The CORONAVIRUS circus

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Post Reply
Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Nefilimp » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:03 pm

When you are skeptical about this whole Covid affair or you distrust the pharmaceutical industry and you go online to look for answers you'll easily get lost in a web of lies or half-truths. From nanobots to gene-editing to vaccinated people causing harm to non-vaccinated people. With more detailed searching and/or reading of books written by doctors or whistle-blowers they want you to believe that a virus has never been proven to exist (I think they might be right) because the Koch's Postulates are not fulfilled (which is the wrong reason as to why they are right imo). To make the situation a bit more understandable, let me enlighten you about these postulates with the help of a Reuters article with the title;

Fact Check – Koch's postulates do not need to be fulfilled to prove the existence of a virus. https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2L23F1

An article that claims that researchers have not proven that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 uses outdated criteria and presents incomplete facts to make its arguments. The article focuses on how researchers have not fulfilled Koch’s postulates - a 19th-century set of criteria to show a microbe causes a disease - as they were originally understood.

Koch’s postulates were presented in 1890 (here and here), at a time when germ theory was still controversial and before the discovery of viruses, to which Koch’s postulates, as they were originally written, do not apply. Koch himself recognised the postulates had exceptions (here), and they have not been established for many disease-causing microbes. Modern criteria that confirm that a virus causes a disease have been demonstrated for COVID-19.

KOCH’S POSTULATES

The article (here) says: “Koch's postulates are the decisive criteria for the scientific detection of a virus” then gives a list of these postulates in their original form. Postulate One: “The micro-organism must be detectable in all cases of disease with the same symptoms, but not in healthy individuals.”

This postulate was made obsolete even in Koch’s own time as asymptomatic carriers of disease-causing microbes were discovered, prompting Koch to amend or abandon this postulate (here and here and here). Postulate Two: “The microorganism can be transferred from the diseased individual to a pure culture (isolation).”

This is in general understood to mean that the microbe should be able to be grown in something a sterile growth medium. Many types of disease carrying microbes, including types of bacteria, still cannot be grown like this (here and here), however are well established as the cause of diseases. Viruses cannot reproduce themselves, and so cannot be grown at all as a “pure culture” as Koch would have envisioned it, however it is well-established that viruses cause diseases (here and here and here). Postulates three and four also cannot be fulfilled as written if the pure culture of the disease is unavailable.

Postulate Three: “A previously healthy individual, after infection with the micro-organism from the pure culture, shows the same symptoms as the one from which the micro-organism originally originated.”

While purposeful infection of humans with disease has been done historically, this is rare due to ethical concerns. However, the UK clinical trials ethics body last month approved a COVID-19 challenge study, in which healthy young volunteers will be exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a safe and controlled environment (here).

In most cases, the individuals used to fulfil the third postulate tend to be animals. This makes it impossible to fulfil this postulate, and by extension, the fourth postulate, in diseases specific to humans (here). Postulate Four: “The microorganism can be transferred from the infected and diseased individuals back into a pure culture.” While not an original postulate of Koch’s (here), this is essentially a repeat of step two using a different source.

Okay, so far so good. I have to say, this all makes sense to me but there is one thing missing. Once you can not isolate something and give it to a healthy person who then gets the same disease, how then can you claim the virus is the one causing the disease? They can't! They can just tell you that when there is a disease there is a microbe. Compare this with an accident and an ambulance. Is the ambulance the cause of the accident?

After the sentence 'however it is well-established that viruses cause diseases' I clicked on the first link (and after that the other links). It brought me to a paper written by

DAVID N. FREDRICKS1 AND DAVID A. RELMAN https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/9/1/18.full.pdf

Departments of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology, Stanford UniversitySchool of Medicine, Stanford.

In the article they explain the Koch's Postulates and they introduce the Causation Theory. I have included this part but I urge you to read the whole paper because it gives you a better insight to what is said.

CAUSATION THEORY

Koch’s postulates were formulated in an attempt to create guidelines for proving disease causation by microbes, formalizing how we think about the connection between cause and effect in medicine. Can causation be proven through scientific observation or experimentation? Although mathematical relationships can be proven by deductive logic, biological relationships can only be inferred from empirical observations. This type of evidence frequently adopts a statistical form. As Marley and McMichael remind us, causation is not observable: only the events that suggest a link between cause and effect are observable (68). In his Treatise of Human Nature written in 1739 (49), the British philosopher and skeptic David Hume wrote, ‘‘We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects which have always been conjoined together . . . we cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction.’’

