truth hurts

Oak Harbor WA

Description

The non-purified sample is always immediately subjected to some form of “viral” transport media containing antibiotics, antifungals, fetal cow blood, “nutrients,” etc. which is then added to a culture containing either animal or cancer cells. In the case of “SARS-COV-2,” Vero cells coming from the kidneys of African Green Monkeys were used. Thus, the cell culture process is the exact opposite of isolation. It is the addition of many foreign elements mixed together with the host sample which is subjected to numerous cell-altering processes such as the further use of many of the chemicals and cow blood already listed. I detailed the cell culture process here. No particles assumed to be “viruses” are ever purified (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign elements) nor isolated (i.e. separated from everything else) at any point in time. All of this is to say that, unlike what Steve said, both sides are not right as virologists have completely debased the meaning of the word isolated in order to have their “proof” be taken seriously. The only side correct here is the side that understands the actual meaning of the word. Can You Buy A “Virus?” You can physically buy the virus in various forms (at ATCC and EVAg). If you have a BSL3 lab and a live virus, you can expose it to animals and they will get sick. No, one can not physically buy a “virus.” What one can buy is the cell cultured soup described above. No “virus” particles are ever purified/isolated and sold. Cell cultured goo is sold and a “virus” is assumed to be within the product. Isolation by Addition or Subtraction? If you watch this video at 4:00, you’ll see even virologists themselves don’t agree on the definition of “isolate.” Does it require purification or not? If we don’t agree on the terminology, there is no end to the arguments. And that’s exactly what we see on the chat. That us why debating Kaufman and his collaborators is fruitless: each side will dig in on their own definitions and settle nothing. Here we see the erroneous idea that both sides have a valid claim to what the word isolate means. There are only the accepted definitions of the word. According to Merriam-Webster, these are the essential meanings of the term isolation and isolate: Isolation 1: the state of being in a place or situation that is separate from others: the condition of being isolated 2: the act of separating something from other things: the act of isolating something https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolation Isolate 1: to set apart from others 2: to select from among others especially: to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolate There is no definition where isolation/isolate means to take something and mix it together with many other things. If virologists are going to create new definition for words, they must show why these new meanings are valid. According to the scientific method, the definition of isolation used by virologists would be completely invalid as without separating the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a human first without subjecting the sample to anything else, there is no valid independent variable with which to test cause and effect. Without a valid independent variable of purified/isolated particles, how would virologists know: That the particles assumed to be “viruses” after culturing were ever in humans to begin with? That the additives in the cell culture soup are not the actual cause of illness rather than the assumed “virus?” That the particles photographed from millions of similar/identical particles are in fact the “virus” they were seeking and not exosomes or MVB’s? That the RNA used to create the genome aquired from the cell culture soup is from one source rather than the many unknown ones in their cultured soup? The answer to all of these is that they can not know unless they first purify/isolate the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from humans. This is the only way. No “virus” paper has ever done this. In fact, they claim it is impossible: “Viruses are basically inanimate objects which need a culture to activate in. But the way they are phrasing the requests is that the sample must be completely unadulterated and not be grown in any culture – and you can’t do that,” she told AAP FactCheck in a phone interview. “You can’t isolate a virus without using a cell culture, so by using their definition it hasn’t been isolated. But it has been isolated and cultivated using a cell culture multiple times all around the world.” ‘Proof’ the virus behind COVID-19 doesn’t exist fails basic biology test Even the CDC stated as such in a response to the amazing work of Christine Massey: You can find this and over 150 FOI responses claiming no records of purified/isolated “viruses” here: By the commonly understood meaning of the word isolation, the isolation of a “virus” has never been done. Do Genomes Prove Isolation? Someone asked: The real question is … has it been isolated from a HUMAN subject w/o passing it through (say) Monkey Kidney Cells? Because there is plenty of evidence out there that says it hasn’t been isolated directly (no intermediaries) from a HUMAN subject. I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus. Do these isolates have other stuff in them? How were they created? I don’t know because I haven’t analyzed them personally. But my scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong? Once again, Steve relies on others to claim isolation for him, this time through genomic sequencing. However, this is a ridiculous statement as without first purifying and isolating the particles assumed to be “viruses,” there can be no claim that the computer-algorithm created sequence was generated from one source. It is admitted by the WHO that there will be “non-viral” material in the sample from the host and other sources: Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 “Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome. SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table 4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).” “Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240018440&ved=2ahUKEwjB9N-JgOjyAhVWvZ4KHVWZBckQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw28OrakzQD6BVezIuZC15Jw The “SARS-COV-2” genome came from unpurified broncoalveloar fluid from one patient. I detailed this process here. There are many sources of “non-viral” RNA within the sample. The reference sequences of previous “coronaviruses” that were used to create the “SARS-COV-2” genome were also created from unpurified non-isolated samples subjected to many additives/substances as described here. There can be no verification of the “SARS-COV-2” genome as the actual isolated particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” (or any other “virus” for that matter) do not physically exist in order to get an accurate genome from. Has “SARS-COV-2” Ever Been Properly Purified/Isolated Directly From Sick Humans? The answer is a clear NO. The only way these so-called experts can attempt to make this isolation claim is by completely changing the meaning of the word. Why must the meaning of isolation be changed in order to “prove” a “virus” exists? Where and when did this definition change occur and what evidence was used in order to justify the complete reversal? This is the problem with relying on experts to do the thinking for you. When the claims of the experts are broken down, the same faulty logic and lack of critical thinking shines through. Their inability to look at the information objectively with unbiased eyes becomes your inability to do the same. Their false assumptions and outlandish claims become yours to defend. One does not need to be an “expert” in order to research, read, and think critically and logically to make an informed opinion. Far too often, we have given up our own ability to think for ourselves. We have decided we are unworthy to discover truth and that it must be determined for us by those in (false) positions of authority. Do not fall into this trap. Do not just listen to the “experts” or “trust the science.” Do not just read one blog post and consider it a day. Do your own research and uncover the truth for yourself. Become your own guide and believe in yourself enough to be your own expert. Trust in yourself to discern truth.