A biohazard level-5, snotted pocket tissue cunting for the science of virology – guesses as to what inspired this nom on a clean tissue please!
Climatology has now been knocked off my top spot for the ‘biggest load of wank in a white lab coat’, thanks to the modern marvels of the psuedoscientific voodoo science known as virology. No doubt you’re already thinking, ‘didn’t virology help Karl with his bumder disease diagnosis?’, or, ‘it helped my mate Wogindishu in Botswanna with his terminal diagnosis!’.
It might come as a surprise that given our current situation, which is predicated on the existence of a virus, that no one has actually proven the existence of it scientifically. Wait, what? That sounds like tinfoil territory! Yeah, and it gets worse. The same flaw can be demonstrated with several other notable hysteria driven episodes: Swine Flu, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Polio, and the infamous HIV. The word ‘isolation’ apparently has a different dictionary definition to a virologist. Ask him to show you a clear image of the virus and all you’ll get in return is CGI graphics, or a black-and-white electron microscope image that looks about as coherent as a TV screen to a hobo after a bottle of whiskey.
Whilst the media were mesmerising you with hysteria like a cheap street magician, his mate virology was busy nabbing all your wallets. The amount of taxes pocketed by these shysters is in the trillions now. For the research into non-existent viruses, and then selling drugs back to the public that inevitably cause the damage they claim to solve e.g. Tamiflu for influenza was stockpiled in the UK and USA at considerable cost, before any efficacy was even proven, and before they realized it caused an increase in hallucinations and suicidal ideation. This has happened repeatedly in both viral research and associated drug research; no control groups, no double-blind placebo trials, conflicts of interest, etc.
They also have a habit of inspiring mass culling. Our infamous Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist (virology’s bastard brother) with his Diane Abbott level of miscalculation, helped contribute to the frenzy over several potential epidemics, including BSE which led to the destruction of millions of cows. A necessary evil you might assume, but perhaps not when other potential causes of the disease are excluded.. such as putting an incredibly toxic organophosphate, Phosmet, on the necks of cattle for example. The toxic effects of substances are often overlooked in favour of a mythical virus that can’t be seen e.g. DDT and Lead Arsenate are linked with Polio.
If any cunters are interested in seeing how the magic trick works I’d recommend looking into the methodolgy of viral isolation, characterisation and detection using PCR.
Nominated by: The Big Chunky Cunty
Tinfoil territory indeed.
10
Utter bollocks.
Perhaps you would prefer it here…
https://www.christopherspivey.co.uk/
12
Shut them down, I don’t like what they say.
Cancel culture.
FFS.
5
Where did I say that?
2
Perhaps you would prefer it here…
https://www.christopherspivey.co.uk/
2
I can’t believe that cunt Spivey is still shovelling that shit. His website looks like a paranoid version of the Sunday sport. Then again, I bet it’s never been busier, as people do their ‘research’ into every conspiracy.
Perhaps I’m a crisis actor, here to denounce his bollocks. I wish someone had told me, I’m not getting paid.
3
ONS says that the information pertaining to ‘vaccine’ mortalities is exempt from FOI requests:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathandadversereactioncausedbythecovid19vaccine
Quote from the fourth paragraph down of main article:
“As such, the information you have requested is considered exempt under Section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whereby information is exempt from release if there is a view to publish the information in the future. Furthermore, as a central government department and producer of official statistics, we need to have the freedom to be able to determine our own publication timetables. This is to allow us to deal with the necessary preparation, administration and context of publications. It would be unreasonable to consider disclosure when to do so would undermine our functions.”
Nothing to see here, move along, double mask, protect the NHS, take the magic elixir.
18
Apologies for the link going off the page. it’s Hancocks fault of course.
8
It’s whitey’s fault for inventing the technology.
5
Spot on with this one BCC,
Virology seems to be the horse that every globalist has hitched his wagon full of cunt to. Vaccination passports, restricted movement, destruction of free speech and any opposition whatsoever to the Covid-19 dogma, dehumanising face coverings, shaming of anyone and everyone, ritual humiliations (latest examples include threatening to take away any planned summer holidays or trips to see family and friends), separating cancer patients and others from life saving treatments….
Viruses are handy fuckers for such controlling enterprises because they are so fucking small you would have difficulty seeing them with an electron microscope, and we all have one of those knocking around at home, not. So I guess we will have to just believe any pile of steaming shit we are shovelled by the Government. Know what? They can fuck off.
19
Ooo-ee-oo!
If you have fact based evidence I suggest you inform the relevant authorities. The security services, MI5 etc, would no doubt be very interested in your findings too.