From assembled observations are created explanatory theories which are modified as new observations are made. This process is the basis for inductive reasoning (68). Unfortunately, Koch’s postulates have frequently been applied to issues of causation with a mathematical zeal that is not warranted in the biological world. A microbe that fulfills Koch’s postulates is most likely the cause of the disease in question. A microbe that fails to fulfill Koch’s postulates may still represent the etiologic agent of disease or may be a simple commensal. The power of Koch’s postulates comes not from their rigid application but from the spirit of scientific rigor that they foster. The proof of disease causation rests on the concordance of scientific evidence, and Koch’s postulates serve as guidelines for collecting this evidence.

The most important part of that explanation is where they say;

Although mathematical relationships can be proven by deductive logic, biological relationships can only be inferred from empirical observations.

So now you ask; what are empirical observations?

em·pir·i·cal (ĕm-pîr′ĭ-kəl)

adj.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Then it says;

derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory

(Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof.

So to translate it to more understandable language. The Koch's Postulates were formulated to create guidelines to prove disease causation. In the case of most viruses they are only able to meet the first postulate; when person A shows signs of disease, they can find a certain microbe in the body and this they call the virus. Yet, they can't isolate it and transfer it to person B (or animal B) who then gets this disease. Then, to make it more difficult, the same microbe can be found in person C who is completely healthy. Their only proof is through empirical observations that will just show you when disease then microbe.

I can hear you think; so what? My point is that they theorize that a foreign body can enter a body (catching the flu), cause a disease and furthermore, that it is easily transmittable to other persons. Based on that theory they have come up with the idea of giving that supposedly foreign body in a weakened state to a healthy individual so as the body will create antibodies to that microbe and fight it off when transmitted to the person. But... They have not even proven that this microbe is foreign to the body or that it can be transmitted!

So this is what I think is happening, even though I easily admit I am self taught and I don't have any medical background.

The microbes they call viruses are helpers produced by our own bodies when it needs to clean itself from certain toxins. These helpers spread through the body and they work until the body thinks it has dealt sufficiently with the toxins. When the body is weaker due to overall bad health, a vitamin D deficiency due to less sunshine in the winter months or other causes the body starts this cleaning because it senses an emergency. The rise in body temperature helps expel some toxins by sweating, the lack of appetite makes you fast which cleans your body, diarrhea cleanses your intestines, coughing / sneezing expel toxins that are in your mucus. The reason why we have a flu season is completely logical if you look at it this way; in the coldest months of the year people stay mostly inside, less fresh air, vitamin D, less physical exercise and so a lowered immune system that leads to your body cleaning itself and the person being in dis ease. But even though people are more close together in these months, it is not a given that the people nearby will also get sick. A father might get sick whilst the rest of the family is completely fine even though they are in close vicinity of the person that, according to the theory they promote, has a virus that can be easily transferred to the other members of the family. The reason this does not happen is because the bodies of the other person have not reached the threshold where the body starts its cleaning process. Of course, when people around you get sick combined with a fear campaign that is constantly bombarding you with the amount of people sick and dying, it creates an extra strain on your body that is already under a lot of stress. Not only has our food become more and more toxic, the same goes for the air we breath and the water we drink. Then you have the alcohol abuse, the known toxicity of sugar, flavor enhancers etc, the effects of genetically modified food, WiFi / 4G / 5G and so on. So when the news is constantly exaggerating the situation, when they force people to distance and wear facemasks that are not beneficial to your health, it creates stress that can lead to a psychosomatic reaction where a simple cough can be interpreted as impending death.

So to be clear; the scientist have observed that when someone is sick, there is a certain microbe in the body. They then conclude (without real proof, only the causation theory) that this microbe is the cause of the disease AND that it is foreign to the body. Then they observe that more people around that time get sick and thereby conclude that this microbe is transmittable, even though they themselves can not replicate this transmission. The only proof they have is by observing and then they interpret what they see. The reason they follow this logic is because there are certain bigger microbes (like bacteria) that do fulfill all Koch's Postulates whereby the microbe–disease relation is a lot more clear. To be true, also in that case not all persons that are given the microbe get sick. It is because our body has natural defenses against invaders as well as a very smart way of cleaning itself through certain mechanisms we know as a fever, a cough or sneezing. So I am definitely not saying that you can't get a bacterial infection, I am just saying the proof they present for their interpretation of viruses is very weak and that it is unethical to force a population to be injected with an experimental vaccine based upon a theory that just says when A then B so C.

The whole situation reminds me a lot of the cholesterol situation. Simply said they found that people with heart disease in 99 % of the cases had elevated levels of cholesterol, thereby concluding the cholesterol is the reason for the heart disease. The next thing they did was to try to get the levels down by medication (with a whole host of side-effects that need different medications to treat) and avoidance of food products that contain cholesterol. It turned out that cholesterol is your body's own helper that is produced when there is a certain problem, (clogged arteries, overweight etc). It took a long time for the scientist & doctors to admit this is true and still many people and medical personnel believe the myth that low fat diets are healthy when the opposite has shown to be true. Maybe we will reach a time where they will revise the virus theory and come to understand the body has been living with microbes since nature exists. What we have been doing in the last decades is to disturb this balance and co-existence and the results are easily visible. Never in time were there so many people suffering from allergies or other immune deficiencies. Never in time so much diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Never in time did we use as much medication as we do now. Maybe it's time for a change?

