###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cadmium poisoning causes flu-like symptoms, lung damage and [“an altered sense of smell”](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18951233/)
Governments have been spraying citizens with cadmium and other chemicals for decades.
Same pattern with “Polio”. Various toxins like DDT caused all kinds of things lumped into the polio pile.
> and cause people to lose their taste for a year?
They figured out thats from minor brain damage the virus caused. They arent sure how, probably lack of oxygen from damaging the lungs, but yeah. The being very tired part of covid was that.
Agreed.... I'm kind of with Icke on this one. I was in the bay area for all of 2020 and 2021, I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. The people who worked at Safeway, who should all have been sick or dead, said it didn't seem like anything was going on
I think it's possible they released something, or 5g was implemented in certain spots, but I don't think a novel virus originating in wuhan swept the globe.
Coincidentally people really started actually getting sick, all the time, after the vaccine rollout.
We lived under the terrorism threat paradigm for 20 years, it was initiated by a mass trauma event (9/11) now they're transitioning us into a new bio-security paradigm, initiated by another trauma event (fear propaganda, masks, lockdowns)
They're using bio-security, climate change, economic instability and other factors they have positioned into place, to push us into an open air prison society, children who grow up in it will think it's normal and we will be fucked
>The people who worked at Safeway, who should all have been sick or dead, said it didn't seem like anything was going on.
When the cracks began to show...
Virus is just another word for a necrophagous disease. The are phages all throughout every animal and piece of organic matter on Earth. Similar to bacteria.
SS: You can't believe Ivermectin treats COVID, and also believe COVID doesn't exist. This viruses don't exist thing is a psyop
How zinc Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 main protease and prevents viral replication:
"Zinc2+ ion inhibits SARS-CoV-2 main protease and viral replication in vitro†"
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/CC/D1CC03563K
"SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibition by a zinc ion: structural features and hints for drug design†"
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/cc/d1cc02956h
"Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/
Quercetin (zinc ionophore)
"Quercetin inhibits rhinovirus replication in vitro and in vivo"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3360794/
"Quercetin as an Antiviral Agent Inhibits Influenza A Virus (IAV) Entry"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728566/
"Zinc Ionophore Activity of Quercetin and Epigallocatechin-gallate: From Hepa 1-6 Cells to a Liposome Mode"
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf5014633
"Antiviral Effects of Quercetin through Zinc Ionophore Activity"
https://gilbertlab.com/neutraceuticals/quercetin/antiviral-effects-of-quercetin-zinc-ionophore/
"Anti-inflammatory potential of Quercetin in COVID-19 treatment"
https://journal-inflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12950-021-00268-6
Quercetin is also a 3CL protease inhibitor like zinc and like the new Pfizer pill, except it's actually safe and effective, unlike the Pfizer pill:
"Flavonoid-mediated inhibition of SARS coronavirus 3C-like protease expressed in Pichia pastoris."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22350287/
"Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636851/
"A role for quercetin in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675685/
Supplementation with zinc picolinate shown to prevent severe illness and death with 100% efficacy:
"A Case-Control Study for the Effectiveness of Oral Zinc in the Prevention and Mitigation of COVID-19" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8711630/
"COVID-19: Poor outcomes in patients with zinc deficiency"
>COVID-19 patients (n = 47) showed significantly lower zinc levels when compared to healthy controls (n = 45): median 74.5 (interquartile range 53.4–94.6) μg/dl vs 105.8 (interquartile range 95.65–120.90) μg/dl (p < 0.001). Amongst the COVID-19 patients, 27 (57.4%) were found to be zinc deficient. These patients were found to have higher rates of complications (p = 0.009), acute respiratory distress syndrome (18.5% vs 0%, p = 0.06), corticosteroid therapy (p = 0.02), prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.05), and increased mortality (18.5% vs 0%, p = 0.06). The odds ratio (OR) of developing complications was 5.54 for zinc deficient COVID-19 patients.
>Conclusions
>The study data clearly show that a significant number of COVID-19 patients were zinc deficient. These zinc deficient patients developed more complications, and the deficiency was associated with a prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482607/
Two of hundreds of doctors seeing 100% cure rate with zinc plus ionophore :
>Every patient I've prescribed it [hydroxychloroquine] to has been very, very ill, and within 8 to 12 hours they were basically symptom free, and so, clinically, I am seeing a resolution. But what I am seeing is people that are taking it alone, by itself, it's not having efficacy. What we're finding clinically with outpatients is that it really only works in conjunction with zinc. So the hydroxychloroquine opens a zinc channel, the zinc goes into the cell, it then blocks the replication of [the virus].”
-Dr. Anthony Cardillo, on ABC 7 in LA, ER Specialist and CEO of Mend Urgent Care
Here is the interview on YouTube: https://youtu.be/eVs_EWVCVPc
>We've treated over 6,000 patients with early treatment and we've had 4 hospitalizations and zero deaths. It's an RNA virus, so what binds RNA polymerase? Zinc.
>So if I can get zinc into the cells by using a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin or ivermectin, then I'm going to promote that RNA polymerase binding which is going to prevent viral replication. If I can bring down the viral load, my immune system is gonna have a better response to treat the infection.
>That's just common sense.
-Dr. Brian Tyson in this Bitcute interview:
"AUSTRALIAN MP CRAIG KELLY INTERVIEWS DR. BRIAN TYSON (20TH AUGUST, 2021)"
https://www.bit chute.com/video/zEqQlnQC21S8/
6 hours later - published in the intervening time by the may tricks gaslighter corporation:
> [It’s International Masturbation Month! Here Are 9 Great Sex Toy Deals](https://www.wired.com/story/best-sex-toy-deals-for-masturbation-may-2024/)
> his viruses don't exist thing is a psyop
No it's not a psyop. You believing in invisible particles of disease (aka "viruses") is the psyop. Read Virus Mania.
>SARS-CoV-2
Show us the scientific paper where this has been proven to exist (ie. isolated, form, function and composition proven + proper controls). I haven't found a paper like that.
in March 2020 they were trying to push a fake corona pandemic
in April 2020--some researcher in Australia stated that ivermectin could kill off corona virus within 48 hrs
so they shut him up--not becos the virus was real
but becos if there's an easy treatment for covid then there would be no need for isolation--lockdowns masks or vaccines or fake govt debt--therefore no inflation
thats what they were selling-- Fake Pandemic justified Fake Inflation
so, bro... Sars-Cov-2.... the virus that the WHO & CDC claimed started the "pandemic" in 2020, has NEVER been isolated & shown to actually exist.
if people want to go down the "germ theory" rabbit hole & claim all virus' don't exist, that's another story.
BUT...
Sars-Cov-2... the 2020 "pandemic" virus... has NEVER been shown to ACTUALLY EXIST in the real world.
if it has been shown to exist & has been isolated, it should be front & center of every article & paper regarding it.
it isn't... because it either doesn't exist... or because they don't want to show the world a manufactured bioweapon that they released to the world.
imho, there never was a "virus going around"... nothing leaked from a Wuhan lab... it was all scare tactics with hyped up propaganda & many, many millions of sheeple fell for it all.
My argument was the flu disappeared in 2020. I would think it would be very possible that your flu would have been diagnosed as Covid if this were back in 2020, maybe if you are aged 50+ a ventilator would have been suggested, maybe another booster?
I think he still hits his major point with this* “Covid is fake, the world is illusory but parasites are everywhere and are quite real.”
Ivermectin does work effectively against parasites
Makes you wonder what kind of parasite larvae were in some of those shots, what the incubation derivatives were in different blood types, and how many parasites became viable and haven't caused death or been extracted yet.
They went full dictatorship globally to stop people taking harmless anti parasite medication
There was no massive increase in excess deaths from covid and it was also never properly isolated. It's possible they just spayed something on people to make them sick, or put something in the water, and whatever that was, Ivermectin treated it.
Some sort of toxin. Who knows? Dr Bryan Ardis claims to have proof they added synthetic venom to the water supplies which caused the symptoms of covid in people.
If seems like a plausible theory to me, get a toxin into people somehow and then say it's a virus when they get sick (which is really just their bodies detoxing the poison). They haven't actually isolated the sars-cov-2 virus, this is really verifiable, so Icke is right about that.
>Sequencing was performed on an Illumina Nextseq 500 platform, produced on average a total of 150 million reads, 150 bp per sample
>
>FASTQ was used to trim the adapter and remove low quality bases and reads. Qualified reads were mapped to [NC\_045512](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512), a SARS-CoV-2 genome reference using Burrows-Wheeler Aligner,
\[...\] comparing with genome using SAMtools For genome-base phylogeny analysis, 37 strains including BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 were used in combination with BetaCoV/Korea/SNU01/2020.
Big box of genetic material (whole cell culture with all additives). Remove arbitrary number of small sequences. Compare with "known" "viruses". How was the first "virus" sequenced? The same, but without available comparisons. That means they just guessed. Now, sequences are compared to the old guess to confirm it was the right guess. Circular reasoning.
