtree. He doesn't want to lose viewers/supporters. Of course any of us who present to the public want an audience, but do we want to be popular at the cost of the truth? Yes, you may lose readers if you think quackcines are warranted if you cannot provide the science. That ties into what type of audience are you seeking? As this is such an important issue, glossing over the science or indirect evidence is not acceptable unless you are satisfied with that type of audience.
Then there is the question of which science is acceptable. As Eric mentions, as humans have become more digital in orientation, some people are accepting that an in silico genome combined with indirect evidence is enough to posit a virus is real. Is it? Where is the connection between digital and analog? Where is the foundational paper that shows viruses constructed with software exist in the mouth/nose of a person or on a mask? The virus skeptics are asking for this foundational paper, and those that have been supplied have logical or methodological errors.
The reason for being 100% anti-quackcine is because if the infectious particle cannot be shown to exist, what are we protecting ourselves against with dubious chemical injections?
If a large portion of the population is pro-quackcine, yes, we will not get there fast, but at least we are not resting on an unproven assertion about what creates illness. Yes, the cause of illness can be complex and difficult to determine, but to say it was a particle that can't be shown to exist and stop there is a disservice to all.
You're about as likely to convince the general public that viruses don't exist that you'll be able to convince them that gravity isn't real. It's a losing strategy. Also, I really don't get this idea that there has been no "foundational paper" to support viruses. There are actual photos of viruses for pete's sake. There's been a vast body of scientific knowledge built up around them. I don't have time to get into the back and forth with you about it, but your idea would presume that every virologist in the past 100 years was lying to help the WEF. It doesn't make sense on its face.
So you've got the whole thing - and the future - figured out, ya?
It's interesting how these conversations get narrowed down into technical details. Meanwhile the people who are trying to harm us are continuing to do so and why they are doing this is not fully addressed.
It doesn't matter if she believes in the existence of gravity or viruses, look at what is being done to our liberty and the biosecurity state and the destruction of economies. It's easy to see who they players are. Following the money is pretty easy to do.
I think the language used is confusing I think what is being said is that as defined "infectious particle capable of producing disease" does not exist.
The particles that come from the culture do exist, but what they are is debatable. Someone showed me this and I'll post it. It's a crib sheet of the refutation of virus as infectious particle https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Debunking-the-Nonsense.pdf
I personally don't know enough to say conclusively that I think viruses "don't exist" at all. I simply have not done enough research yet, but I am skeptical. I think the narrative around viruses is definitely a scam, like "the're gonna kill us all, better get you jab" "it's the only way"
I think that a respectful debate or discussion between honest scientists and skeptics would be very helpful.
I've been reading Peter Duesberg's book Inventing AIDS. He was a virologist who said HIV was a harmless passenger virus, different from viruses don't exist, but his book and evidence is still very interesting and he makes some excellent points. I would highly recommend it even if he is not completely on board with the non existence of viruses as defined.
It doesn't mean that every virologist was lying, it's that wealthy interests fund research around certain topics and people who want to study something else don't get grants. Same with the climate change issue.
It's a really dense, technical topic, but if you look at the flow of money you'll get an idea of who benefits and it's not the public.
Gravity is easily provable. It is not possible to prove that viruses don't exist, but we can ask where is the proof that they do. It is not a losing strategy to seek the truth and very critically examine the methods that are used to tell us about reality, the threats we are subject to, and the responses we should be taking. As the days go by, it will be easier to show the public that the virus narrative does not explain what we are living through and faced with by those who have been in charge of the response.
The foundational papers that are often referred to, the Enders paper from the 1950s and the Wu paper for the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 have serious methodological errors. The Enders paper even states that it is not conclusive, but the process was considered good enough to begin manufacturing a quackcine, so they proceeded. The Wu paper does not demonstrate the existence of a particle, rather it describes how many fragments were combined and declares that such a particle exists. Has anyone cross checked that result? After reading hundreds of such papers, the virus skeptics say no such paper has been found.
Why are the events we are witnessing not supporting the hypothesis that a pathogenic particle is responsible for disease? Why is there no geometric growth in disease? Why is the 'infection rate' if there is such a thing, fairly steady in its rise and fall, like we would expect for the incidence of chronic disease except for spikes due to the impact of NPIs (non pharmaceutical interventions)? Why were alternate medications prohibited from use? If quackcines work, why the mandates? If quackcines work, why the fear of the unquackcinated?
Why do the quackcines not work? Why the heavy censorship? Why are there over 200 FOIA requests that have come back from governments and health agencies around the world that state they have no record of existence of any samples of SARS-CoV-2? If the science and medicine were clear why is there so much to question? Perhaps you are not aware of how many of the same elements are repeating in accordance with what happened with HIV. Reading RFK Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci is quite revealing in this regard and in terms of what some term the Medical Industrial Complex.