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:20 pm

Nefilimp wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:03 pm
Koch’s postulates were presented in 1890 (here and here), at a time when germ theory was still controversial and before the discovery of viruses, to which Koch’s postulates, as they were originally written, do not apply.
Great post...

Indeed, Koch´s postulates for bacteria do not apply to pathogenic viruses, which are expected to meet Rivers' criteria. Since monkey and bovine cells are necessarily used in virus isolation procedures, I don´t know how any alleged virus could pass the test.

Image
Screengrab from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_L-3SQLI-w

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sat May 01, 2021 8:26 am

Dear Nefilimp,

This is indeed an excellent post.

I do have a problem with the paragraph quoted here. I think mainly because of the two bracketed 'here and here' and 'here and here and here) as unfortunately they refer to material which is not available to read.
Is it possible to give us the links, since you say that viruses cannot reproduce themselves and this is a critical issue? (I do not believe that viruses exist, at least as they are portrayed). Neither do 'bacteria', which I believe even in the main-stream literature are regarded as scavengers.

This is in general understood to mean that the microbe should be able to be grown in something a sterile growth medium. Many types of disease carrying microbes, including types of bacteria, still cannot be grown like this (here and here), however are well established as the cause of diseases. Viruses cannot reproduce themselves, and so cannot be grown at all as a “pure culture” as Koch would have envisioned it, however it is well-established that viruses cause diseases (here and here and here). Postulates three and four also cannot be fulfilled as written if the pure culture of the disease is unavailable.
Be well.

Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Nefilimp » Sat May 01, 2021 4:42 pm

Hi Sharpstuff,

Thank you for the compliment. It's how I understand the whole situation now but I'd like to hear the thoughts of you and the other members. About the links, I tried posting them but I can't seem to make it work in a way whereby you click on the word 'here' and you go to the corresponding website or pdf file. If this is not possible, I'll just post the links after the word.

Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Nefilimp » Sat May 01, 2021 4:45 pm

Ah and thanks Flabbergasted! I will dive into Rivers :)

glg
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by glg » Sat May 01, 2021 8:57 pm

Nefilimp wrote:

Ah and thanks Flabbergasted! I will dive into Rivers :)
What's the point? Then afterwards you would need to dive into Heubners ‘‘Bill of Rights for Prevalent Viruses comprising a guarantee against the im- putation of guilt by simple association,’’ and then into Bradford Hill's, Address before the Royal Society of Medicine in 1965 where Hill proposed that one consider nine factors in evaluating a possible causal relationship where as others before him had done, he argued that no set of criteria can provide absolute proof of causation but that guide- lines can, and should, be used to weigh evidence. And then you could move on towards Evans' ‘‘Ele- ments of Immunological Proof of Causation’’ unto to Johnson and Gibbs' or Falkow who necessitated the presence of the gene. Asf. Asf.
But it all ends with a cutsie handshake by the occulted science in question, that Koch must ideed serve as guideline as long as only a few or none of his guidelines are met.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7073
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by simonshack » Sun May 02, 2021 8:40 am

Nefilimp wrote:
Sat May 01, 2021 4:42 pm
About the links, I tried posting them but I can't seem to make it work in a way whereby you click on the word 'here' and you go to the corresponding website or pdf file. If this is not possible, I'll just post the links after the word.
Dear Nefilipm, here's how to do it. Let's say you wish to make a 'here' link to my http://septemberclues.info website.

First click on the "insert URL" tab (in the tab menu at the top of the posting page)
As you click it, what you'll get is this:
[ url ] [ /url ]
Now, paste http://septemberclues.info between the two url tabs.

Lastly, you'll need to insert the 'here' word and a = sign after the first url and move the ] in front of the 'here' word, like this:
[url=http://septemberclues.info/]here[/url]

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun May 02, 2021 4:17 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Sat May 01, 2021 8:26 am
I do not believe that viruses exist, at least as they are portrayed. Neither do 'bacteria', which I believe even in the main-stream literature are regarded as scavengers.
Sharpstuff, I am aware of your perceptions about microorganisms and DNA and agree with some of them, especially when it comes to the role these matters should not be playing in health and society. But in our discussions on the claims of researchers and pathologists, using "the language of the enemy" cannot be wholly avoided. And repeating over and over that "germs do not exist" is a conversation stopper.