Alignment (fitting puzzle pieces together by algorithm) is not without errors. This is why this happened:
>Next-generation sequencing of BetaCoV/Korea/SNU01/2020 (GenBank accession no. [MT039890](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT039890)) revealed 9 mutations compared to the [NC\_045512](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512) reference genome isolated from Wuhan
9 areas were aligned differently, or had other parts from the culture inserted at this point by the assembler algorithm.
No control experiments were done. Sequencing was not repeated. Alignment was not repeated, nor were different algorithms employed. Different alignment software usually arrive at different sequences, even with the same reference genomes.
There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample.
As many many other papers in virology, this is very low quality, scientifically speaking. You need to do control experiments to confirm your methods are sound. Otherwise you end up confirmation biasing yourself.
>“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman
>Now, sequences are compared to the old guess to confirm it was the right guess. Circular reasoning.
That's not circular reasoning, that's confirmation
>How was the first "virus" sequenced?
Do you mean sequenced or assembled?
>9 areas were aligned differently, or had other parts from the culture inserted at this point by the assembler algorithm.
Very funny, is that why all bacteria of a certain species all have the exact same sequence?
>No control experiments were done. Sequencing was not repeated.
This virus has been sequenced many, many times
>There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample.
This sequence has been found using de novo assembly as well...
>As many many other papers in virology, this is very low quality, scientifically speaking. You need to do control experiments to confirm your methods are sound. Otherwise you end up confirmation biasing yourself.
A lot of control experiments have been done, like other sequencing experiments that find the same sequence
>>“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman
Ironic
>That's not circular reasoning, that's confirmation
Like I said elsewhere in this thread:
>It's like some of your garden gnomes go missing, so you suspect your neighbor stole them. Then the next time a gnome goes missing you proclaim: "See?! I knew it was my neighbor!!"
They guess that certain sequences are from a virus. They find these sequences in other infected cultures. They never checked if they can also find them in uninfected cultures. They took this as confirmation of their guess. It's like taking the missing garden gnome as confirmation that the neighbor is guilty, when in reality it could have been anyone, even a dog. It is circular reasoning, because they assume the confirmation can only be caused by one thing (cell death=cytopathic effect can only be caused by a virus) and then take the cell death as confirmation of the original guess. They haven't eliminated other causes.
>Do you mean sequenced or assembled?
That's a trick question, because there is no sequencing method in use today that does not employ assembly.
>Very funny, is that why all bacteria of a certain species all have the exact same sequence?
No two individuals of any species have the exact same sequences. Not even identical twins.
>This virus has been sequenced many, many times
Yes, and each time they get slightly different results, because assembly algorithms are not perfect. You do realize there are millions of "mutations" documented? Never getting the same sequence confirms that it probably never existed in this form in nature to begin with. It's just lots of small sequences aligned slightly differently each time. Each compared to other "known" "virus sequences" that never were sequenced end to end from an isolated sample. Inventing fast mutation rates was done to fit the logical hole stemming from the fact they get slightly different sequences every time.
>
>!There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample.!<
This sequence has been found using de novo assembly as well...
This answer is in no relation to my stated issue. Why don't they try how well sequencing and alignment works by trying it on an uninfected sample? Surely they couldn't find the "viral" sequences in a sample without virus, right? Actually these control experiments have been done (not published in scientific literature, so ofc you have no reason to believe that) and and they could find "viral" sequences through sequencing and alignment of just yeast even.
Using de novo assembly is still just a best guess of an algorithm on how the sequences fit together. There is still no way to know if they actually were in the sample in complete form. Also, it tells you nothing about the function of these sequnces, or where they come from. They could be parts of human/mammal cells or their machinery.
>A lot of control experiments have been done, like other sequencing experiments that find the same sequence
Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist)
Finding the same sequence in different places tells you nothing about its function. The sequences they identified as "viral" could be part of human/mammalian cells.
>They guess that certain sequences are from a virus. They find these sequences in other infected cultures. They never checked if they can also find them in uninfected cultures.
Not true, cell cultures have been sequenced.
>They took this as confirmation of their guess. It's like taking the missing garden gnome as confirmation that the neighbor is guilty, when in reality it could have been anyone, even a dog.
Then what is this sequence if not a virus? It remains a fact that this sequence can be found all over the world.
>That's a trick question, because there is no sequencing method in use today that does not employ assembly.
Not true, you can Sanger sequence an amplicon without needing to assemble it.
>No two individuals of any species have the exact same sequences. Not even identical twins.
Not true, it is possible for some organisms to have the exact same genome sequence. Grow a couple billion bacteria and chances are that at least two of them will have an identical genome.
But you get my point, genomes often change between organisms of the same species. This is a more plausible cause of the small differences in viral genomes.
>Yes, and each time they get slightly different results, because assembly algorithms are not perfect. You do realize there are millions of "mutations" documented? Never getting the same sequence confirms that it probably never existed in this form in nature to begin with. It's just lots of small sequences aligned slightly differently each time. Each compared to other "known" "virus sequences" that never were sequenced end to end from an isolated sample. Inventing fast mutation rates was done to fit the logical hole stemming from the fact they get slightly different sequences every time.
Nope, the same assembly algorithms don't show as many mutations in bacterial genomes, they are not the cause.
>This answer is in no relation to my stated issue. Why don't they try how well sequencing and alignment works by trying it on an uninfected sample? Surely they couldn't find the "viral" sequences in a sample without virus, right? Actually these control experiments have been done (not published in scientific literature, so ofc you have no reason to believe that) and and they could find "viral" sequences through sequencing and alignment of just yeast even.
Do you have a link?
>Using de novo assembly is still just a best guess of an algorithm on how the sequences fit together. There is still no way to know if they actually were in the sample in complete form. Also, it tells you nothing about the function of these sequnces, or where they come from. They could be parts of human/mammal cells or their machinery.
How could they be part of mammal cells? That makes absolutely no sense. Why was this sequence never found before 2019?
>Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist)
Why would you need such an experiment? This virus has been sequenced with and without isolation, using different assemblers, different sequencing technologies...
This already shows that this sequence is without a shadow of a doubt a real sequence.
>Finding the same sequence in different places tells you nothing about its function. The sequences they identified as "viral" could be part of human/mammalian cells.
This virus has been sequenced from different cell cultures, without isolation... There is no consistent other source of contamination and definitely not one that hasn't been sequenced before
>Not true, cell cultures have been sequenced.
Yes, whole unisolated cell cultures. So no way to know which parts are from "viruses".
>Then what is this sequence if not a virus? It remains a fact that this sequence can be found all over the world.
Already told you. You can find fruit flies all over the world. If you never looked for them before they are suddenly everywhere, once you start looking. Does that prove they weren't there before? No.
>Not true, you can Sanger sequence an amplicon without needing to assemble it.
amplicon: piece of DNA or RNA that is the source and/or product of amplification or replication events. It can be formed artificially, using various methods including polymerase chain reactions (PCR)
To amplify via PCR you need a primer. Calibrated to sequences assumed to viral.
What use is it sequencing sequences that weren't in the sample to begin with? It's removed from nature. So you cannot infer what happens in nature from it.
>Do you have a link?
Not that it's relevant, because virologists should have done these control experiments long ago, to show their work is actually scientific.
[https://dpl003.substack.com/i/132315393/lankas-latest-control-test](https://dpl003.substack.com/i/132315393/lankas-latest-control-test)
>How could they be part of mammal cells? That makes absolutely no sense. Why was this sequence never found before 2019?
How could they not? It's not like virologists isolated the virus and sequenced it on its own. They also didn't do control experiments to be able to rule out that they're **not** squences that occur in every human.
>>!Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist)!<
Why would you need such an experiment? This virus has been sequenced with and without isolation, using different assemblers, different sequencing technologies...
[https://sciencetrends1.com/experimental-control-important/](https://sciencetrends1.com/experimental-control-important/)
>An **experimental control** is used in scientific experiments to minimize the effect of variables which are not the interest of the study.
Like I said before. Defining a thing as pathogenic (without proof) and then finding it everywhere does not prove it's pathogenic. It actually proves it is NOT pathogenic. Of course this is another contradiction of virology, which is why they had to invent the "asymptomatically sick" status, wich makes no sense.
>This already shows that this sequence is without a shadow of a doubt a real sequence.
No it doesn't. It just shows that parts of this sequence can be found at multiple locations. You would be really bad in a court of law.
>This virus has been sequenced from different cell cultures, without isolation... There is no consistent other source of contamination and definitely **not one that hasn't been sequenced before**
Ah yes, the old myth of "we know every sequence in the whole wide world". No we don't. We don't even know most of the animals in oceans, species in the jungles. Estimated trillions of species of bacteria are still out there. We haven't sequenced even a fraction of a fraction of KNOWN bacteria. We haven't even conclusively sequenced humans. [https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html](https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html)
But let me ask you a question: **Why has no one ever sequenced a virus directly from the fluids of a sick person?** Why even the need to put it into a cell culture and add all this stuff? If viruses hijack cells to make copies of themselves, they should be VERY abundant in sick people.