Data is available that shows that deaths are higher in regions that had stricter health measures.
Why more in the US than in Canada? West Germany than East Germany? The ACM (all cause mortality) is telling us a different story than the virus narrative and it is based on hard data, assuming that data is reliable, rather than data on cases, which is not reliable whether it was fudged or not because the PCR test is inadequate and not a diagnostic tool. Deaths are higher after the beginning of the administration of the quackcine program than before.
Yes, there are photos of biological structures. How do we know that they are viruses? What we do know is that they are found when cells breakdown. In Lanka's control experiments (which are not done in viral isolations) he found the same effect without any diseased patient fluids added. This should at least raise reasonable doubt if not outright disproof that the conclusions of virologists are unsupported.
There is a vast body of work on typifying what are thought to be viruses, but there are other cellular structures that have been observed that are the same size as the alleged viruses. These structures have not been demonstrated to be able to pass from one person to another and cause disease.
I am not positing that virologists are lying. They have been trained in a particular method.
There is often circular logic in the papers they publish. There are either no control experiments or they are inadequate. This training has told them that the results of their methodologies are verification of a hypothesis. This is what is being debated. The way that virology is being done does help maintain a narrative that the WEF is taking advantage of.
Steve Kirsch stated his 'expert' had definitive proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists. The paper is a typical example of circular reasoning. The author said he would respond to any questions. To date, I am not aware of any response to the questions that were posed. This should be easy for a veteran virologist.
Something is not right here. The observable evidence tells us that the pattern of deaths does not support viral activity. The papers are lacking in logic and have methodological errors. The authors do not defend them. In fact, they admit no viral purification was done.
All this is telling me and others that the measures taken and the chemicals being injected are far more likely to be the cause of illness and death than a particle that has yet to be proven to exist as a pathogenic entity that is passed from one to another.
But we know what they mean when they say "virus," which is an in silico, metagenomic sequence. Synthetic nucleotide technology. A mimicked human specimen. All the same thing. They DO have something and when you know what that is, you know it's not a replication competent parasite. It's a theoretical, artificial intelligence model.
At some point they transitioned from analog to digital. I am looking forward to Mark Bailey's paper which he said would trace the genomes back through the in silico models. Where did the first one come from? It sounds like turtles all the way down (infinite regress), but they had to start somewhere. I am curious to see what he has found and what connection it had to reality if any.
And why are we being injected with toxic chemicals? And the mandates and thee digitization of citizens? It's not just to make money. They have enough money by now.
Good questions. It may not be a matter of them having enough money but where the money flows and where it doesn't flow. When pHARMa charges billions for the quackcines, public money goes towards that instead of to something that would benefit us.
>>"The reason for being 100% anti-quackcine is because if the infectious particle cannot be shown to exist, what are we protecting ourselves against with dubious chemical injections?"
Even if the particle existed as a transmissible pathogen, and I'm not saying it does, but even from the perspective of a germ being real, the injections can be shown to be ineffective and harmful. Look at the injections historically, plenty of evidence diseases on the decline before the injections came out and that clearly they don't stop any disease.
I think there are a few different narratives that refute the germ-vaccine money making scheme, the virus skeptic narrative is not the only one IMO at this point in time.
One must ask themselves why is this being done? Is it part of a greater scheme to enslave the population to create a bio-security state, digital ID, tracking and tracing slavery grid? I think it most definitely is. It's not only a money making scheme but to kill and maim reducing the population and controlling the population to enact a technocratic control grid. Also, what about the federal reserve system, the banking cartel? John Titus is working on exposing that and only mentions pandemic as a cover for the collapse. His expertise is not in biochemistry but his work is outstanding in the banking system.
People need to look at the big picture too, expand out, zoom out and see the multiple levels of what is happening.
Proof of Hepatitis A virus: https://sci-hub.st/10.1101/cshperspect.a031740
Sorry, no, I am not going down that rabbit hole because no amount of evidence pleases you people. FWIW, I am a holistic practitioner and we don't just rely on "scientific method." Some of what we know and understand is based on observation - i.e., we see a dog with certain symptoms (aggression/foaming at the mouth/hydrophobia) bite a human, who then shows similar symptoms (aggression/foaming at the mouth/hydrophobia) and then dies within a few weeks of the bite. At some point, some of this is common sense and if you want to deny the entire history of people dealing with rabies then that's your choice, but I'm not going to try to convince you.
Dr Mark Bailey just provided this.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
So let's talk holistic. You may observe that a condition is contagious. But that does not make it based on replication-competent genetic material; and it leaves open a lot of possibilities.