Something exists which produces an observable, reproducible and measurable effect. Some not-so-small microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, plankton) are easily seen in a high school lab microscope at 400x magnification. Motile bacteria can actually be seen to "swim". Bacteria form visible colonies and consume substrata, producing an array of substances, some toxic, some smelly. A bacterial colony cultured in a Petri dish can be inhibited with antibiotics in a very simple experiment. This is visible to the naked eye, regardless of how you explain it.

Why should this be a problem? You can give bacteria, fungi and plankton other names, or you can focus on the body as the only relevant determinant of health (I am with you there), but that won´t make those little blighters disappear from under the lens. Plankton may also seem like inappreciable dust to the naked eye, but they fill the stomachs of fishes and whales all right.

Now, when we get beyond a certain level of magnification (like when you move your focus from the Moon to the stars), things become more and more speculative and have to be inferred rather than seen. This is where science moves out on thin ice and gets seriously trapped in wishful thinking and manipulation of the worst sort.

"Viruses" and "DNA" have no relation to microorganisms in the sense described above. I would agree with you that current paradigms about these things are a load of conjecture and fantasy, but I am wise enough to acknowledge that whatever we are dealing with (and should be leaving alone) can produce perceptible and predictable effects. It is not a question of all or nothing. An alternativism of "no germs vs. all germs". The puzzle is a bit more complex than that, and that´s why the debate is still raging.

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun May 02, 2021 10:31 pm

Speaking of the evasive nature of "viruses", Samuel Eckert is offering € 1.5 million to anyone providing scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control attempts of all steps taken in the proof.

https://www.samueleckert.net/isolat-truth-fund/
Virologists inadvertently kill cells in test tubes, believing that this is proof of the presence and isolation of a virus. Only from fragments of dying cells do virologists mentally construct a gene sequence and pass it off as fact. Therefore, the test procedures do not offer any significance or meaning. Typical structures of dying cells in the electron microscope are passed off as viruses.
Most of the site is in German, but it´s easily machine-translated.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by sharpstuff » Mon May 03, 2021 7:12 am

Quote:
sharpstuff wrote: ↑
Sat May 01, 2021 8:26 am
I do not believe that viruses exist, at least as they are portrayed. Neither do 'bacteria', which I believe even in the main-stream literature are regarded as scavengers.
Flabbergasted wrote:

Quote:
Sharpstuff, I am aware of your perceptions about microorganisms and DNA and agree with some of them, especially when it comes to the role these matters should not be playing in health and society. But in our discussions on the claims of researchers and pathologists, using "the language of the enemy" cannot be wholly avoided. And repeating over and over that "germs do not exist" is a conversation stopper.

Something exists which produces an observable, reproducible and measurable effect. Some not-so-small microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, plankton) are easily seen in a high school lab microscope at 400x magnification. Motile bacteria can actually be seen to "swim". Bacteria form visible colonies and consume substrata, producing an array of substances, some toxic, some smelly. A bacterial colony cultured in a Petri dish can be inhibited with antibiotics in a very simple experiment. This is visible to the naked eye, regardless of how you explain it.
I agree ‘that something exists which is observable etc.’ I have been in several Science classrooms during my teaching career, where these observations are made. I am not questioning those and have seen the results. My point is that these experiments take place outside the living body. The extrapolation that these same effects/processes take place inside the body can only be speculation.

I stand by my contention that when you remove something from something else, especially living organisms, they are no longer living. They are elements returning to their origins as Béchamp found in his kitten experiments and the effects seen in a petri dish bear no relationship to their origins.

I have located the relevant pages from my copy of the book. I believe this to be an essential read. It is a long book (318 pages) but essential for researchers.

The book is on the Internet Archive but one can download it directly from my MEGA a/c here:

https://mega.nz/file/r84XGKAA#uzScxG1ar ... QJ2oyU2NiU


BÉCHAMP or PASTEUR?
A Lost Chapter in the
History of Biology
By
E. DOUGLAS HUME

Page 122 ‘At the risk of being wearisome by repetition, we must remind ourselves of the order in which Bechamp achieved his early discoveries. First, he demonstrated that the atmosphere is filled with minute living organisms, capable of causing fermentation in any suitable medium which they chance to light upon, and that the chemical change in the medium is effected by a ferment engendered by them, which ferment may well be compared to the gastric juice of the stomach. Secondly, he found in ordinary chalk, and afterwards in limestone, minute organisms capable of producing fermentative changes, and showed these to bear relation to the infinitesimal granulations he had observed in the cells and tissues of plants and animals. He proved these granulations, which he named micro-zymas, to have independent individuality and life, and claimed that they are the antecedents of cells, the up-builders of bodily forms, the real anatomical, incorruptible elements. Thirdly, he set forth that the organisms in the air, the so-called atmospheric germs, are simply either microzymas, or their evolutionary forms set free by disruption from their former vegetable or animal habitat, and that the "little bodies" in the limestone and chalk are the survivors of the living forms of past ages. Fourthly, he claimed that, at this present time, microzymas constantly develop into the low type of living organisms that go by the name of bacteria.’