Oh… wait a minute… they’re probably all in on it too… silly me.
15
Governments wasting taxpayers’ money is a endemic. HS2 is recognised to be a white elephant yet HMG continues to persist with the misguided venture. The meals for children of two spuds , a carrot and a banana at £30 a go. I know not what the bill for the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament will be except that it ludicrous.
10
“…The same flaw can be demonstrated with several other notable hysteria driven episodes: Swine Flu, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Polio,”
Hmmm. There were a few kids at my primary school in leg braces due to polio in the late fifties. Don’t think they were particularly hysterical.
10
They were fooled, just like Ian Dury. It was all in the mind, growing pains. All for the benefit of caliper manufacturers and producers of sugar cubes.
All part of the Grand Lizard’s plan.
A few weeks ago, they were removing a body from a house across the green from us. Full hazmat suits, ridiculous, the poor sod had just died from a bit of a cold, brought on by government propaganda.
Keep calm and carry on.
8
Morning Jack, morning all.
Yes I think you may be right. One of the kids with calipers and crutches was pretty nippy getting around the playground and playing football.
It was all a big trick!
Off to the shops now to get some Bacofoil! 😁
4
‘Wild’ Polio still exists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria.
Coincidentally, of course, the three countries that still use the chemical DDT. The WHO recommended the use of it against mosquitos to fight malaria. You couldn’t make it up!
Polio is industrial poisoning. The evidence is quite obvious.
6
No it aint.
Those 3 countries are where vaccination is resisted. Are you in the Taliban? Boko Haram perhaps?
Recommended for you:
david icke.com
8
I was one of the first children fortunate enough to have the polio vaccine. Ian Dury missed out on it by just 5 years.
4
Chunky – If I was Ian Dury, I’d thrash you within an inch of your life with my Rhythm Stick – Das ist gut! C’est fantastique
6
Trust the government, trust the science.
Nothing to see here, move along
11
Yes. We are not being dealt with honestly here.
10
So is this going to be the default position of all governments around the world when the next virus hits town!?
Shut the country down, strip people of their rights to free speech and free movement; while at the same time making a long list of exemptions for people like… oh, politicians…what a surprise!
The cynic in me suggests that if any cranky head of state/government is a bit bored/pissed off about something trivial one day, he might consult with his chemistry guys and say
“Hey, can you make a nice virus that will fuck the world, just like that Dink virus you did in late 2019!”
“But why, sir?” said one boffin
“Because CNN didn’t show me in a good light, and its payback time. Plus my McDonalds order didn’t have the large fries I asked for!”
And so another virus comes along, and the world goes into another global meltdown, and as per usual the Little People end up with the shitend of the stick
14
Virology is indeed a cunt. You are correct that the best they can do is bombard a piece of infected tissue with a stream of electrons in an electron microscope. All you get is an outline of a virus. The fact they can isolate DNA or RNA pretty much confirms their existence. But they are not living creatures. They exist but are not alive in the classical sense. How to you classify something as living? Well it must be able to replicate and respire. They do neither.
Now cunters the elephant is variants. Most are irrelevant. A variant is a slight alteration in the DNA or RNA when it replicates. The overall genetic fingerprint stays much the same. They are no more infectious and vaccines still work. So when idiot features Hancock says we must eradicate all variants he is living in cuckoo land. Flu and cold develop variants all the time. That’s why new vaccines are made every year . Variants are common and they happen all the time. If you’re fit and healthy you will cope with this little cunt. If ill it may pose a problem. If vaccinated you can still pass it on as it replicates in the nose and throat and antibodies cannot always get to them as they are in the mucous membranes but the vaccine will reduce the worst symptoms in the lungs and heart. If you are not vaccinated but develop natural immunity you are technically better off as you have developed antibodies and T lymphocytes to the full strength virus not the attenuated one in a vaccine. You can also still transmit but there is no reason to get vaccinated if you have been exposed already as you have built up an equally good immune response.
That is all.
17
When you see the methodology of ‘isolation’ you’ll realize it is nothing of the sort. This is why all the fancy black and white images never show 100% viral particles only.. it’s always a hodgepodge of cellular debry.
They don’t isolate jack shit. HIV has NEVER been directly isolated from a patients blood. It is always put through a ‘cell culture’ first, which basically is a witches brew.
They always use that method. That’s where the fraud and self deception is.
7
Virology has become just another tool used by governments to assist in the control, manipulation and demoralisation of the public.
People who are frightened and oppressed are much easier to control.
We’ve spent many years fighting communists, – and then turned out to be the very thing we were fighting in the first place.