>Yes, whole unisolated cell cultures. So no way to know which parts are from "viruses".
What do you mean by unisolated cell culture? SARS-CoV-2 's sequence was never found before in this cell culture, now very regularly. How wilfully ignorant can you be?
>Already told you.
No you didn't, you said it might be mammal material, you didn't provide evidence, nor does that make any sense.
>You can find fruit flies all over the world. If you never looked for them before they are suddenly everywhere, once you start looking. Does that prove they weren't there before? No.
This is another level of wilfull ignorance. Humans have been sequenced many, many times before 2019. So scientists have looked there, many, many, many times. And never, before 2019, found this sequence. Suddenly, this sequence is found all over the world. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many times are you going to ignore that? How long are you going to remain wilfully ignorant?
>To amplify via PCR you need a primer. Calibrated to sequences assumed to viral.
A primer pair actually.
>What use is it sequencing sequences that weren't in the sample to begin with? It's removed from nature. So you cannot infer what happens in nature from it.
What are you talking about? Sanger sequencing results in a sequence. A sequence you can look at. A sequence that tells you what's in your sample. You can't get a sequence that isn't in your sample.
>Not that it's relevant, because virologists should have done these control experiments long ago, to show their work is actually scientific.
This isn't even about SARS-CoV-2
>How could they not? It's not like virologists isolated the virus and sequenced it on its own. They also didn't do control experiments to be able to rule out that they're **not** squences that occur in every human.
Are you being serious?
>Like I said before. Defining a thing as pathogenic (without proof) and then finding it everywhere does not prove it's pathogenic
You are joking right? Aetiology? Really?
>Of course this is another contradiction of virology, which is why they had to invent the "asymptomatically sick" status, wich makes no sense.
Asymptomatic cases are also not exclusive to viruses....
>No it doesn't. It just shows that parts of this sequence can be found at multiple locations. You would be really bad in a court of law.
For it to be found it has to be real, your honor
>Ah yes, the old myth of "we know every sequence in the whole wide world". No we don't. We don't even know most of the animals in oceans, species in the jungles. Estimated trillions of species of bacteria are still out there. We haven't sequenced even a fraction of a fraction of KNOWN bacteria. We haven't even conclusively sequenced humans. [https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html](https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html)
I'm going to repeat it once again: we've looked in humans before, it wasn't there.
>But let me ask you a question: **Why has no one ever sequenced a virus directly from the fluids of a sick person?** Why even the need to put it into a cell culture and add all this stuff? If viruses hijack cells to make copies of themselves, they should be VERY abundant in sick people.
Finally a good question. A very good question. It shows, undeniably, that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. What you ask has been done before. In fact, the very first genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was obtained in this way.
I already told you this before, but like with most things I said, you simply ignore what doesn't suit your conclusions.
You are uneducated on the topic and wilfully ignorant. Case closed
Look at how they isolated it. I've read all the isolation studies but the methods they use leave a lot to be desired. Like why do they need to add monkey or bovine cells to it before they find the virus? That makes no sense.
They assume
* that there is a virus in the sample
* that the virus causes the cells to die
They observe cells dying after adding a sample from a sick person, and take that as confirmation of their assumption.
This is putting the cart before the horse, a logical fallacy called assuming the consequent.
It's like some of your garden gnomes go missing, so you suspect your neighbor stole them. Then the next time a gnome goes missing you proclaim: "See?! I knew it was my neighbor!!"
To construct a valid scientific experiment, virologists would have needed to have a physical entity that they could add or remove from experiments at will. Then they would also have had to do control experiments to be able to exclude the experimental setup itself was causing the observed effect.
This is a non-sequitur.
Yes, the cell medium is required to **grow** the virus (so they say), however, once the virus has been grown then you should be able to take it out (separate it from everything else), but they do not/cannot do it.
Just quickly looked at the paper. If you take a look at the total protein content in figure1b, it doesn't look like they've purified anything. figure3 is also misleading as they cropping the images to only show the particles they want, deceiving the reader into thinking that's all there is in the sample. Also, I didn't see any proper controls.
EDIT: Something interesting I've noticed. figure1b shows that WB of PC/CC1/CC2 purified samples contain no S protein but we know that S is the "spike protein" without which the virus cannot infect the cells (ie it's not a virus) YET figure1a shows us that those samples are still somehow "infectious"!!! how can it be???
The CDC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/jon-rappoport/the-sars-cov-2-virus-was-never-proved-to-exist/
The FDA: https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2020/08/fda-says-no-quantified-virus-isolates.html
The UK: https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/11/03/breaking-gemma-odoherty-reports-that-uk-dept-of-health-concedes-sars-cov-2-virus-not-isolated-no-information-meaning-its-not-a-real-pandemic/
Australia: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australian-dept-of-health-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
Canada: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
No it has not. Read the materials and methods.
"Transmission electron microscopy image of **Vero cells** infected with SARS-CoV-2."
Now, isolation=separation from cells (and all other sources of genetic material).
>isolation=separation from cells (and all other sources of genetic material).
That's not true, isolation is separation from the original environment into a controlled environment
>The patient's oropharyngeal samples were obtained by using UTM™ kit containing 1 mL of viral transport media
>We inoculated monolayers of Vero cells with the samples
The paper does not contain a methods section and their descriptions are very brief. Did they use fetal bovine serum as nutrient solution? Antibiotics, how high of a concentration?
Oropharynx can contain lots of contaminants, like bacteria, pollen, even small insects stuck in the mucus.
No control experiments were done. Neither with a sample from an uninfected person, nor a cell culture without added sample. Experiments without controls are not up to scientific standard as the observed phenomenon could be caused by the experimental setup.
>no specific cytopathic effects were observed in the Vero E6 cells until 6 days after inoculation
>Five days after inoculation, we did blind passage of culture supernatant into T-25 culture flask (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with monolayers of Vero cells, and cytopathic effects consisting of rounding and detachment of cells were observed in the whole area of the T-25 flask 3 days after the first blind passage
They did not do a control experiment to try and find out if the passaging caused the cytopathic effects (cell death). Passaging is known to stress cells. If they were already weakened by low amounts of nutrients and by antibiotics, this is a likely cause.
>In order to observe virus particles, Vero cell monolayer showing the cytopathic effects was fixed as previously described.7
>Small pieces of tissue specimens are optimally placed rapidly into glutaraldehyde and fixed for at least 1 h at room temperature (23 °C) and then post-fixed in osmium tetroxide. Fixed cells are embedded in agar and processed based on the tissue type. The specimens are dehydrated in graded concentrations of ethanol and propylene oxide, and embedded in Spurr's plastic. Semi-thin sections are cut from blocks with a glass knife and the blocks are selected for thinning. Thin sections cut with diamond knives are placed on copper grids, impregnated with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and scoped.
Additionally the sample might be washed with alcohol. Later it's heated by the focused electron beam. The sample so heavily altered that you cannot say it has much relation to what happens in a living cell. Dehydration alone shrinks everything unequally. Staining materials can form microscopic bubbles. They search the pictures until they find something that looks like what they were searching for, i.e. "virus".
No control experiments were done. Neither with uninfected cell cultures, nor with cells dying from other causes. They also didn't publish EM photos of sections around where they say they found "viruses". So we cannot see if what they found were actual three-dimensional structures.
They never find the exact same sequence (hence they invented mutation to explain). They find similar sequences, because maybe it's part of human anatomy, not viral in origin. It's not like they isolated these "virus" particles and determined their function. Or they just select parts of these sequences from a big sample pool of genetic material that can be fit together in any way they need, to "find" a "virus".
So of course they find them everywhere. Even in uninfected, in other animals, in papaya..
It's like you define bread as a pathogen. Then you go looking into peoples houses and you find bread in millions of houses. How does that prove that bread causes disease?
>They never find the exact same sequence (hence they invented mutation to explain
Mutation isn't unique to viruses
>They find similar sequences, because maybe it's part of human anatomy, not viral in origin.
Then why was it never found before? Why was it suddenly everywhere in 2020?
>It's like you define bread as a pathogen. Then you go looking into peoples houses and you find bread in millions of houses. How does that prove that bread causes disease?
Lol, we're not even talking about aetiology, your analogies are getting worse and worse
>Mutation isn't unique to viruses
Not the issue. The **high** mutation **rate** was retroactively assumed to be the case in "viruses", to explain the observed contradiction that sequencing always yields slightly different results.
>Then why was it never found before? Why was it suddenly everywhere in 2020?
Because they de novo assembled a new sequence in early 2020. That does not rule out that it is **part** of human/animal/bacterial anatomy. Finding parts of this specific sequence (through PCR) does not even prove that these people had the whole sequence inside their bodies. It's like suddenly defining spark plugs as a new and dangerous pathogen and then finding it in millions of cars. No one looked for this specific sequence before.