The kitten Experiment

At the beginning of the year 1 868, he therefore took the carcass of a kitten and laid it in a bed of pure carbonate of lime, specially prepared and creosoted, while a much thicker layer covered the body. The whole was placed in a glass jar, the open top of which was closed by several sheets of paper placed in such a way that air would be continually renewed without permitting the intrusion of dust or organisms. This was left on a shelf in Bechamp's laboratory until the end of the year 1874. The upper bed of carbonate of lime was then removed and proved to be entirely soluble in hydrochloric acid. Some centimeters further down there were only to be found some fragments of bone and dry matter. Not the slightest smell was perceptible, nor was the carbonate of lime discoloured. This artificial chalk was as white as ordinary chalk, and except for a lack of the microscopic crystals of aragonite found in precipitated carbonate of lime, indistinguishable from it, and showed under the microscope brilliant "molecules," such as those seen in the chalk of Sens. One part of this carbonate of lime was then placed in creosoted starch, and
another part in creosoted sweetened water. Fermentation took place, just as though ordinary chalk had been used, but more actively. Microzymas were not seen in the upper stratum of the carbonate of lime, but in that portion where the kitten's body had rested they swarmed by thousands in each microscopic field. After filtering the carbonate of lime through a silken sieve, it was taken up with dilute hydrochloric acid, and Bechamp thereby succeeded in separating the microzymas, which had been made visible by the microscope. At the end of this experiment, which had continued for over six and a half years, Bechamp, with "the infinite patience of genius," repeated it by another, which lasted seven years.

To meet the possible criticism that the body of the kitten had been the prey of germs of the air, which might have been carried in its hair, or admitted into its lungs by breathing, when alive, or into its intestinal canal, Bechamp now repeated his experiment with more rigid precautions. This time, in addition to burying the whole carcass of a kitten, he also buried, in one case, a kitten's liver, and in another, the heart, lungs and kidneys. These viscera had been plunged into carbolic acid the moment they had been detached from the slaughtered animal. This experiment, commenced in the climate of Montpellier, in the month of June, 1875, had to be transported to Lille at the end of August, 1876, and was terminated there in August, 1882.

Owing to the temperate climate of Lille, very different from that of Montpellier, which, for a great part of the year, is almost sub-tropical, the destruction of the body was much less advanced in this later experiment than it had been in the previous one. All the same, in the beds of carbonate of lime near the remains, in one case, of the whole kitten, and, in the other, of the viscera, microzymas swarmed and there were also well-formed bacteria. Moreover, the chalk was impregnated with organic matter, which coloured it a yellowish brown, but the whole was Odourless.’

It continues...

Be well.

Nefilimp
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:43 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Nefilimp » Mon May 03, 2021 7:20 am

Thanks Simon, hereby the revised version with the links included and some repetitive things edited out.

@glg, I get what you mean. There is a point though and that's me seeing through this deception. Is it useful? I do think so because I just can't shut my mouth when people want to ask me why I don't sanitise or mask myself. It started with common sense (life is all about co-existing with these bacteria and 'viruses') but the division tactics are smart and now I need to counter 'fact-checking' websites from the beast. You could ask yourself if there is any use in debating our current reality with people who don't see where our roads are leading but that is something to discuss on a different topic. It is an interesting topic because I have often felt weirdly conflicted needing to always stand up and have a different opinion about most things. My heart pushes me in a way but my mind tells me to shut up.


Covid - in or out

When you are sceptical about this whole Covid affair or you distrust the pharmaceutical industry and you search for answers online you will easily get lost in a web of lies or half-truths. From nanobots to gene-editing to vaccine shedding. When you will look past page 10 of the search result or you actually buy books written by doctors or whistle-blowers they want you to believe that a virus has never been proven to exist because the Koch's Postulates are not fulfilled (which is the wrong reason as to why they are right imo). To make the situation a bit more understandable, let me enlighten you about these postulates with the help of a Reuters article that will gladly explain to us peasants what the truth is.

Fact Check – Koch's postulates do not need to be fulfilled to prove the existence of a virus.

An article that claims that researchers have not proven that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 uses outdated criteria and presents incomplete facts to make its arguments. The article focuses on how researchers have not fulfilled Koch’s postulates - a 19th-century set of criteria to show a microbe causes a disease - as they were originally understood.