Why do these CGI graphics of viruses look so very menacing? Big, red, angry trumpets that stick out of some visceral sphere, spinning around on the TV screen during the news.
I’m certain that they are much nicer looking.
I’ve heard the Covid 19 virus is actually quite distinguished and good looking, with amenable personality traits!
18
Trust the government.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-british-government-subjected-thousands-people-chemical-and-biological-warfare-trials-during-cold-war-10376411.html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/055006016
Just two examples of democratic governments using the public for illicit testing. We only know about these examples as they happened long ago in political terms.
Scientists pushed the necessity of these experiments as they have pushed for human animal cross breeding in the laboratory, creating chemicals and germ that can wipe out humanity.
I really don’t understand how people just blindly accept everything scientists and politicians say when there is a long history of both using the people when and as it suits them.
More recently the gulf war syndrome where politicians and scientists have once again joined forces to cover their own backs. They’ve not managed to identify what caused the syndrome but have managed to rule of the multi vaccination troops were given before deployment.
Tin foil hat time?
15
Word to the wise :
https://youtu.be/QjgE4kNSU74
6
Ive tried to bring this to the governments attention,
And they contacted my doctor who said id not been talking my meds and sectioned me!
Again.
Its just like the time I warned them about the moonmen,
They dont listen.
The jews are in on it.
9
Watch ot MNC don’t mention Jews. That’s sailing close to the edge. The thought police will get you .
3
Wibble…….
Now where did I put those pencils. 😂
6
I’ve seen those wibblers on Facebook. Bunch of sanctimonious cunts but how seriously they take it is somewhat amusing.
1
HIV has never been directly isolated from a patient. There were people talking about this self deception and fraud back in the 90s, it’s not new. The cell culture method and ‘isolation’ is where the fraud is.
The story of how HIV came to pass is ridiculous. It’s clear they fabricated the whole thing to justify their (virologists) continued existence. The original patients were all homo hard drug abusing fuckups.. but no, nothing to do with their lifestyle! I recommend people read the history – Fauci was involved.
The irony again is they killed many people, who may have otherwise lived, by the drug AZT e.g. Freddie Mercury. The HIV/AIDS fantasy has generated billions in profit yet is utterly baseless in reality.
11
It seems the blecks don’t like the white man’s medicine. They think a bone through the nose will cure them.
7
I’m not sure it’s in the interests of our great leaders to royally piss off countless millions of people with a conspiracy.
To what end?
I already know they are cunts.
8
Re-instate Communism? Marxism?
“You will own nothing and you will be happy”.
Or is it :
A) Gross incompetence?
B) Some sort of plan?
C) Take readily available (and long term tested) prophylactics/cures?
D) Test a false vaccine which allows you to contract and transmit the disease?
Answers on a snotty, saliva drenched rag.
9
Aye no doubt plenty are making a fortune from the Chinese Panic but no cunt has rolled up at mine telling me to surrender my fridge.
If I can’t keep my beer cold then heads will fucking roll.
Self serving cunts they might be,but a conspiracy?
I don’t think they’ve got the balls for it.
The soppy twats.
6
It doesn’t take balls just a desire and a willingness to lie constantly. That’s why Hancock and Johnson look nervous. They’re terrified someone in the audience calls them lying cunts and challenges them .
Take to the streets on mass and they will wet themselves
5
Hancock and Shapps both contradicted themselves over holidays this year so they can’t even get own lies right!
5
Or baton charge us and mass arrest?
1
Best way to control people is having them live in fear, then you can introduce laws on the pretence of making them safe.
In the 50s to the 90s it was communism, then it was terrorism, then it was the environment and now viruses.
13
The moment I saw perfectly healthy people who were queuing up at a test centre to find out if they were ill, I knew we were doomed.
Bleat….
15
The silence of the lambs seems more prescient every day.
8
*Grabs popcorn*
3
Tbh I think what we’re seeing is just complete and utter incompetence mixed with a media who want to hype the virus up for the sake of generating clicks and sales. It’s an issue which needs to be taken seriously but I’m not convinced it’s the quasi-apocalyptic event it’s being portrayed as.
11
I remember that BT advert with that lady talking on the phone to her son. “An ology? You get an ology, you’re a scientist!” 🙂
3
Does that mean that somebody gets anal is an analyst?………. I’ll get my coat. 😞
2
I’ve told you all before, this is all about a revenge attack from Mars after their invasion was defeated in 1978 by none other than a cold virus.
Their minds immeasurably superior to ours, regarded this Earth with envious eyes,
and slowly and surely they drew their plans against us.