Additionally, in the entire United States, CDC says that about 60 to 70 dogs are reported to be rabid every year. So that is about 1 or so per state, per year. How many have you seen exactly? You would first need to convince me that you had seen a case, ever. Because based on these numbers, the odds are overwhelming that you have not. And if you have seen one, you are unlikely to have another case to compare to.
Please, elucidate.
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/domestic_animals.html
"and it leaves open a lot of possibilities." Bacterial, viral, fungal, or parasite. In the absence of finding the other 3, then viral is likely, no?
Rabies is mostly under control in the US due to animal and wildlife vaccination programs. However, it's becoming a problem in India (places like Kerala) where stray dogs are biting and killing people, who often aren't able to get the rabies vaccine in time...and the vaccine isn't going to help if the dog bites your face or neck and the virus gets into your CNS before the vaccine has a chance to work.
Look, if someone comes up with a better rabies cure, I'm all for it.
<< "and it leaves open a lot of possibilities." Bacterial, viral, fungal, or parasite. In the absence of finding the other 3, then viral is likely, no? >>
Stephanie, you're a holistic practitioner and you've never heard of poison?
You said or implied that you had seen cases. What cases have you seen with your own eyes, of canine rabies, and then canine to human transmission of rabies?
"Scientific proof is not a rabbit hole, it is the ONLY way for humans to determine if something is REAL or not." This is so wrong on multiple levels but I don't have the time to get into it. Scientific studies are just one method to measure something. They are an indication of what is real but aren't necessary to determine what is real. We can also use reason and our experience and our senses.
Again you repeat the same nonsense on the issue which reads as an ode to your egoism. Even given you may be right about the academic credientials of this researcher you use what you seem to think is the weak link in critical thinkers who question the single note covid narrative to attack an entire, interational body of evidence by highly credentialed and experienced medical researchers and practitioners and throw them all into the same barrel. Your inability to see beyond your own biases is quite amazing. If you even listened to the narrative you support with a critical eye you would have to ask why there is only 1 side to the story. Nothing in science is ever one sided and the essence of science is the ability to question and debate. This seems to have escaped you.
In case you don't know, and I guess you dont given what you write, people who have been advisors to the CDC and FDA and Congress for years have been questioning the government narrative with actual science, something you cannot fathom and which is never provided the public in mainstream thinking and media.
If you even had an inkling of science in general and of all the many people who have been speaking out since the very beginning you would never write the biased nonsense that you do. You would do yourself good to sign up for Robert F Kennedy jr's newsletter Chidlren's Health Defense and while at it buy and read his heavily documented book The Real Fauci. It would be a good education for you.
You must be kidding. That is very funny.
"Again you repeat the same nonsense"
Which nonsense are you referring to?
"people who have been advisors to the CDC and FDA and Congress for years have been questioning the government narrative with actual science"
What has that led to? Which actual science are you referring to?
I am also curious what nonsense — the part about questioning virus existence, or the part about calling for standards and practices? That makes sense to just about everyone I know.
I don’t think we’re reading the same Eric Francis Coppolino.......
yes, there is the "me" that is the controlled oppo globalist shill, and then there is me.
Eric, your interview with Poornima was outstanding. I think you are uniquely qualified. I know of probably no one else that could have asked her those insightful, incisive questions. You drilled right into the most significant stuff. Amazing work. Yes your interview with Regis was fantastic. Mike Stone's analysis is also superb.
Thank you Bill.
All summer long as I watched the hundreds of emails about her go by, I kept thinking: I will resolve this when I speak with her.
For those who would like to read Mike Stone's analysis:
A Matter of Trust
https://viroliegy.com/2022/09/04/a-matter-of-trust/
Under the Microscope With the Fakeologist
https://viroliegy.com/2022/09/06/under-the-microscope-with-the-fakeologist/
Yes, both are excellent!
Celia Farber took down her response, which is a shame. Wagh raised red flags for me from the first time I heard her as well, but I want to put this into a larger context: the 2009 split between Rethinking AIDS and the Perth Group which really weakened the AIDS dissident movement. I went back and re-read the public thread behind the split today, and it is ugly: http://www.tig.org.za/Rethinking_'Rethinking_AIDS'_at_AME.html
I think the AIDS dissenters have come of age and recognized AIDS and now Corona for the psyop implemented by global intelligence agencies they so obviously are. In the past, it was just about debating science and maybe asking about the psychology of scientific consensus or power of government, but now it's clear: this is an Intelligence Operation backed with very sophisticated propaganda, and dissenters have to learn to analyze propaganda, disinformation, and psychological warfare. Fake and misleading "scientific studies" are themselves vehicles for propaganda, as are scientific journals. The editors are controlled by the intelligence agencies. The "academics" owe their jobs due to signing with the devil to enforce intelligence agency fictions.