Koch’s postulates were presented in 1890 (here and here ), at a time when germ theory was still controversial and before the discovery of viruses, to which Koch’s postulates, as they were originally written, do not apply. Koch himself recognised the postulates had exceptions (here), and they have not been established for many disease-causing microbes. Modern criteria that confirm that a virus causes a disease have been demonstrated for COVID-19.

KOCH’S POSTULATES

The article (here ) says: “Koch's postulates are the decisive criteria for the scientific detection of a virus” then gives a list of these postulates in their original form. Postulate One: “The micro-organism must be detectable in all cases of disease with the same symptoms, but not in healthy individuals.”

This postulate was made obsolete even in Koch’s own time as asymptomatic carriers of disease-causing microbes were discovered, prompting Koch to amend or abandon this postulate (here and here and here). Postulate Two: “The microorganism can be transferred from the diseased individual to a pure culture (isolation).”

This is in general understood to mean that the microbe should be able to be grown in something a sterile growth medium. Many types of disease carrying microbes, including types of bacteria, still cannot be grown like this (here and here), however are well established as the cause of diseases. Viruses cannot reproduce themselves, and so cannot be grown at all as a “pure culture” as Koch would have envisioned it, however it is well-established that viruses cause diseases (here and here and here). Postulates three and four also cannot be fulfilled as written if the pure culture of the disease is unavailable.

Postulate Three: “A previously healthy individual, after infection with the micro-organism from the pure culture, shows the same symptoms as the one from which the micro-organism originally originated.”

While purposeful infection of humans with disease has been done historically, this is rare due to ethical concerns. However, the UK clinical trials ethics body last month approved a COVID-19 challenge study, in which healthy young volunteers will be exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a safe and controlled environment (here).

In most cases, the individuals used to fulfil the third postulate tend to be animals. This makes it impossible to fulfil this postulate, and by extension, the fourth postulate, in diseases specific to humans (here). Postulate Four: “The microorganism can be transferred from the infected and diseased individuals back into a pure culture.” While not an original postulate of Koch’s (here), this is essentially a repeat of step two using a different source.

Okay, so far so good. I have to say, this all makes sense to me but there is one thing missing. Once you can not isolate something and give it to a healthy person who then gets the same disease, how then can you claim the virus is the one causing the disease? They can't! They can just tell you that when there is a disease there is a microbe. Compare this with an accident and an ambulance. Is the ambulance the cause of the accident?

The sentence 'however it is well-established that viruses cause diseases' sparked my interest so I clicked on the first link (and after that the other links that basically tell you the same thing). It brought me to a paper written by

DAVID N. FREDRICKS1 AND DAVID A. RELMAN 

Departments of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford.

In the article they explain the Koch's Postulates and they introduce the Causation Theory. I have included this part but I urge you to read the whole paper because it gives you a better insight to what is said.

CAUSATION THEORY

Koch’s postulates were formulated in an attempt to create guidelines for proving disease causation by microbes, formalizing how we think about the connection between cause and effect in medicine. Can causation be proven through scientific observation or experimentation? Although mathematical relationships can be proven by deductive logic, biological relationships can only be inferred from empirical observations. This type of evidence frequently adopts a statistical form. As Marley and McMichael remind us, causation is not observable: only the events that suggest a link between cause and effect are observable (68). In his Treatise of Human Nature written in 1739 (49), the British philosopher and sceptic David Hume wrote, ‘‘We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects which have always been conjoined together . . . we cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction.’’

From assembled observations are created explanatory theories which are modified as new observations are made. This process is the basis for inductive reasoning (68). Unfortunately, Koch’s postulates have frequently been applied to issues of causation with a mathematical zeal that is not warranted in the biological world. A microbe that fulfils Koch’s postulates is most likely the cause of the disease in question. A microbe that fails to fulfil Koch’s postulates may still represent the etiologic agent of disease or may be a simple commensal. The power of Koch’s postulates comes not from their rigid application but from the spirit of scientific rigor that they foster. The proof of disease causation rests on the concordance of scientific evidence, and Koch’s postulates serve as guidelines for collecting this evidence.

49. Hume, D. 1896. L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Treatise of human nature (1739). Clarendon Press, Oxford.
68. Marley, J. E., and A. J. McMichael. 1991. Principles behind practice. 6. Disease causation. The role of epidemiological evidence. Med. J. Aust. 155:95–101.

An important part of that explanation is where they say;

Although mathematical relationships can be proven by deductive logic, biological relationships can only be inferred from empirical observations.

So now you ask; what are empirical observations?

em·pir·i·cal (ĕm-pîr′ĭ-kəl)

adj.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Then it says;

derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory

(Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof.