5
At one point I didn’t believe in this pandemic at all but the death data is compelling evidence of it. Its the use of lockdowns that don’t sit well with me.
Pubmed has several entries from different countries claiming they have identified Sars-Cov-2. Here’s one from Australia where they took a sample from an infected person: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32237278/ and the detail on that study, with electron microscope pictures, is here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50569 (one pic even looks like the famous spikey graphic )
Seems legit to me.
4
“Inoculation of Vero/hSLAM cells with material from the nasopharyngeal swab led to the isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus in culture”.
This is the key point, the ‘cell culture’ method. They are not isolating it directly from source, but instead creating a mixture of cells they claim become infected with the virus from which they then isolate it.
The images show clearly that their ‘isolate’ is not a true isolation but contains other cellular materials and debry created by the cell culture method. The spikey little critter, amongst all the other junk, looks suspiciously like an ‘exosome’, a typical cellular component.
They say it’s a viral particle. But they have no right to assume that given the isolation is not an isolation at all!
1
You’d think they would have accounted for that kind thing within the tolerances of their methodology.
I can’t find in the articles cited, any references to exosome/protein spike morphological similarity or images of an exosome under microscope when using image search on Google. Do you have any sources I could look at?
3
If its true that viruses need a host to exist, unlike bacteria which apparently Koch’s postulate was about back in 1890 something, how else can viruses be identified without taking a sample from an infected and putting that in a cell culture to keep it in existence? Its an interesting subject of which I admittedly know bugger all and it would take me years to catch up on it. On that note I have heard about the exosome theory; I honestly I don’t have the skills to refute it but I would ask if Rabies is real or is that just exosomes as well? What do these diseased, foamy, aggressive dogs have? Are photographs of rabid dogs made up??
I do know two people, one who died from AiDS (emaciated poor bastard) and one who is living with HIV. What did the dead one have and what has my mate got? What did Rock Hudson die of?
I would mention, as another cunter has, that Prof Dolores Cahill (ex Max Planck Institute) seems completely plausible and she doesn’t refute the existence of Sars-Cov-2; she disagrees with lockdowns though.
I would also reiterate my point on the death statistics. Irrefutably, there have been spikes of deaths.. Have you seen Ivor Cummins’ work on this? He’s hot on the data and hot on metabolic health.
I can’t put virology into Room 101. My cousin is a Professor of Microbiology. Are all his years of learning and teaching a load of lab wank?
Do like your posts BCC. Its fun to engage 🙂
2
@Cuntologist
As far as the spikes in deaths go, I’m skeptical of the official figures considering that a government spokesperson many months ago came out and admitted (in a round and about way) that the figures were fudged.
If somebody had died but tested positive of Covid……… Covid death, if somebody had died but tested Covid-positive within the prior fortnight……. Covid death, an ambulance carrying a Covid patient hit a pedestrian and that pedestrian died……… Covid-RELATED death.
I am, have been, and shall remain skeptical of official figures.
4
@Cuntologist
Thanks for the link, I’ll definitely check that out.
Looking at the gross, aggregated figures I see:
– total recorded UK deaths in 2020 = 10069
– total recorded UK deaths in 2019 = 7533
However I can also see that:
– Deaths by underlying cause in 2019
(All respiratory diseases) = 1,166
– Deaths by underlying cause in 2020
(All respiratory diseases) = 678
– Deaths where COVID-19 in 2020 was mentioned
on the death certificate = 3,144
This is all very strange. FOI laws are very useful……….. to those who wish to see them, less-so for those who don’t want to.
1
Also @ Cuntologist
I believe Kochs Postulate was superceded by another postulate decades ago (possibly a century ago) although I don’t recall.
2
@TINTS Yes I’m just as sceptical about the real number of Covid deaths. We will never know the truth about that for various reasons.
Better to look at all cause death numbers by month by year and compare to previous as far back as you can. If you’re handy with Excel, you will see that there were excess deaths and last March/April was unusual They couldn’t fiddle with number of deaths all causes. Its the best indicator of what happened though it gets muddied as time goes on if you believe that live saving treatments have been withheld.
And yes, Koch’s postulate I learn is from 1890, has been discredited and doesn’t apply to viruses.
1
@Cuntologist
I’m glad we’re both on board with the fact that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Regarding previous years death numbers, are you referring to the sudden drop in deaths attributed to Influenza-related Pneumonia?
And as far as I can tell, life-saving treatment and even screenings for cancer treatments have indeed decreased. As for your comments relating to the whole excel thing – could you supply me with some statistical charts which show annual deaths by cause and country?
1
@TITS
I’m referring to numbers for all cause deaths, regardless of cause, specifically in England and Wales.
