SARS-CoV-2. The woo-woo virus.
People who can think and follow a line of reasoning should have a shot at considering the questions:
Did researchers actually discover the virus?
Did their proof fall short?
DID RESEARCHERS DO ENOUGH TO PROVE THE CORONAVIRUS EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If
someone says that, during the full moon three weeks ago, the moon
suddenly turned gold, and then a strange squadron of giants passed
across it, on their way to the ocean, do you think it might be a good
idea to find out whether, three weeks ago, there was a full moon? Might
that be a basic starting point?
That's what I'm doing. Checking up to see whether there was a full moon.
A
rational researcher, at the CDC, if one actually existed, would say,
upon hearing of a possible outbreak in the city of Wuhan: "Let's see the
proof that a new virus is responsible, is the causative agent."
What kind of proof would he be asking for?
First,
he would want to know, "Do researchers there have an actual biological
specimen of this new virus? Do they have the real thing?"
And if the answer came back yes, he would reply, "We're sending in one of our Wuhan people so he can confirm that."
But how would the confirmation work? You can't just lay a specimen of a virus on a table and shine a light on it.
There
is a traditional method of observation. It's called an electron
microscope photograph (an EM). Certain established procedures exist for
obtaining an EM from a patient's tissue sample. The CDC scientist
would want to make sure the Chinese scientists had carried out this
process correctly.
Rough sketch: From a patient's tissue sample,
you take a small bit and spin it in a centrifuge. The material settles
out in layers. Knowing which layer (by density) you're looking for, you
remove a bit from that layer, look at it under an electron microscope
and photograph it. If you've found a new virus, you should see many
identical particles of it in the photo---and, obviously, it should be
something you've never seen before.
The rational CDC
scientist---if one actually existed---would say, "Let's have a look at
the Chinese EM." He wants to confirm there are many identical particles
of the new virus in the EM.
But there is more. And here is
where the rubber meets the road and the failure factor is very high. I
need to back up a bit to explain.
When a clinical trial of a new
drug is done (and here I'll make a gigantic leap and assume it's done
correctly), is it carried out on one patient?
Is the result of
giving the drug to a single patient then extrapolated to mean everyone
will react the way this one person did? Of course not. That would be
absurd. In clinical trials, sooner or later, researchers are dealing
with a large number of volunteers. A thousand or more.
So, in
the case of a new coronavirus, in China, the rational CDC scientist
would say: "I want to see electron microscope photographs derived from a
thousand patients who have been diagnosed with the new epidemic
disease. I want to see those photos side by side. I want to see
whether many particles of this same new virus are in all the photos."
I
myself ask, where are these photographs? Where are the completely
necessary photographs? Because the Chinese scientist would tell his CDC
counterpart, "Oh, we didn't carry out the EM procedure on a thousand
patients. We carried it out on one. Two. Maybe three. I'm not sure."
At
which point, this fantasy rational CDC scientist would blow his stack.
He would say, "You're declaring a new global epidemic based on two or
three photographs from two or three patients??"
Consider this
potential scenario---which explains why researchers only did the EMs on
two or three of the patients. If someone actually performed the
electron microscope work on 1000 patients diagnosed with the new
disease, he might find a maybe/possible indication, in the photographs,
of a new coronavirus in four patients. AND IN NONE OF THE OTHER 997
PATIENTS.
At which point, in Wuhan, they would shrug and say,
"Well, wow, that didn't work out. What a flop. Our hypothesis of a new
disease based on a new coronavirus collapsed. We should have been able
to see lots of the same new virus in the photos from ALL 1000 patients,
or at least the overwhelming percentage of them. And we didn't. Back
to the drawing board. Let's see. What's the primary sign of the new
disease? Pneumonia? Come to think of it, about 300,000 people in China
die of pneumonia every year. How about we look at some studies on the
air quality here in Wuhan? I think my colleague down the block has a
pile of them. Let's walk over there. Anybody have a searchlight so we
can see the street through the fog of deadly pollution? Let me get my
oxygen tank and breathing helmet."
And that would be the end of that.
Back
in Atlanta, the fantasy rational CDC scientist would say to his
colleagues, "That Chinese outbreak wasn't a virus. How about we spend
the afternoon going through some of our own studies on vaccines? I know
the fraud is rampant. Let's get it out in the open."
Sure. Happens every day over at the CDC.
Of
course, I could be wrong. Maybe someone has done electron microscope
photographs CORRECTLY derived from 1000 patients diagnosed with the new
epidemic disease, in ONE LARGE COHERENT HONEST STUDY. LET'S SEE THE
PHOTOS. SHOW THEM TO ME. We'll have a few non-conflicted experts
analyze them. Then we'll demand another complete and honest study of
1000 patients, as confirmation.
Otherwise, don't talk about science. There is no science going on.
Talk about fakery. And liability. And prison.
I
write this piece for those who ordinarily have their heads on straight,
when it comes to understanding the basics of HEALTH---but now, because
of the "coronavirus epidemic," are drifting back into the medical model:
FIXATION ON GERMS.
A correct reading of suppressed medical
history reveals that the hypothesis of "one disease, one germ" is a
modern con, moving down a blind alley at midnight. And when you add
"one vaccine" to the formula, you get an even greater degree of lunacy.
But you also get a trillion-dollar commercial success.
I
don't care how many contemporary molecular biologists are working in
labs, amplifying invisible slivers of who knows what molecules into
view, and calling them viruses; it's a con. They're all working in the
dark, massaging RNA or partial decaying microbes or cellular debris or
exosomes or pieces of random genetic sequences or whatever...
The
history of human health shows that upgrades in public sanitation,
hygiene, and improved nutrition have done more for people than all the
laboratory voodoo and "germ-fighting" pharmaceutical interventions ever
invented laid end to end.
You want germs? No one knows how many
there are. From various estimates, we could be talking about thousands
of trillions to the thousandth power. Maybe more. If an infinitesimal
fraction of the critters caused serious disease no-matter-what, we'd not
only all be dead, we'd be dead on dead on dead.
To begin to
understand how overblown all these modern epidemic duds are, let's go to
the animals. Farm animals. Pigs. A headline blares: A MILLION PIGS
SLAUGHTERED. African Swine Fever Virus was discovered, and in order to
stop the contagion, death was rained down on the pigs. On the farm. On
the giant factory farm. So a question arises:
Do you seriously
think humans sat down next to each of the million pigs and tested
him/her for the Virus? Drew a blood or tissue sample?
Twenty pigs "tested positive" and they killed the rest as matter of course. They always do.
But
wait. What are the conditions on this massive million-pig factory
farm? Let's see. Pigs living in their own urine and feces, crowded
next to one another, nose to butt, sprayed with toxic chemicals, eating
chemical-laced feed---under high stress, never living the kind of
existence they were designed for. Think they're going to get sick?
Think some kind of minimally reliable test might find a virus or two
living and replicating in their bodies? Do you seriously think those
viruses matter, contrasted against the OBVIOUS immunosuppressive
ENVIRONMENT?
As the number one germ hunter of all time, Louis
Pasteur, was reported to have confessed on his deathbed: it's not the
germ, it's the terrain---meaning, it's the body and its strength and
vitality and resiliency---THAT should be the central focus of the
healing profession. Building up health.
One problem. There's no money in it. There's no control over the population in it.
Oops. |
No comments:
Post a Comment