Even those who get it right such as the obvious asset Andrew Kaufman have a propaganda function: to be fed the truth "Corona doesn't exist" (it does not) and then pied-piper style mislead folks by saying no viruses exist (they do - monkeypox is very real).
the "science" on monkeypox as a viral disease is garbage. Can you show me the studies adding up to the Gold Standard? Where is the proof positive that the "virus" causes the claimed disease? Why did the WHO emergency committee vote down the idea of a pandemic — twice?
Methodology with EM's For the family of Orthopoxviridiae in general ... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093416304852#bib0005
Note the density grade purification verified by electron microscopy, meaning you can extract molecular material from known particles that appear in abundance suitable for forming a plaque (satisfaction of Koch's first postulate - you find lots and lots of it in people with the disease) and there's none of this in-silico stuff. As for specific symptoms, look at the actual pictures of the thing. That's not just reclassified "ingrown hairs." epidemiologically, it's behaving like an infectious disease actually should, which is why I think this monkeypox thing (which could be a bioattack- hand out pox-contaminated sexual lube samples at gay leather parties with lots of tourists) is gaslighting all the "there are no viruses" folks. It's what we should have seen with the phony 'AIDS' and 'Corona' and actually follows Farr's law.
As for the WHO committee - MVPX has traditionally not had epidemiological characteristics suitable for maintaining a global outbreak, so there is a bias here. What you have are 50 "mutations" on a DNA virus that actually has changed its function (ie. sexually transmissable between promiscuous humans in semen). Keep in mind, the WHO is packed with intelligence assets as well.
What I've been screaming about is: yes, there are some real viruses. Corona and HIV do not exist. Hep A does. The trick is to ask, "what should we see to prove a virus exists?" and compare it to ones we're pretty confident about. That's exactly what the Perth Group actually did. They compared HIV isolation to Rous Sarcoma Virus isolation, and found HIV didn't meet the RSV standard.
As for cytopathic effects - this is where Kaufmann is misleading. Every different virus has a different pattern of cytopathic effects, and this can be used to differentiate between possible infectious agents in cell culture. That's where SV-40 comes from. It was the 40th type of cytopathic effect observed in the same cell culture. Each different simian virus gave a different cytopathic effect. This is why Lanka is deceiving you: he misleads by claiming all cytopathic effects look the same. Why doesn't Sam Bailey ask HIM for his photos of cytopathic effects to prove his studies? He hasn't bothered to publish his results. Nobody's verified him. Everyone just takes his word for it because they've been lead down the primrose path of "there are no viruses." And here he comes along, just like Poorima.
Where does Stefan Lanka get his money, anyway? He lives on a posh villa by Lake Constance and wears fancy clothes and has no job and hasn't published a thing in three decades. Looks like a BND asset IMHO.
How does this meet the Gold Standard? How does this study prove that the thing they claim they isolated causes the disease they claim exists? I see a purification protocol, not a clinical study proving an intracellular, replication-competent parasite.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093416304852#bib0005
While it is important to point out that Poornimah does not have the PhD's that she has claimed, it would be even more valuable to point out the specific scientific claims that she makes that have been debunked. Your posts have not gone there. I wonder if you could identify which of her scientific claims are wrong.
OK, got it. I just read Mike Stone (viroliegy.com) wrt to Poornima. He says most of her information was correct and well presented. Yet he strongly feels it is good that she has been "found out." Could be that she is merely an imperfect messenger.
MIke Donio, one of my science sources in this investigation, says:
She really botched the agarose gel part. Badly.
You wouldn’t never follow up sequencing with a gel. Maybe PCR but it’s qualitative and crude. If she’s doing meta genomic sequencing, like high throughput mass tandem, there’s no way you could do a gel because you have millions of little pieces that you are simultaneously sequencing. I mean she literally says that you “can actually see the little particles of RNA and DNA”.
Not even close.
You see a band. That’s it. And you assume it’s the piece of DNA you think but only based on size. And there wouldn’t be RNA. You probably know this. When sequencing RNA one of the first steps is reverse transcription to convert the RNA to cDNA. Then you amplify with PCR and then sequence. This is actually a slightly more proper application for PCR versus the ridiculous tests. Regardless, she’s way off.
Let me know if you have any questions.
You made me sorry I asked! I'm kidding. I asked and you answered. Thanks.
Not bad for a globalist shill!
I have reported repeatedly that they do not pass the scientific method because the results of RT-PCR cannot be repeated in more than half of the experiments. It's a scam, particularly when reverse transcription is involved. Without RT and low CT I am sure you can find the mold in the wine or cannabis.
Wow if it can't replicate DNA that was an expensive $300 million patent. It definitely amplified DNA in Kary Mullis's mind. But he was high on acid! Tells the story here -
https://planetwaves.net/the-invention-of-pcr/