See ONS which gives England and Wales all cause mortality data in Excel columnar format from which you can do your own charts if you have a copy of Excel. They do a monthly data set on all cause mortality and have answered a FOI request that gives all cause death numbers back to 1918! There are some stand out years for deaths i.e. 1918, 1976. 1985 but none have hit 2020’s total – see for yourself. I hope you have Excel!
As for other countries, you’d have to look at equivalents to the ONS for each country. If you can trust Ivor Cummins, he aggregates it for you in charts He’s not a tinfoiler, just empirical.
1
@Cuntologist
“I’m referring to numbers for all cause deaths, regardless of cause, specifically in England and Wales”
By the “number of all cause deaths”, do you mean “number of all deaths”? Because that sentence made no sense.
“See ONS which gives England and Wales all cause mortality data in Excel columnar format from which you can do your own charts if you have a copy of Excel”
That wasn’t really what I asked for. I asked if you could provide citation – a link of some description maybe. Then I could transfer that to an Excel/Open Office format and made my own determination.
“They do a monthly data set on all cause mortality and have answered a FOI request that gives all cause death numbers back to 1918!”……. so what? are we talking per cent/per capita?
If you can’t specify which comparison is to be made then there’s no comparison to be made.
Back in 1918 the life expectancy was lower because health care was worse than now, diet (allegedly) was worse and dental care was far worse (dental abcesses can cause blood-poisoning, leading to death) and child mortality was higher….. but the population was also far lower with a far lower burden on the meagre healthcare system which existed back then so that skews the figures somewhat.
“As for other countries, you’d have to look at equivalents to the ONS for each country. If you can trust Ivor Cummins, he aggregates it for you in charts He’s not a tinfoiler, just empirical.”
The ONS figures are based on figures I already question vehemently.
I’ve long been a proponent of the Sweden model for not going into lockdown even though I’m accutely aware that opponents of the Sweden non-lockdown model say that “Sweden has a smaller, more sparse population! You’re comparing apples and oranges!”
I disagree. If the virus has an R-rate of 3, an incubation period of 3-5 days and is infectious as it’s claimed to be then that r-rate should apply to all countries and all population densities irrespective.
Most of Sweden’s population is based in the larger population centres and yet their case/death totals weren’t that bad during the first wave and only reached a peak before the Swedes instigated lockdown-ish measures when their cases started to skyrocket (which oddly coincided with the start of the flu season).
0
@TITS
The ONS data is there for you to download on total number of deaths i.e. deaths by all causes or in ONS speak ‘all cause mortality’. That simply means the total number of people who died of anything and everything in a given period, from falling off a cliff, heart attack, shot, Covid, poison, stabing, flu, cancer, Alzheimers etc. That is ‘all cause mortality’.
This is the ONS website link but you have to search for the data on it. The data sets are produced monthly, so you could end up downloading a lot of files unless you find the FOI data sets which often answer a big time period.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/
The ONS data says that 610,000 died in 2020 in England and Wales and they attribute 500,000 of those deaths to NON-Covid reasons. Make of that what you will. If you compare it to other years, a bad year is 500,000 to 550,000. I hope you can see why this starts to be interesting and useful data, especially when you look at all cause mortality by month where you can see seasonality in death spikes.
I don’t believe there is a falsification in the total number of deaths Number of Covid deaths is highly disputable, not the same as total deaths. i hope you see where I am coming from.
R number and Sweden are different topics.
1
Although I agree that the response to this by the government has been woeful, the costs and logicistics of such a conspiracy to completely invent a virus would be great and we’d hear through some channel from an immunologist, virologist or epidemiologist about the lager lurgy not being real; but we don’t – ever.
We hear dissenting opinions on the the virus’ severity and the appropriate response to it from the likes of Prof Dolores Cahill and Prof Sunetra Gupta among others. They disagreed with lockdowns and proposed a herd immunity approach but they never denied that the virus existed. They were however lambasted and silenced or ignored by academia, the media and government and THAT is the conspiracy that should be talked about and the possible reasons for it.
The notion that this virus doesn’t exist because no lay person has seen it directly through a microscope or that the images we are shown look ropey is an all-too similar refrain we hear nowadays – “I can’t observe curvature from the Earth’s surface, therefore it’s a giant jaffa cake!”, “photos of Earth’s curvature? FAKES!”, “astronauts giving personal testimony of seeing Earth’s curvature? PAID ACTORS!”
Whether it’s the shape of the Earth, evidence in the fossil record demonstrating common decent or the existence of the coof virus, no professionals in these respective fields have ever come forward, not even to David Icke or Alex Jones. We only ever hear abouut this sort of thing from people on the internet or Bob down the pub (pre-Covid).