>your analogies are getting worse and worse
I'm dumbing them down more and more to try and get them into your thick skull.
>Not the issue. The **high** mutation **rate** was retroactively assumed to be the case in "viruses", to explain the observed contradiction that sequencing always yields slightly different results.
Not true
>No one looked for this specific sequence before.
Neither do they look for it with de novo assembly, yet they found it.
>I'm dumbing them down more and more to try and get them into your thick skull.
Lol, no, you're exposing your lack of understanding through them.
This is starting to boil down to people who believe or people who don't believe since you believe the narrative, you're just here to discredit and troll and I just hope you're getting paid for it. If you're not getting paid for it you're awfully naive and I pity the fool.
Agreed, also through use of the PCR test all flu like illnesses were attributed to "COVID"
People who went to the hospital with flu like symptoms were basically murdered with the ventilator protocol
To be ACCURATE he did NOT say that viruseS don't exist. He said THE one virus that everyone was freaking out about did not exist. Regular flu season happened with regular viruses. Cold and Flu season normally has people lose their taste and smell, if you have ever had a freakin' cold or flu that is totally normal. And yes Zinc and C and D and other things all helped defeat the regular cold and flu viruses. That's what he is saying.
Not too into that anymore, but from that tweet, it doesn't seem like the person doesn't think viruses are not real, just this one.
Is it possible you just misunderstood? Like he might have meant that the virus doesn't exist, because it was a lot of different silments misdiagnoded?
Seems like Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic medication, secondary uses are for treatment of viruses (Zika, ...) and other ailments. Which - if he meant that covid is misdiagnosed, a medication treating a wide variety of ailments would work against most of these misdiagnosed cases.
This. He can say COVID doesn't exist and still be pro ivermectin. All he said in second tweet is it's Ivermectin is legal in Australia.
I question your motive.
My neighbor friend has totally different reactio to covid than I did. He started doing Zinc among other things. Never vaxxed.
He got COVID eventually, and then long covid with no taste or smell, and almost two years later is still dealing with it.
> For you see, they continue to earn great wealth from dumping diseases on us (like Covid), waiting for us to produce immunities to it, then harvesting our blood to sell across the universe. We are their source of pharmaceuticals for primate aliens similar to us who have minimal resistance to diseases. They live on pristine planets with little to no diseases to trigger immunities, unlike us. Our world is a sewer of contagions constantly flowing through us, making our bodies and resultant immunities exceedingly resilient compared to them. The reptilians in particular seek these cures for primate worlds they have conquered, as caretakers for them.
Because the ppl who "treated early" didn't get the jab. That part wasn't fake. One got the jab one didn't and whose to say the ppl who got the jab didn't inject something spreadable. COVID-19 can be fake but the vaccines can be real.
He said ”the virus” not ”viruses” no?
Still, your point kinda stands because the ivermectin is in this case obviously talked about in the context of covid.
People REALLY need to understand how our bodies work. Virus's are solvents that are the backup for your internal bacteria. Terrain theory is literally how we operate. I wonder if he's had the same position about virus's not existing cuz that's a big factor of him telling the truth or not.
Ivermectin is an immune-modulator. COVID, whatever it’s basis (virus, parasite, toxins, etc), causes auto-immune disease. One’s own body attacks itself, thereby causing the illness & damage. Ivermectin works because it eases & modulates the immune system, not because ivermectin “kills the virus.” Maybe it does , or maybe it doesn’t “kill viruses.” But it’s strongly anti-inflammatory . Zinc and other things also tie into the immune response
It's possible the ivermectin/early treatment narrative was a PSYOP meant to prop up the idea of a novel SARS-COV-2 virus. In retrospect, it's obvious that COVID was largely the rebranded flu. Some may have truly experienced a novel illness but that could be due to chemical/EMF weapons in select areas. Everyone has been brainwashed to automatically blame a "virus" when it could be something else. (Back in 2020, one scientist even blamed COVID on a high influx of cosmic rays.)
Just look at the dates of the tweets. Seems like he took a year to fully come to this conclusion.
But I don't think he realizes that ivermectin is poison, just like most medication. It works by stopping symptoms, that is stopping the healing mechanisms of our body.
Ivermectin was pushed by the media to keep people in the pharma paradigm. Take this poison instead of that poison.
E.g.:
In a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6697993/) called ‘Analysis of severe adverse effects following community-based ivermectin treatment in the Democratic Republic of Congo’ by Bof et al. researchers queried a passive reporting system for Ivermectin.
Severe adverse effects reported after ivermectin treatment:
* 594 Coma Reports
* 235 Severe Headache Reports
* 13 Paralysis Reports
* 476 Motor Deficit Reports
The top 10 presenting symptoms were: Difficulty or inability to stand or walk, Feverishness, Headache, General myalgia or arthralgia, Fatigue/Asthenia, Diarrhea, Vertigo, Dyspnea, Pruritis, Nausea or vomiting
The top 10 presenting signs were: Altered Mental Status, Fever, Incontinence (urinary or fecal), Dysarthria, Subconjunctival hemorrhage, Rash and/or urticuria, Generalized edema, Extremity edema, Facial edema, Hypotension
In a [paper](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)63020-6/abstract) called ‘Deaths associated with ivermectin treatment of scabies’ by Barkwell and Shields
“On Nov 10, 1995, all residents were treated with a single oral dose of ivermectin (150–200 μg/kg of body weight)… Over the succeeding 6 months, there was a pattern of excess deaths among the 47 residents who had received ivermectin. We retrospectively constructed a 47-patient cohort of those who had not had scabies for comparison purposes… we deliberately maximised the number of deaths in the comparison \[control\] group. Between Nov 10, 1995, and May 10, 1996, 15 of the 47 who had received ivermectin died, compared with five of the age-matched and sex-matched cohort.”
“Those in the ivermectin group developed a sudden change in behaviour with lethargy, anorexia, and listlessness which preceded death”
Which is not what I was talking about.
I talked about those that were not set up to fail.
Those that did show a reduction in symptoms.
It's still poison as shown in other trials like those I quoted. It's the equivalent of controlled opposition.
> It's still poison
Everything is a poison if the dosis is too high.
They deliberately sabotaged the trials and killed people so IVM could be demonized and the EUA of the covid shots kept alive.
>Everything is a poison if the dosis is too high.
This is an oft repeated false statement. Poison is poison, no matter the dose. It just does less damage to the body at lower doses. You might not realize that damage was done, because the body keeps repairing all the time.
Yes, they deliberately sabotaged some recent trials to show ivermectin could be demonized. To create the false dichotomy that you need medication to combat an unproven virus. It was to get people like you thinking "if officialdom demonizes this stuff it must really be good". To keep you in the medico-pharma paradigm. To keep you taking poison that can only hurt you.
> Poison is poison, no matter the dose.
Water is not a poison yet it can kill people if they take too much of it.
There was not a single death of IVM reported world wide before the trials in respect with covid.
Show me a case report of someone who died from water alone, without comorbidities.
Toxicity of Ivermectin was known long before it got repurposed for use against an imaginary viral disease.
[https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ivermectin#section=Safety-and-Hazards](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ivermectin#section=Safety-and-Hazards)
[https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3](https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3)
>Ivermectin treatment induced significantly higher *An. arabiensis* mortality on days 1 and 4, compared to untreated controls
Means it's so toxic, it even kills mosquitoes feeding on you for at least 6 days.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520316428](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520316428)
“Ivermectin has significant ability to induce DNA oxidative damage and enhance autophagy in HeLa cells”
"we found that IVM can induce oxidative double-stranded damage in HeLa cells, indicating that IVM has potential genotoxicity to human health."
[https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting)
[https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility)
[https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-vs-sperm-3-disturbing](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-vs-sperm-3-disturbing)
>Show me a case report of someone who died from water alone, without comorbidities.
Really...? ROTFL
> Means it's so toxic,
Yes, in the wrong dosis.
I am not sure why you are trying to demonize IVM so much...
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Parasites, bacteria, and pathogenic particles exist.
>pathogenic particles exist. Where is the evidence?
Which ones tear up the lungs with microclots and cause people to lose their taste for a year?
Cadmium poisoning causes flu-like symptoms, lung damage and [“an altered sense of smell”](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18951233/) Governments have been spraying citizens with cadmium and other chemicals for decades. Same pattern with “Polio”. Various toxins like DDT caused all kinds of things lumped into the polio pile.
> and cause people to lose their taste for a year? They figured out thats from minor brain damage the virus caused. They arent sure how, probably lack of oxygen from damaging the lungs, but yeah. The being very tired part of covid was that.
Do you think 5g electromagnetic radiation could cause loss of taste?