So the Koch's Postulates were formulated to create guidelines to prove disease causation. In the case of most viruses they are only able to meet the first postulate; when a person shows signs of disease they can find a certain microbe in the body. They can't isolate it and transfer it to a healthy person (or animal) who then gets this disease. Then, to make it more difficult, the same microbe can be found in a different person who is completely healthy. So the only proof they have is the causation theory that says;

WHEN disease THEN microbe

Then they theorise that the microbe must be the cause of the disease.

I can hear you think; so what? Well.. Based upon their THEORY they are trying (and most will comply) to vaccinate the whole world. They are removing our rights, censoring our words and silencing people who object.

The worst part of it all is that the following explanation is so much more logical. The microbes they call viruses are helpers produced by our own bodies when it needs to clean itself from certain toxins. These helpers spread through the body and they work until the body thinks it has dealt sufficiently with the toxins. A good example is your body telling you not to eat when sick, it is because the fasting helps the body to become more healthy. I strongly advise everyone reading this to look into the effects of intermittent (and prolonged) fasting, I have linked an article written by the saintly people of Harvard to get you started.

When the body senses an emergency because of toxins in the body it starts this healing process. A rise in body temperature helps expel some toxins by sweating, the lack of appetite makes you fast which cleans your body, diarrhea cleanses your intestines, coughing / sneezing expel toxins that are in your mucus. The reason why we have a flu season is completely logical if you look at it this way; in the coldest months of the year people stay mostly inside; so less fresh air, vitamin D, less physical exercise and so a lowered immune system that leads to your body cleaning itself and the person being in dis ease. But even though people are more closely together in these months, it is not a given that the people nearby will also get sick. A father might get sick whilst the rest of the family is completely fine even though they are in close vicinity of the person that, according to the theory they promote, has a virus that can be easily transferred to the other members of the family. The reason this does not happen is because the bodies of the other persons have not reached the threshold where it starts the cleaning process. Of course, when people around you get sick combined with a fear campaign that is constantly bombarding you with the amount of people 'infected' and dying it creates an extra strain on your body that is already under a lot of stress. Not only has our food become more and more toxic, the same goes for the air we breath and the water we drink. Then you have the alcohol abuse, the toxicity of sugar, flavor enhancers etc, the effects of genetically modified food, WiFi / 4G / 5G and so on. So when the news is constantly exaggerating the situation, when they force people to distance and wear facemasks that are not beneficial to our health, it creates stress that can lead to a psychosomatic reaction where a simple cough can be interpreted as impending death.

The whole situation reminds me a lot of the cholesterol situation. Simply said they found that people with heart disease in 99 % of the cases had elevated levels of cholesterol, thereby concluding the cholesterol is the reason for the heart disease. The next thing they did was to try to get the levels down by medication (with a whole host of side-effects that need different medications to treat) and avoidance of food products that contain cholesterol. It turned out that cholesterol is your body's own helper that is produced when there is a certain problem, (clogged arteries, overweight etc). It took a long time for the scientist & doctors to admit they were wrong and still many people and medical personnel believe the myth that low fat diets are healthy when the opposite has shown to be true (all in moderation of course). Maybe we will reach a time where they will revise the virus theory and come to understand the body has been living with microbes since nature exists. What mankind has been doing in the last decades is to disturb this balance, fear the natural co-existence, poison our minds and bodies. The results are easily visible, never in time were there so many people suffering from allergies or other immune deficiencies. Never in time so much diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Never in time did we use as much medication as we do now. But we have been programmed to look for the answer outside of ourselves. Why focus on healthy living when you can take this 'magic injection' that will safeguard you from any harm? But no, they will even tell you that you can still get it, spread it and you will still need to mask up and distance.

We live in strange times..

Altair
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Altair » Mon May 03, 2021 8:14 am

Having been prescribed statins some years ago, I began studying more about that. It turns out that it's a coarse brush intervention in our metabolism by altering the chemical path of mevalonic acid, which is a precursor of cholesterol... and about a dozen other molecules that have very important functions in our bodies. Yes, they lower the cholesterol level, but also some other vital enzymes like Q10.
Moreover, the overall risk reduction for otherwise low risk patients (though very few long term studies have been performed) is near the statistical error, though they seem to provide some protection -not much anyway- for high risk patients (those that already have a history of cardiac complications). To the point than in UK they've finally changed the protocols and statins are only prescribed to the former. It might also be that the patents for statins have already expired and they're now very cheap.
But the simplistic reasoning goes like 'arterial plaque is greatly made by cholesterol -> cholesterol is bad -> let's reduce cholesterol no matter how'.