People should be suspicious of authority and the official story when it’s reasonable to do so because that’s skepticism which is good, but when belief can only be granted by an individual based on the individual’s 1st person observation rather than giving tentative belief based on a reasonable level of axiomatic assumptions then that is more like cynical hard solipsism bordering on crippling paranoia rather than skepticism.
8
TITS@ – there are places (the Namib desert for example) which are so huge and flat the actual curvature of the Earth can be clearly seen, and a good quality telescope (not one from the Argos value range! 😃) combined with decent atmospheric conditions can actually pick out the debris left in the sea of tranquility from the moon landings – but mention this to the tinfoil hat gang and all you get is a condescending smile and the attitude of “oh dear, you poor little thing”.
I often think that humankind is our most dangerous virus.
3
Yeah I know what you mean. My housemate’s girlfriend is a 65 year old primary school teacher vegan who believes in the efficacy of homeopathy and is a conspiracy theorist who doesn’t believe that viruses exist because that’s what she read on Facebook; not Coronavirus………… viruses!
When I tried to explain to her about viruses and the germ theory of disease, she did that smug, dismissive smile with an “Okay Dear”.
When she asked me if I’d heard of the illuminati I went into detail about how I used to read up on that sort of stuff and David Icke back when I was 19 (before Facebook was a thing) and how the freemasons are definitely a thing.
I had to stress to her though that they aren’t shape-shifting repitilians from the lower 4th dimension like Icke claims. She seemed to take me more seriously when she realised that I’m not some credulous normie numpty who believes everything I’m told…….. primary because I have a bullshit filter, unlike people who believe the more outlandish, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like she seems to.
3
How do you save a homeopath from drowning..?
Add more water….
4
Foxy@
Moon landings?..as if!!
😀😀
3
“THAT is the conspiracy that should be talked about and the possible reasons for it.”
Less a conspiracy, I would suggest, more a shared fear among the ruling classes and intelligentsia of things getting out of control and the health service being overwhelmed leading to a reinstatement of the Dark Ages which no doubt some on here would welcome.
Great post TiTS. 👍
3
I agree that it looks like the government covering their arses by taking the path of least resistence and being cautious.
That’s my main issue with Boris to be fair – he wants to be liked so when it came to making the difficult decisions he tried to do the nice thing rather than doing the right thing.
He tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing noone………. with the exception of big pharma.
It might also be an issue of doubling down because to change course would be to admit that they were wrong.
If it becomes apparent that this thing mutates as much as we’re told then we can’t fight it with bio-medical science so we might as well go with herd immunity…….. which is the very thing Cahill, Gupta and others were proponents of back in March.
4
Once the old and otherwise vulnerable have been offered the vaccine and have completed their course, the economy should be fully reopened with vaccination made easily available to all on demand.
Herd immunity, coupled with vaccination, would seem to be the way to go now. Let those who choose not to be vaccinated take their chances.
5
The measures we are talking will mean substantially less funding for the NHS thanks to a weaker economy though. How is that ‘saving’ the organisation and preventing it from being overwhelmed in the future? Thousands will die post-Covid thanks to the organisation not receiving enough to provide an adequate standard of care.
2
I don’t think the current incompetent government and the equally incompetent official opposition expected the current measures to be necessary beyond the end of the first lockdown.
Anyway, once the vaccine has bedded in I suspect the economy will return to health considerably faster than one might expect.*
* famous last words…
1
It won’t, Ruff. It really won’t. We can’t expect the economy to rebound quickly when so many people won’t have jobs to go back to. We are in wartime levels of debt and imo it will take years to recover.
3
That’s a fair analysis, and I agree that the focus is better placed where you mentioned with Gupta etc. However, there have been professionals talking about the issue of isolation and visualization under electron microscopy, there are just very few of them.
The issue is the scientific method itself and reluctance to concede a mistake has been made – scientists are not infallible, especially when there’s billions of dollars involved and the pharma industry pulling all the strings.
I think it is foolish to believe an error of this magnitude could not be made. When you realize that the entire method uses indirect techniques, due to scale, and assumptions on what is taking place, then it becomes obvious that mistakes could easily be made in fact! The same can be said of astronomy at the other end of the scale.
Again I think it is arrogance to assume we have got it all pinned down, and certainly requires blind faith if you are to trust others interpretations of the science. I’ve looked at the methodology and it’s evident to me there is circular reasoning involved, which is a red flag for either making a mistake or committing fraud.