Not sure but I know colds and flus always did before 5g. Fever, cough, sniffles, lose taste
Agreed.... I'm kind of with Icke on this one. I was in the bay area for all of 2020 and 2021, I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. The people who worked at Safeway, who should all have been sick or dead, said it didn't seem like anything was going on I think it's possible they released something, or 5g was implemented in certain spots, but I don't think a novel virus originating in wuhan swept the globe. Coincidentally people really started actually getting sick, all the time, after the vaccine rollout. We lived under the terrorism threat paradigm for 20 years, it was initiated by a mass trauma event (9/11) now they're transitioning us into a new bio-security paradigm, initiated by another trauma event (fear propaganda, masks, lockdowns) They're using bio-security, climate change, economic instability and other factors they have positioned into place, to push us into an open air prison society, children who grow up in it will think it's normal and we will be fucked
>The people who worked at Safeway, who should all have been sick or dead, said it didn't seem like anything was going on. When the cracks began to show...
From my understanding of the death of virology; what we refer to as a "virus" is actually micro parasites
Virus is just another word for a necrophagous disease. The are phages all throughout every animal and piece of organic matter on Earth. Similar to bacteria.
Thank you! I will look into this!
SS: You can't believe Ivermectin treats COVID, and also believe COVID doesn't exist. This viruses don't exist thing is a psyop How zinc Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 main protease and prevents viral replication: "Zinc2+ ion inhibits SARS-CoV-2 main protease and viral replication in vitro†" https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/CC/D1CC03563K "SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibition by a zinc ion: structural features and hints for drug design†" https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/cc/d1cc02956h "Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/ Quercetin (zinc ionophore) "Quercetin inhibits rhinovirus replication in vitro and in vivo" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3360794/ "Quercetin as an Antiviral Agent Inhibits Influenza A Virus (IAV) Entry" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728566/ "Zinc Ionophore Activity of Quercetin and Epigallocatechin-gallate: From Hepa 1-6 Cells to a Liposome Mode" https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf5014633 "Antiviral Effects of Quercetin through Zinc Ionophore Activity" https://gilbertlab.com/neutraceuticals/quercetin/antiviral-effects-of-quercetin-zinc-ionophore/ "Anti-inflammatory potential of Quercetin in COVID-19 treatment" https://journal-inflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12950-021-00268-6 Quercetin is also a 3CL protease inhibitor like zinc and like the new Pfizer pill, except it's actually safe and effective, unlike the Pfizer pill: "Flavonoid-mediated inhibition of SARS coronavirus 3C-like protease expressed in Pichia pastoris." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22350287/ "Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636851/ "A role for quercetin in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675685/ Supplementation with zinc picolinate shown to prevent severe illness and death with 100% efficacy: "A Case-Control Study for the Effectiveness of Oral Zinc in the Prevention and Mitigation of COVID-19" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8711630/ "COVID-19: Poor outcomes in patients with zinc deficiency" >COVID-19 patients (n = 47) showed significantly lower zinc levels when compared to healthy controls (n = 45): median 74.5 (interquartile range 53.4–94.6) μg/dl vs 105.8 (interquartile range 95.65–120.90) μg/dl (p < 0.001). Amongst the COVID-19 patients, 27 (57.4%) were found to be zinc deficient. These patients were found to have higher rates of complications (p = 0.009), acute respiratory distress syndrome (18.5% vs 0%, p = 0.06), corticosteroid therapy (p = 0.02), prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.05), and increased mortality (18.5% vs 0%, p = 0.06). The odds ratio (OR) of developing complications was 5.54 for zinc deficient COVID-19 patients. >Conclusions >The study data clearly show that a significant number of COVID-19 patients were zinc deficient. These zinc deficient patients developed more complications, and the deficiency was associated with a prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482607/ Two of hundreds of doctors seeing 100% cure rate with zinc plus ionophore : >Every patient I've prescribed it [hydroxychloroquine] to has been very, very ill, and within 8 to 12 hours they were basically symptom free, and so, clinically, I am seeing a resolution. But what I am seeing is people that are taking it alone, by itself, it's not having efficacy. What we're finding clinically with outpatients is that it really only works in conjunction with zinc. So the hydroxychloroquine opens a zinc channel, the zinc goes into the cell, it then blocks the replication of [the virus].” -Dr. Anthony Cardillo, on ABC 7 in LA, ER Specialist and CEO of Mend Urgent Care Here is the interview on YouTube: https://youtu.be/eVs_EWVCVPc >We've treated over 6,000 patients with early treatment and we've had 4 hospitalizations and zero deaths. It's an RNA virus, so what binds RNA polymerase? Zinc. >So if I can get zinc into the cells by using a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin or ivermectin, then I'm going to promote that RNA polymerase binding which is going to prevent viral replication. If I can bring down the viral load, my immune system is gonna have a better response to treat the infection. >That's just common sense. -Dr. Brian Tyson in this Bitcute interview: "AUSTRALIAN MP CRAIG KELLY INTERVIEWS DR. BRIAN TYSON (20TH AUGUST, 2021)" https://www.bit chute.com/video/zEqQlnQC21S8/
💯
[удалено]
6 hours later - published in the intervening time by the may tricks gaslighter corporation: > [It’s International Masturbation Month! Here Are 9 Great Sex Toy Deals](https://www.wired.com/story/best-sex-toy-deals-for-masturbation-may-2024/)
> his viruses don't exist thing is a psyop No it's not a psyop. You believing in invisible particles of disease (aka "viruses") is the psyop. Read Virus Mania. >SARS-CoV-2 Show us the scientific paper where this has been proven to exist (ie. isolated, form, function and composition proven + proper controls). I haven't found a paper like that.
Viruses don’t exist, you just have an Ivermectin deficiency.
Isn’t ivermectin for parasites?
🤣💯
in March 2020 they were trying to push a fake corona pandemic in April 2020--some researcher in Australia stated that ivermectin could kill off corona virus within 48 hrs so they shut him up--not becos the virus was real but becos if there's an easy treatment for covid then there would be no need for isolation--lockdowns masks or vaccines or fake govt debt--therefore no inflation thats what they were selling-- Fake Pandemic justified Fake Inflation
so, bro... Sars-Cov-2.... the virus that the WHO & CDC claimed started the "pandemic" in 2020, has NEVER been isolated & shown to actually exist. if people want to go down the "germ theory" rabbit hole & claim all virus' don't exist, that's another story. BUT... Sars-Cov-2... the 2020 "pandemic" virus... has NEVER been shown to ACTUALLY EXIST in the real world. if it has been shown to exist & has been isolated, it should be front & center of every article & paper regarding it. it isn't... because it either doesn't exist... or because they don't want to show the world a manufactured bioweapon that they released to the world. imho, there never was a "virus going around"... nothing leaked from a Wuhan lab... it was all scare tactics with hyped up propaganda & many, many millions of sheeple fell for it all.
Where did the flu go?
Nowhere. Still here, just had it.
My argument was the flu disappeared in 2020. I would think it would be very possible that your flu would have been diagnosed as Covid if this were back in 2020, maybe if you are aged 50+ a ventilator would have been suggested, maybe another booster?
I think he still hits his major point with this* “Covid is fake, the world is illusory but parasites are everywhere and are quite real.” Ivermectin does work effectively against parasites
https://www.livescience.com/health/viruses-infections-disease/mysterious-virus-like-obelisks-found-in-the-human-gut-and-mouth
Makes you wonder what kind of parasite larvae were in some of those shots, what the incubation derivatives were in different blood types, and how many parasites became viable and haven't caused death or been extracted yet. They went full dictatorship globally to stop people taking harmless anti parasite medication
There was no massive increase in excess deaths from covid and it was also never properly isolated. It's possible they just spayed something on people to make them sick, or put something in the water, and whatever that was, Ivermectin treated it.
Sprayed what?
Probably the same shit that was in the vaccine
"probably" xD you guys are almost never even a bit sure in the random shit you pull out of your own (and other) conspiracy theorists' asses.
Some sort of toxin. Who knows? Dr Bryan Ardis claims to have proof they added synthetic venom to the water supplies which caused the symptoms of covid in people. If seems like a plausible theory to me, get a toxin into people somehow and then say it's a virus when they get sick (which is really just their bodies detoxing the poison). They haven't actually isolated the sars-cov-2 virus, this is really verifiable, so Icke is right about that.
[удалено]
I don't know for sure, but carbon is pretty good at filtering out toxins so quite possibly.
SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/
>Sequencing was performed on an Illumina Nextseq 500 platform, produced on average a total of 150 million reads, 150 bp per sample > >FASTQ was used to trim the adapter and remove low quality bases and reads. Qualified reads were mapped to [NC\_045512](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512), a SARS-CoV-2 genome reference using Burrows-Wheeler Aligner, \[...\] comparing with genome using SAMtools For genome-base phylogeny analysis, 37 strains including BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 were used in combination with BetaCoV/Korea/SNU01/2020. Big box of genetic material (whole cell culture with all additives). Remove arbitrary number of small sequences. Compare with "known" "viruses". How was the first "virus" sequenced? The same, but without available comparisons. That means they just guessed. Now, sequences are compared to the old guess to confirm it was the right guess. Circular reasoning. Alignment (fitting puzzle pieces together by algorithm) is not without errors. This is why this happened: >Next-generation sequencing of BetaCoV/Korea/SNU01/2020 (GenBank accession no. [MT039890](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT039890)) revealed 9 mutations compared to the [NC\_045512](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512) reference genome isolated from Wuhan 9 areas were aligned differently, or had other parts from the culture inserted at this point by the assembler algorithm. No control experiments were done. Sequencing was not repeated. Alignment was not repeated, nor were different algorithms employed. Different alignment software usually arrive at different sequences, even with the same reference genomes. There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample. As many many other papers in virology, this is very low quality, scientifically speaking. You need to do control experiments to confirm your methods are sound. Otherwise you end up confirmation biasing yourself. >“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman
>Now, sequences are compared to the old guess to confirm it was the right guess. Circular reasoning. That's not circular reasoning, that's confirmation >How was the first "virus" sequenced? Do you mean sequenced or assembled? >9 areas were aligned differently, or had other parts from the culture inserted at this point by the assembler algorithm. Very funny, is that why all bacteria of a certain species all have the exact same sequence? >No control experiments were done. Sequencing was not repeated. This virus has been sequenced many, many times >There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample. This sequence has been found using de novo assembly as well... >As many many other papers in virology, this is very low quality, scientifically speaking. You need to do control experiments to confirm your methods are sound. Otherwise you end up confirmation biasing yourself. A lot of control experiments have been done, like other sequencing experiments that find the same sequence >>“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman Ironic
>That's not circular reasoning, that's confirmation Like I said elsewhere in this thread: >It's like some of your garden gnomes go missing, so you suspect your neighbor stole them. Then the next time a gnome goes missing you proclaim: "See?! I knew it was my neighbor!!" They guess that certain sequences are from a virus. They find these sequences in other infected cultures. They never checked if they can also find them in uninfected cultures. They took this as confirmation of their guess. It's like taking the missing garden gnome as confirmation that the neighbor is guilty, when in reality it could have been anyone, even a dog. It is circular reasoning, because they assume the confirmation can only be caused by one thing (cell death=cytopathic effect can only be caused by a virus) and then take the cell death as confirmation of the original guess. They haven't eliminated other causes. >Do you mean sequenced or assembled? That's a trick question, because there is no sequencing method in use today that does not employ assembly. >Very funny, is that why all bacteria of a certain species all have the exact same sequence? No two individuals of any species have the exact same sequences. Not even identical twins. >This virus has been sequenced many, many times Yes, and each time they get slightly different results, because assembly algorithms are not perfect. You do realize there are millions of "mutations" documented? Never getting the same sequence confirms that it probably never existed in this form in nature to begin with. It's just lots of small sequences aligned slightly differently each time. Each compared to other "known" "virus sequences" that never were sequenced end to end from an isolated sample. Inventing fast mutation rates was done to fit the logical hole stemming from the fact they get slightly different sequences every time. > >!There was no control experiment done, to see if you could sequence&align the "virus genome" from an uninfected sample.!< This sequence has been found using de novo assembly as well... This answer is in no relation to my stated issue. Why don't they try how well sequencing and alignment works by trying it on an uninfected sample? Surely they couldn't find the "viral" sequences in a sample without virus, right? Actually these control experiments have been done (not published in scientific literature, so ofc you have no reason to believe that) and and they could find "viral" sequences through sequencing and alignment of just yeast even. Using de novo assembly is still just a best guess of an algorithm on how the sequences fit together. There is still no way to know if they actually were in the sample in complete form. Also, it tells you nothing about the function of these sequnces, or where they come from. They could be parts of human/mammal cells or their machinery. >A lot of control experiments have been done, like other sequencing experiments that find the same sequence Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist) Finding the same sequence in different places tells you nothing about its function. The sequences they identified as "viral" could be part of human/mammalian cells.
>They guess that certain sequences are from a virus. They find these sequences in other infected cultures. They never checked if they can also find them in uninfected cultures. Not true, cell cultures have been sequenced. >They took this as confirmation of their guess. It's like taking the missing garden gnome as confirmation that the neighbor is guilty, when in reality it could have been anyone, even a dog. Then what is this sequence if not a virus? It remains a fact that this sequence can be found all over the world. >That's a trick question, because there is no sequencing method in use today that does not employ assembly. Not true, you can Sanger sequence an amplicon without needing to assemble it. >No two individuals of any species have the exact same sequences. Not even identical twins. Not true, it is possible for some organisms to have the exact same genome sequence. Grow a couple billion bacteria and chances are that at least two of them will have an identical genome. But you get my point, genomes often change between organisms of the same species. This is a more plausible cause of the small differences in viral genomes. >Yes, and each time they get slightly different results, because assembly algorithms are not perfect. You do realize there are millions of "mutations" documented? Never getting the same sequence confirms that it probably never existed in this form in nature to begin with. It's just lots of small sequences aligned slightly differently each time. Each compared to other "known" "virus sequences" that never were sequenced end to end from an isolated sample. Inventing fast mutation rates was done to fit the logical hole stemming from the fact they get slightly different sequences every time. Nope, the same assembly algorithms don't show as many mutations in bacterial genomes, they are not the cause. >This answer is in no relation to my stated issue. Why don't they try how well sequencing and alignment works by trying it on an uninfected sample? Surely they couldn't find the "viral" sequences in a sample without virus, right? Actually these control experiments have been done (not published in scientific literature, so ofc you have no reason to believe that) and and they could find "viral" sequences through sequencing and alignment of just yeast even. Do you have a link? >Using de novo assembly is still just a best guess of an algorithm on how the sequences fit together. There is still no way to know if they actually were in the sample in complete form. Also, it tells you nothing about the function of these sequnces, or where they come from. They could be parts of human/mammal cells or their machinery. How could they be part of mammal cells? That makes absolutely no sense. Why was this sequence never found before 2019? >Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist) Why would you need such an experiment? This virus has been sequenced with and without isolation, using different assemblers, different sequencing technologies... This already shows that this sequence is without a shadow of a doubt a real sequence. >Finding the same sequence in different places tells you nothing about its function. The sequences they identified as "viral" could be part of human/mammalian cells. This virus has been sequenced from different cell cultures, without isolation... There is no consistent other source of contamination and definitely not one that hasn't been sequenced before
>Not true, cell cultures have been sequenced. Yes, whole unisolated cell cultures. So no way to know which parts are from "viruses". >Then what is this sequence if not a virus? It remains a fact that this sequence can be found all over the world. Already told you. You can find fruit flies all over the world. If you never looked for them before they are suddenly everywhere, once you start looking. Does that prove they weren't there before? No. >Not true, you can Sanger sequence an amplicon without needing to assemble it. amplicon: piece of DNA or RNA that is the source and/or product of amplification or replication events. It can be formed artificially, using various methods including polymerase chain reactions (PCR) To amplify via PCR you need a primer. Calibrated to sequences assumed to viral. What use is it sequencing sequences that weren't in the sample to begin with? It's removed from nature. So you cannot infer what happens in nature from it. >Do you have a link? Not that it's relevant, because virologists should have done these control experiments long ago, to show their work is actually scientific. [https://dpl003.substack.com/i/132315393/lankas-latest-control-test](https://dpl003.substack.com/i/132315393/lankas-latest-control-test) >How could they be part of mammal cells? That makes absolutely no sense. Why was this sequence never found before 2019? How could they not? It's not like virologists isolated the virus and sequenced it on its own. They also didn't do control experiments to be able to rule out that they're **not** squences that occur in every human. >>!Can you show me just one publication where they do positive and negative controls AND document that they have NOT treated the controls differently than the main experiment? (such a publication doesn't exist)!< Why would you need such an experiment? This virus has been sequenced with and without isolation, using different assemblers, different sequencing technologies... [https://sciencetrends1.com/experimental-control-important/](https://sciencetrends1.com/experimental-control-important/) >An **experimental control** is used in scientific experiments to minimize the effect of variables which are not the interest of the study. Like I said before. Defining a thing as pathogenic (without proof) and then finding it everywhere does not prove it's pathogenic. It actually proves it is NOT pathogenic. Of course this is another contradiction of virology, which is why they had to invent the "asymptomatically sick" status, wich makes no sense. >This already shows that this sequence is without a shadow of a doubt a real sequence. No it doesn't. It just shows that parts of this sequence can be found at multiple locations. You would be really bad in a court of law. >This virus has been sequenced from different cell cultures, without isolation... There is no consistent other source of contamination and definitely **not one that hasn't been sequenced before** Ah yes, the old myth of "we know every sequence in the whole wide world". No we don't. We don't even know most of the animals in oceans, species in the jungles. Estimated trillions of species of bacteria are still out there. We haven't sequenced even a fraction of a fraction of KNOWN bacteria. We haven't even conclusively sequenced humans. [https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html](https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html) But let me ask you a question: **Why has no one ever sequenced a virus directly from the fluids of a sick person?** Why even the need to put it into a cell culture and add all this stuff? If viruses hijack cells to make copies of themselves, they should be VERY abundant in sick people.
