Oh I wasn't criticizing the presenter, nor the audience! In fact, I admire his ability to manage so much: audio, video, websites and chat. That's not an easy task, and requires good equipment. I was more speaking to the fact that I have so many websites where I do research, plus so many podcasts that I listen to, that I have a low patience for shows that I'm not familiar with, are too long or are chit-chatty. I'll have a listen soon to your part.
RE: My blurt Blog on Fakeologist Again
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My blurt Blog on Fakeologist Again
I know exactly what you mean. I switch off when they do their own promo stuff right at the beginning of a show, if it goes on for more than 2 minutes I switch off too.
Finally got around to listening to another hour of the show. Yes, the to-do list is seriously backed up. I find it hard to imagine how two non-virologists can discuss viruses from opposite sides of the fence. I have to admit, however, that you seem to be more informed than I am on the topic.
I remember in the 90s there was a big fuss over whether HIV really existed. What was being published in various places were "artists' renditions" of the virus. But then Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize for having discovered HIV, and the debate ended; at least for me. Later I read and heard several people saying that the SARS-CoV-2 wasn't isolated, or never existed. Again, Luc Montagnier confirmed its existence and added that he recognized alterations that involved HIV.
Now, I ask myself how can an entire field of study be based on something that never existed - viruses? My first answer would be psychiatry; as a field based on something that does not exist - brain chemical imbalances! Then we have vaccinology based on a falsehood - artificially induced immunity!
The problem that I had with those who insisted on seeing a living virus - (not referring to you) - is that often they were not virologists. It's the old I'll believe it when I see it, but said by people who would not even know how to see it, nor would they even be allowed to enter a laboratory without having the necessary training.
I'm going to go back and find those links you shared with me, and add them to the to-do list. 😉 I'm curious to hear the counter-arguments. 🤓
Luc Montagnier didn't isolate the hiv virus. He just claimed Gallo didn't (which he didn't either). I just listened to dr Kevin Corbett and he actually answers some of your questions in it so here ya go
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/kevin-corbett-we-are-falsifying-the-hypothesis:8
He worked on 'AIDS wards' in the 80's so his views are totally valid. You don't have to be a virologist to know when the science doesn't add up. In the video above he calls us 'citizen scientists' which sums up basically what this is. He also touches on the old 'peer review' 'expert knowledge' paradigm which far from educating doctors etc works rather as a kind of gatekeeping of medical science.
Well worth a listen.
That was a very fascinating interview! I really enjoyed it. Corbett has an interesting background and experience. So much of what he shared brought up lots of reminders of what went down with the AIDS fiasco. I was also surprised that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos challenged the isolation of HIV. That was new to me. But what was said was that she objected to how the method for virus isolation had been altered by Luc and company, so it wasn't a question of no proof of viruses, but rather a challenge to the existence of HIV because of the methods used. Nevertheless, I won't forget this particular piece of history.
Then Dr. Corbett did something that I don't believe helps the argument; and this is something that I have seen plenty of during this false pandemic, and that is, the request for proof of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from entities that would not be able to respond to the request. A COVID-19 testing site is not a virology lab. Nor is a tribunal or any of the so-called health services around the world.
SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the first reported patients in Brazil and establishment of a coordinated task network
SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the first reported patients in Brazil and establishment of a coordinated task network
You are missing the point here. The method they use to 'isolate' viruses is totally bogus. They have used the same method since Enders in the 50's even tho the method does not prove a virus is present at all. This has all been exposed by Stefan Lanka in the German court. You are constantly asking for proof from the horses mouth (virologists) but the horse is a liar. Stefan Lanka was a virologist who wasn't afraid to expose the fraud of the whole industry.
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/10/26/virology-is-dead/
The first rule in science is to seek to disprove your own theory. If you cannot, then pass that theory over to your colleagues, and ask them to disprove it. If they cannot, then you have a viable hypothesis to begin experimenting and/or accumulating data that would help prove that theory.
Now I'm not a scientist, but I like to apply this principle in other areas of life; for example, researching or debating.
I really don't know much about the history of virology. At the end of the day, this is all a faith-based quest to understand where I stand on certain issues. Meaning, I have faith in the people and information that I have come across regarding this subject of viruses.
So far, you have provided plenty of links and videos, and I am not convinced of this theory that there are no viruses. Nor will I allow myself to go on a wild-goose chase, because I know how these things go.
Stefan Lanka's case is really not a good example to put on the table, and if you and I were on a debate team, I would strongly encourage you not to use that as a point of reference.
I'm not sure what Lanka's intentions were, but this is not a good way to approach a challenge of this nature. I believe he was attempting to create a legal precedent in order to move to Phase 2, which would have been to ask for the halting of vaccinations for measles. The fact the Lower Court Judge ruled that Lanka had to pay the $100,000 means that the Judge was satisfied with the documents that were presented to the Court. Lanka's appeal was avoid having to give up the $100,000 and so was not a case concerning virology, but rather a kind of contractual dispute, upon which the Judge ruled on the technicality that the contest stipulated that all information had to be presented in one publication.
Yet, the alternative media runs with stories like, "German Court rules that there are no viruses!" and other disinformation that suits the narrative.
Perhaps Lanka was attempting to make a point that the measles virus has been eradicated from Germany, and that may very well be the case. But trying to work this out in a Court of Law, by way of a bookmaker, is not very clever; although it may seem that way from the outside.
I provide links because this is an indepth issue which I've written at length about and cannot be answered in a short comment. You have answered the article with the mainstream bullshit argument that he won on a technicality.
This explains what really happened - https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/all-about-that-measles-trial/
No he won the appeal because the original judge di exactly what you are doing now, he deferred to the 'experts' without looking at the evidence nor even understanding the fraud that they have been committing. Of course it's a good idea to take in to court because it's sets a precedent. How else do we expose lying scientists and corporations??
Here is my own writing on the issue of viruses which I've also published on Blurt but you may not have seen. https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/05/25/going-viral-a-recipe-for-disaster/
Oh and BTW the original reward for proof of a measles virus has been increased to 100,000 euro and yet not one 'scientist' or 'virologist' has come forward to claim the prize. If the virus existed then why can no-one prove it?
Yes, this is often the case with these kinds of issues. I have been in the same boat countless times, so I understand the conundrum of trying to present a complex topic with a few sentences.
There is always the equal risk that the precedent can go in favor of the opposition if the case is not presented well.
James Randi offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove homeopathy works... no one claimed the prize. The innuendo here is that homeopathy has been proven not to work.