3
The scientific method and methodological naturalism aren’t perfect but they’re the best we have because they’re self-correcting and use peer review to do so.
For example, whenever a mistake or attempted fraud was discover in paleontology (Piltdown Man for example) it was another scientist who discovered the error and brought it to the attention of their collegues for correction.
In peace time (so to speak) this methodology works great because scientists can take their time in the knowledge that they’re under no coercion or moral obligation to do the nice thing, but to do the right thing (scientifically-speaking).
Unfortunately the way Gupta and her colleagues were treated was an example of how science can be corrupted during a moral panic because all of a sudden, scientists with a greater tendency for conformity and ego/repuation-preservation threw Herd-Immunists under the bus to conform to public opinion.
That’s not an issue with the methodology but of flawed people. Obviously mistakes are going to be made but observation and deduction are the best tools from which to make inferences. I genuinely can’t imagine there to be any better way.
I don’t mean to be obstinate but could you clarify for me what circular reasoning was used?
4
Again I largely agree. Though with peer review, unfortunately is not the failsafe and incorruptible guardian it should be. It is open to abuse and selectivity, and its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness; dogmatism allows for refinement and progress in one direction, but also stiffles other avenues, sometimes intentionally. The Nobel Prize has the same flaw. It is largely due to the fallible nature of people; prestige, careers, funding, etc.
It’s great in theory and works generally, like democracy, but it has flaws, blindspots, and an Achilles heel.
Circular reason: Viruses are presumed off the bat to be pathogenic, and existing in a sample. Sample is put through ‘cell culture’ to generate more copies, however that method exposes the cells to antibiotics and other additives that cause a stress reaction (illness/cell death) – note; they did not specify what their ‘control’ was/method in that paper. From this mix they ‘isolate’ the virus particles/RNA, sequence its genome, then using that genome sequence test against a patient to see if they have that same code in the sample. It is circular because they assume a virus is responsible for that RNA, and not just the result of cellular activity when under stress (when someone is ill). Redetecting that code in someone does not prove the existence of a pathogenic virus in that sample, only that RNA code which they then ASSUME is from a ‘virus’.
Because they can’t watch the process in real-time, and only under an electron microscope which requires special preparation in itself, they are making assumptions about what is occuring according to their beliefs. They’ve never seen a virus infect a cell, only infered that is what is taking place.
The fact they can’t, and don’t, isolate viruses directly from a sample is the first red flag and the first step in the erroneous methodology.
2
@The Big Chunky Cunty
“Though with peer review, unfortunately is not the failsafe and incorruptible guardian it should be. It is open to abuse and selectivity”
Abuse and selectivity such as?
“It is open to abuse and selectivity, and its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness; dogmatism allows for refinement and progress in one direction, but also stiffles other avenues, sometimes intentionally”
In what way is it open to abuse and selectivity? How is dogmatism either it’s greatest strength or weakness?
Linnaean Taxonomy was found insufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth until later models of post-Lamarckian Darwinian Evolution.
Combine this with the continually improving human understanding of biology, paleontology through an ever-expanding fossil record, geology in the form of the stratographic column, radio-metric dating and genetics then you can hardly say that the scientific method is dogmatic and unchanging.
Add to this Newtonian Gravity Theory which if I recall was found to be insufficient to account for certain phenomena and was replaced with General Relativity at the larger, cosmic scale such as Venus traversing the Sun (Shapiro time delay I think it’s called).
“It’s great in theory and works generally, like democracy, but it has flaws, blindspots, and an Achilles heel.”
What do you suggest as a replacement?
“Circular reason: Viruses are presumed off the bat to be pathogenic, and existing in a sample”
That’s not circular reasoning if it can be observed in the sample, that’s not even hypothetical. If it can be observed to be, it is axiomatically true by definition.
“Sample is put through ‘cell culture’ to generate more copies, however that method exposes the cells to antibiotics and other additives that cause a stress reaction (illness/cell death) – note; they did not specify what their ‘control’ was/method in that paper.”
As far as I understand, antibiotics don’t affect viral cells; only bacterial cells as viruses aren’t capable of homeostasis if memory serves (although I might be wrong about that).
Do you not think it possible that they didn’t include things like additives/illness/cell death in their controls because it wasn’t/isn’t an aggravating factor with any significant challenge to the initial hypothesis/outcome of the trial?
“From this mix they ‘isolate’ the virus particles/RNA, sequence its genome, then using that genome sequence test against a patient to see if they have that same code in the sample. It is circular because they assume a virus is responsible for that RNA, and not just the result of cellular activity when under stress (when someone is ill) “
I fail to see how that is circular reason. Scientists need some kind of baseline assumptions from which to proceed otherwise they can’t proceed. If scientists didn’t use/agree to axioms based on experience of observed patterns/phenomena then science would never progress – this seems like a moot point.