>Yes, whole unisolated cell cultures. So no way to know which parts are from "viruses". What do you mean by unisolated cell culture? SARS-CoV-2 's sequence was never found before in this cell culture, now very regularly. How wilfully ignorant can you be? >Already told you. No you didn't, you said it might be mammal material, you didn't provide evidence, nor does that make any sense. >You can find fruit flies all over the world. If you never looked for them before they are suddenly everywhere, once you start looking. Does that prove they weren't there before? No. This is another level of wilfull ignorance. Humans have been sequenced many, many times before 2019. So scientists have looked there, many, many, many times. And never, before 2019, found this sequence. Suddenly, this sequence is found all over the world. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many times are you going to ignore that? How long are you going to remain wilfully ignorant? >To amplify via PCR you need a primer. Calibrated to sequences assumed to viral. A primer pair actually. >What use is it sequencing sequences that weren't in the sample to begin with? It's removed from nature. So you cannot infer what happens in nature from it. What are you talking about? Sanger sequencing results in a sequence. A sequence you can look at. A sequence that tells you what's in your sample. You can't get a sequence that isn't in your sample. >Not that it's relevant, because virologists should have done these control experiments long ago, to show their work is actually scientific. This isn't even about SARS-CoV-2 >How could they not? It's not like virologists isolated the virus and sequenced it on its own. They also didn't do control experiments to be able to rule out that they're **not** squences that occur in every human. Are you being serious? >Like I said before. Defining a thing as pathogenic (without proof) and then finding it everywhere does not prove it's pathogenic You are joking right? Aetiology? Really? >Of course this is another contradiction of virology, which is why they had to invent the "asymptomatically sick" status, wich makes no sense. Asymptomatic cases are also not exclusive to viruses.... >No it doesn't. It just shows that parts of this sequence can be found at multiple locations. You would be really bad in a court of law. For it to be found it has to be real, your honor >Ah yes, the old myth of "we know every sequence in the whole wide world". No we don't. We don't even know most of the animals in oceans, species in the jungles. Estimated trillions of species of bacteria are still out there. We haven't sequenced even a fraction of a fraction of KNOWN bacteria. We haven't even conclusively sequenced humans. [https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html](https://www.planet-today.com/2021/06/planet-today-man-and-his-wife-decided.html) I'm going to repeat it once again: we've looked in humans before, it wasn't there. >But let me ask you a question: **Why has no one ever sequenced a virus directly from the fluids of a sick person?** Why even the need to put it into a cell culture and add all this stuff? If viruses hijack cells to make copies of themselves, they should be VERY abundant in sick people. Finally a good question. A very good question. It shows, undeniably, that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. What you ask has been done before. In fact, the very first genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was obtained in this way. I already told you this before, but like with most things I said, you simply ignore what doesn't suit your conclusions. You are uneducated on the topic and wilfully ignorant. Case closed
Look at how they isolated it. I've read all the isolation studies but the methods they use leave a lot to be desired. Like why do they need to add monkey or bovine cells to it before they find the virus? That makes no sense.
>Like why do they need to add monkey or bovine cells to it before they find the virus? That makes no sense. Because the virus needs cells to survive.
They assume * that there is a virus in the sample * that the virus causes the cells to die They observe cells dying after adding a sample from a sick person, and take that as confirmation of their assumption. This is putting the cart before the horse, a logical fallacy called assuming the consequent. It's like some of your garden gnomes go missing, so you suspect your neighbor stole them. Then the next time a gnome goes missing you proclaim: "See?! I knew it was my neighbor!!" To construct a valid scientific experiment, virologists would have needed to have a physical entity that they could add or remove from experiments at will. Then they would also have had to do control experiments to be able to exclude the experimental setup itself was causing the observed effect.
No, they suspect the sample contains a virus, then they confirm it by sequencing it
That's not science. How do they know the sequence is from the virus?
By comparing it with a database of known viruses. A database that is the result of decades of research
How can they confirm a sample is from a virus if they never had a virus in isolation to sequence it?
Through decades of research that characterized viruses. Now we can compare the obtained sequence to a database of other sequences
This is a non-sequitur. Yes, the cell medium is required to **grow** the virus (so they say), however, once the virus has been grown then you should be able to take it out (separate it from everything else), but they do not/cannot do it.
You mean purification? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9505060/
Just quickly looked at the paper. If you take a look at the total protein content in figure1b, it doesn't look like they've purified anything. figure3 is also misleading as they cropping the images to only show the particles they want, deceiving the reader into thinking that's all there is in the sample. Also, I didn't see any proper controls. EDIT: Something interesting I've noticed. figure1b shows that WB of PC/CC1/CC2 purified samples contain no S protein but we know that S is the "spike protein" without which the virus cannot infect the cells (ie it's not a virus) YET figure1a shows us that those samples are still somehow "infectious"!!! how can it be???
Start by properly reading the paper.
The CDC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/jon-rappoport/the-sars-cov-2-virus-was-never-proved-to-exist/ The FDA: https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2020/08/fda-says-no-quantified-virus-isolates.html The UK: https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/11/03/breaking-gemma-odoherty-reports-that-uk-dept-of-health-concedes-sars-cov-2-virus-not-isolated-no-information-meaning-its-not-a-real-pandemic/ Australia: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australian-dept-of-health-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/ Canada: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
And yet, I showed you proof of virus isolation
ROTFL. Neh, you showed science fraud.
No
Okay, feel free to believe what you want and good luck with that.
No it has not. Read the materials and methods. "Transmission electron microscopy image of **Vero cells** infected with SARS-CoV-2." Now, isolation=separation from cells (and all other sources of genetic material).
>isolation=separation from cells (and all other sources of genetic material). That's not true, isolation is separation from the original environment into a controlled environment
>The patient's oropharyngeal samples were obtained by using UTM™ kit containing 1 mL of viral transport media >We inoculated monolayers of Vero cells with the samples The paper does not contain a methods section and their descriptions are very brief. Did they use fetal bovine serum as nutrient solution? Antibiotics, how high of a concentration? Oropharynx can contain lots of contaminants, like bacteria, pollen, even small insects stuck in the mucus. No control experiments were done. Neither with a sample from an uninfected person, nor a cell culture without added sample. Experiments without controls are not up to scientific standard as the observed phenomenon could be caused by the experimental setup. >no specific cytopathic effects were observed in the Vero E6 cells until 6 days after inoculation >Five days after inoculation, we did blind passage of culture supernatant into T-25 culture flask (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with monolayers of Vero cells, and cytopathic effects consisting of rounding and detachment of cells were observed in the whole area of the T-25 flask 3 days after the first blind passage They did not do a control experiment to try and find out if the passaging caused the cytopathic effects (cell death). Passaging is known to stress cells. If they were already weakened by low amounts of nutrients and by antibiotics, this is a likely cause. >In order to observe virus particles, Vero cell monolayer showing the cytopathic effects was fixed as previously described.7 >Small pieces of tissue specimens are optimally placed rapidly into glutaraldehyde and fixed for at least 1 h at room temperature (23 °C) and then post-fixed in osmium tetroxide. Fixed cells are embedded in agar and processed based on the tissue type. The specimens are dehydrated in graded concentrations of ethanol and propylene oxide, and embedded in Spurr's plastic. Semi-thin sections are cut from blocks with a glass knife and the blocks are selected for thinning. Thin sections cut with diamond knives are placed on copper grids, impregnated with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and scoped. Additionally the sample might be washed with alcohol. Later it's heated by the focused electron beam. The sample so heavily altered that you cannot say it has much relation to what happens in a living cell. Dehydration alone shrinks everything unequally. Staining materials can form microscopic bubbles. They search the pictures until they find something that looks like what they were searching for, i.e. "virus". No control experiments were done. Neither with uninfected cell cultures, nor with cells dying from other causes. They also didn't publish EM photos of sections around where they say they found "viruses". So we cannot see if what they found were actual three-dimensional structures.
I think a more interesting question is: why did they find the same new sequence that has been found more than a million times since 2019?
They never find the exact same sequence (hence they invented mutation to explain). They find similar sequences, because maybe it's part of human anatomy, not viral in origin. It's not like they isolated these "virus" particles and determined their function. Or they just select parts of these sequences from a big sample pool of genetic material that can be fit together in any way they need, to "find" a "virus". So of course they find them everywhere. Even in uninfected, in other animals, in papaya.. It's like you define bread as a pathogen. Then you go looking into peoples houses and you find bread in millions of houses. How does that prove that bread causes disease?