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Wed May 05, 2021 7:20 pm

This European Commission roadmap for the empowerment of the vaccine industry includes, as the first item, the development of a vaccination passport for EU citizens. Actions started back in 2018. No wonder they are nearly ready to implement the infamous "Covid" passport.

https://studylibit.com/doc/7576697/2019-2022-roadmap-en

The list of actions also includes:
- Combating myths and online vaccine misinformation
- Countering vaccine hesitancy
- Investing in behavioral and social science research on the determinants of vaccine hesitancy
- Reporting on vaccine confidence and monitoring attitudes to vaccination
- Strengthening aspects related to vaccinology in medical curricula
- Supporting the authorization of innovative vaccines
- Strengthening partnerships with [...] Gavi
- Establishing comprehensive electronic immunization information systems
- Overcoming legal and technical barriers impeding interoperability

Trust is dwindling. The Nutwork need to up their game.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu May 06, 2021 12:01 pm

Dear Friends.

I have just watched Vaxxed-2:The People's Truth.

If you haven't seen it and you have any interest in vaccination theory, I beg you to to spend an hour and a half watching the whole video.
In my view, all the 'governments' on the planet should be strapped into seats and forced to watch it. At least, that is my opinion.

It is available on the Internet Archive but I have uploaded it to my MEGA a/c. The link is here:

https://mega.nz/folder/Tkxg2CKa#OrmFJjSa0VWl8t0ahu-X0Q

Be well.

animus
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by animus » Thu May 06, 2021 4:33 pm

dblitz wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:01 am
Regarding the Catherine Austin Fitts video - she claims the vaccine will install an operating system into people so that they can be uploaded to the cloud. haha. Every now and then we get a video like this one, or the interview David Icke did, or the 'Plandemic' documentary, that seems to sum up the psyop perfectly, except for those little nuggets of ridiculousness like installing operating systems into people or 5G causing coronavirus. I believe these are created so that those who accept them as solid summaries of the situation share them widely and discredit themselves and their movement by associating legitimate information with obviously false claims. It’s pretty much disinformation 101.
I found this article yesterday, titled Moderna’s top scientist: ‘We are actually hacking the software of life’. It comments on a three-year-old TEDx talk by Tal Zaks (Chief Medical Officer at Moderna Inc.) in which he said:
In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system.
So, technically they are not installing a whole new operating system from scratch but are merely trying to tweak the naturally existing one. And they will most likely slowly override it, as their biotech advances, until they have full control over it. Crazy and power-hungry as they are, they surely would like to be "administrator" of OUR bodies. Once you become a hacker, you will strive for full administration rights. This will give you ultimate power. And the article makes a good point: They can give someone cancer and later on offer a remedy against that cancer - a brilliant strategy to turn everyone into drug-dependent patients.


About the interview by James Henry with Catherine Austin Fitts, it was part of a documentary that was planned to be released in February. At least that's what the homepage once said, but now it doesn't give any date whatsoever: https://planetlockdownfilm.com/ And looking at the people who were interviewed, I have my doubts whether this will be a good documentary... I did like the Fitts interview though.



As for "those little nuggets of ridiculousness like installing operating systems into people" or "be uploaded to the cloud. haha", dear dblitz, I would ask you to please keep an open mind when it comes to new ideas, however preposterous they may seem at first glance. Though it may appear that some crazy, Sci-Fi-stricken nutcases are grasping at straws when explaining the world around them, some of them actually have good insight to another aspect of nature and are guided by their own intuition. This involves both a bit of intuitive foresight into the future and also the ability to communicate with the cells of your own body, once you get more attuned to nature and establish a communication path to your own soul (via dreams or meditation). This is not something that average people would accept as evidence, since most people do not have this connection to nature or their soul for that matter. Most people are rather materialistic and unfamiliar with their inner side. But for the open-minded among the cluesforum members I would like to mention that, as per my own dream experience of December 30, 2020, part of my DNA was indeed hijacked and almost connected to the cloud, had I not intervened. And do note that my last vaccine was at least 15 years ago! So whatever stuff they are putting into the vaccines in high doses must already be around in the air or in our food. Because 5G alone, though penetrating the whole body, will not suffice in connecting someone to a cloud, since our biological body is not compatible with modern technology. But introduce foreign agents into your body -- intelligent nanobots -- and suddenly your own cells are at war with the foreign invader. See Tal Zaks' quote above: "we are actually hacking the software of life." And once they have successfully invaded and settled down on the newly conquered DNA segments, they only need to establish a working connection to your body, and with the Internet of Things are automatically connected to the cloud. If modern technology can establish connections with our body for prosthetics or brain implants, then connections to our DNA is merely one step further. So no, I don't think this is disinformation 101. As far as I can tell, this is very real! This line of thought is not easy to prove though, which is why I was glad to have found the article above because it supports my own life's observation (dream experience) from the horse's own mouth, at least to some degree.

Post Reply