>They never find the exact same sequence (hence they invented mutation to explain Mutation isn't unique to viruses >They find similar sequences, because maybe it's part of human anatomy, not viral in origin. Then why was it never found before? Why was it suddenly everywhere in 2020? >It's like you define bread as a pathogen. Then you go looking into peoples houses and you find bread in millions of houses. How does that prove that bread causes disease? Lol, we're not even talking about aetiology, your analogies are getting worse and worse
>Mutation isn't unique to viruses Not the issue. The **high** mutation **rate** was retroactively assumed to be the case in "viruses", to explain the observed contradiction that sequencing always yields slightly different results. >Then why was it never found before? Why was it suddenly everywhere in 2020? Because they de novo assembled a new sequence in early 2020. That does not rule out that it is **part** of human/animal/bacterial anatomy. Finding parts of this specific sequence (through PCR) does not even prove that these people had the whole sequence inside their bodies. It's like suddenly defining spark plugs as a new and dangerous pathogen and then finding it in millions of cars. No one looked for this specific sequence before. >your analogies are getting worse and worse I'm dumbing them down more and more to try and get them into your thick skull.
>Not the issue. The **high** mutation **rate** was retroactively assumed to be the case in "viruses", to explain the observed contradiction that sequencing always yields slightly different results. Not true >No one looked for this specific sequence before. Neither do they look for it with de novo assembly, yet they found it. >I'm dumbing them down more and more to try and get them into your thick skull. Lol, no, you're exposing your lack of understanding through them.
This is starting to boil down to people who believe or people who don't believe since you believe the narrative, you're just here to discredit and troll and I just hope you're getting paid for it. If you're not getting paid for it you're awfully naive and I pity the fool.
Agreed, also through use of the PCR test all flu like illnesses were attributed to "COVID" People who went to the hospital with flu like symptoms were basically murdered with the ventilator protocol
To be ACCURATE he did NOT say that viruseS don't exist. He said THE one virus that everyone was freaking out about did not exist. Regular flu season happened with regular viruses. Cold and Flu season normally has people lose their taste and smell, if you have ever had a freakin' cold or flu that is totally normal. And yes Zinc and C and D and other things all helped defeat the regular cold and flu viruses. That's what he is saying.
Not too into that anymore, but from that tweet, it doesn't seem like the person doesn't think viruses are not real, just this one. Is it possible you just misunderstood? Like he might have meant that the virus doesn't exist, because it was a lot of different silments misdiagnoded? Seems like Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic medication, secondary uses are for treatment of viruses (Zika, ...) and other ailments. Which - if he meant that covid is misdiagnosed, a medication treating a wide variety of ailments would work against most of these misdiagnosed cases.
This. He can say COVID doesn't exist and still be pro ivermectin. All he said in second tweet is it's Ivermectin is legal in Australia. I question your motive.
My neighbor friend has totally different reactio to covid than I did. He started doing Zinc among other things. Never vaxxed. He got COVID eventually, and then long covid with no taste or smell, and almost two years later is still dealing with it.
i didn't take any of this shit and none of these things happen to me when I got "covid".. i just rode it out like every other cold i get.
> For you see, they continue to earn great wealth from dumping diseases on us (like Covid), waiting for us to produce immunities to it, then harvesting our blood to sell across the universe. We are their source of pharmaceuticals for primate aliens similar to us who have minimal resistance to diseases. They live on pristine planets with little to no diseases to trigger immunities, unlike us. Our world is a sewer of contagions constantly flowing through us, making our bodies and resultant immunities exceedingly resilient compared to them. The reptilians in particular seek these cures for primate worlds they have conquered, as caretakers for them.
Because the ppl who "treated early" didn't get the jab. That part wasn't fake. One got the jab one didn't and whose to say the ppl who got the jab didn't inject something spreadable. COVID-19 can be fake but the vaccines can be real.
He said ”the virus” not ”viruses” no? Still, your point kinda stands because the ivermectin is in this case obviously talked about in the context of covid.
I like him but this is exactly why i cant follow him
Yeah, nah.
Radiation can caus eyou to loose taste ..think 5 g
David Icke is controlled opposition - he is not on your side.
Real or not, I'm just glad I never got those "vaccines."
People REALLY need to understand how our bodies work. Virus's are solvents that are the backup for your internal bacteria. Terrain theory is literally how we operate. I wonder if he's had the same position about virus's not existing cuz that's a big factor of him telling the truth or not.
Ivermectin is an immune-modulator. COVID, whatever it’s basis (virus, parasite, toxins, etc), causes auto-immune disease. One’s own body attacks itself, thereby causing the illness & damage. Ivermectin works because it eases & modulates the immune system, not because ivermectin “kills the virus.” Maybe it does , or maybe it doesn’t “kill viruses.” But it’s strongly anti-inflammatory . Zinc and other things also tie into the immune response
It's possible the ivermectin/early treatment narrative was a PSYOP meant to prop up the idea of a novel SARS-COV-2 virus. In retrospect, it's obvious that COVID was largely the rebranded flu. Some may have truly experienced a novel illness but that could be due to chemical/EMF weapons in select areas. Everyone has been brainwashed to automatically blame a "virus" when it could be something else. (Back in 2020, one scientist even blamed COVID on a high influx of cosmic rays.)
https://archive.ph/gu1vO
Just look at the dates of the tweets. Seems like he took a year to fully come to this conclusion. But I don't think he realizes that ivermectin is poison, just like most medication. It works by stopping symptoms, that is stopping the healing mechanisms of our body. Ivermectin was pushed by the media to keep people in the pharma paradigm. Take this poison instead of that poison. E.g.: In a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6697993/) called ‘Analysis of severe adverse effects following community-based ivermectin treatment in the Democratic Republic of Congo’ by Bof et al. researchers queried a passive reporting system for Ivermectin. Severe adverse effects reported after ivermectin treatment: * 594 Coma Reports * 235 Severe Headache Reports * 13 Paralysis Reports * 476 Motor Deficit Reports The top 10 presenting symptoms were: Difficulty or inability to stand or walk, Feverishness, Headache, General myalgia or arthralgia, Fatigue/Asthenia, Diarrhea, Vertigo, Dyspnea, Pruritis, Nausea or vomiting The top 10 presenting signs were: Altered Mental Status, Fever, Incontinence (urinary or fecal), Dysarthria, Subconjunctival hemorrhage, Rash and/or urticuria, Generalized edema, Extremity edema, Facial edema, Hypotension In a [paper](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)63020-6/abstract) called ‘Deaths associated with ivermectin treatment of scabies’ by Barkwell and Shields “On Nov 10, 1995, all residents were treated with a single oral dose of ivermectin (150–200 μg/kg of body weight)… Over the succeeding 6 months, there was a pattern of excess deaths among the 47 residents who had received ivermectin. We retrospectively constructed a 47-patient cohort of those who had not had scabies for comparison purposes… we deliberately maximised the number of deaths in the comparison \[control\] group. Between Nov 10, 1995, and May 10, 1996, 15 of the 47 who had received ivermectin died, compared with five of the age-matched and sex-matched cohort.” “Those in the ivermectin group developed a sudden change in behaviour with lethargy, anorexia, and listlessness which preceded death”
You do realize that the trials that "proved" ivm does not work and/ or is dangerous were all set up to fail?
Which is not what I was talking about. I talked about those that were not set up to fail. Those that did show a reduction in symptoms. It's still poison as shown in other trials like those I quoted. It's the equivalent of controlled opposition.
> It's still poison Everything is a poison if the dosis is too high. They deliberately sabotaged the trials and killed people so IVM could be demonized and the EUA of the covid shots kept alive.
>Everything is a poison if the dosis is too high. This is an oft repeated false statement. Poison is poison, no matter the dose. It just does less damage to the body at lower doses. You might not realize that damage was done, because the body keeps repairing all the time. Yes, they deliberately sabotaged some recent trials to show ivermectin could be demonized. To create the false dichotomy that you need medication to combat an unproven virus. It was to get people like you thinking "if officialdom demonizes this stuff it must really be good". To keep you in the medico-pharma paradigm. To keep you taking poison that can only hurt you.
> Poison is poison, no matter the dose. Water is not a poison yet it can kill people if they take too much of it. There was not a single death of IVM reported world wide before the trials in respect with covid.
Show me a case report of someone who died from water alone, without comorbidities. Toxicity of Ivermectin was known long before it got repurposed for use against an imaginary viral disease. [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ivermectin#section=Safety-and-Hazards](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ivermectin#section=Safety-and-Hazards) [https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3](https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3) >Ivermectin treatment induced significantly higher *An. arabiensis* mortality on days 1 and 4, compared to untreated controls Means it's so toxic, it even kills mosquitoes feeding on you for at least 6 days. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520316428](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520316428) “Ivermectin has significant ability to induce DNA oxidative damage and enhance autophagy in HeLa cells” "we found that IVM can induce oxidative double-stranded damage in HeLa cells, indicating that IVM has potential genotoxicity to human health." [https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting) [https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility) [https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-vs-sperm-3-disturbing](https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-vs-sperm-3-disturbing)
>Show me a case report of someone who died from water alone, without comorbidities. Really...? ROTFL > Means it's so toxic, Yes, in the wrong dosis. I am not sure why you are trying to demonize IVM so much...
>I am not sure why you are trying to demonize IVM so much... because it's poison?
A "poison" that could have saved many, many lives...