Also, why would viral RNA appear in a patient if not as a response to the virus from which the RNA originated? The statistical chance of an RNA sequence which is otherwise only known to be native to a virus, spontaneously appearing in another organism is statistically unlikely-to-incomprehensible. Once again, this seems like a non-sequitor.
“Because they can’t watch the process in real-time, and only under an electron microscope which requires special preparation in itself, they are making assumptions about what is occuring according to their beliefs. They’ve never seen a virus infect a cell, only infered that is what is taking place. “
Yes that is how observational science works and yet for the most part, it works very well, very consistently and has improved and enriched human civilisation.
We cannot objectively “observe” or experience a viral cell replication in the way I think you’re implying we should be able to from what you’re saying (reductio ad absurdum) but we can OBSERVE them and from that make inferences which is how science works. There is no other way! Humans cannot objectively know ANYTHING, that is why we use inductive and deductive reasoning to make inferences and come to the best conclusion possible.
“The fact they can’t, and don’t, isolate viruses directly from a sample is the first red flag and the first step in the erroneous methodology.”
So what is your solution to a replacement for scientific method? Suggest it, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize.
I don’t mean to come across as a wanker but you seem to make claims which come across as non-sequitors because you don’t justify how they justify your claims and by extension, how they explain them.
4
An addition to my uber-long post:
“Because they can’t watch the process in real-time”
Irrelevant. Forensic scientists can’t watch processes in real-time but they can still make conclusions based on ex-post facto observations just and as science can make predictive models, post-hoc observations are merely using the predictive model in reverse using material evidence which I see nothing wrong at all (neither do scientists or judges/juries apparently).
“and only under an electron microscope which requires special preparation in itself”
I fail to see the relevence. Please explain.
“they are making assumptions about what is occuring according to their beliefs.”
What beliefs would they be? You seem to be assuming beliefs otherwise witheld (unless the scientists in question have declared their beliefs in advance in the paper). Please elaborate.
“They’ve never seen a virus infect a cell, only infered that is what is taking place.“
I am skeptical of this claim. I’m fairly certain that I have seen videos of viral cells penetrating the cell membrane of a eukaryotic organism…….. although I may have imagined it I suppose.
4
Viruses are so small you require an electron microscope to see them, which is static and samples rendered effectively dead.
Given this very simple limitation, how do you know for certain that a supposed viral particle goes into a cell, and that the opposite isn’t taking place (cell manufacturing the virus)? The truth is you don’t. It’s an assumption of ‘germ theory’ that viral particles infect cells and replicate.. no one has directly observed this, only infered it according to an assumed theoretical construct.
That is very weak science, with a high chance of error. You are talking about dynamic biological systems of great complexity. Inference using nothing but static dead snapshots of samples created artificially is about as far away from the actual living environment as you can get!
You missed the point about antibiotics and additives during cell culture. These things affect the cells themselves. It is an artificial environment of cells that are struggling to survive without their usual conditions, then you stress them further with toxic influences.
The key here is the science does not do proper controls in these experiments. Hence why I highlighted that on the paper you referenced. It is deliberately vague. If they did true controls they would find the same cytopathic effects with non-viral samples as viral samples! It is the methodology which creates these effects, not a virus.
1
@The Big Chunky Cunty
“Viruses are so small you require an electron microscope to see them, which is static and samples rendered effectively dead.”
Also irrelevent because do you know what else is dead? …… dead stuff! and yet scientists can detect dead stuff in order to analyse said dead stuff and determine the ancestreal lineage between live stuff and dead stuff……. kind of like how it’s possible to determine your lineage from a paternity test.
FYI, it’s known that white Europeans have a 1-3% genetic homology with Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis and that Aborigines, Papuas and Melanesians have a 3-5% genetic homology with Homo Sapiens Denisova……… spoiler alert – those tests were done on DNA which was 10’s of thousands and in some cases over 100 thousand years old and done by people far more qualified and competent in their fields of biological study than people like you and myself.
Once again……….. non-sequitor. You are starting to get on my nerves so bad I think you are actively going out of your way to wind me up.
“Given this very simple limitation, how do you know for certain that a supposed viral particle goes into a cell, and that the opposite isn’t taking place (cell manufacturing the virus)?”
From what has been demonstrated, Coronaviruses are not Retroviruses or Lentoviruses so they don’t act in that way. Easy answer really.
“The truth is you don’t. It’s an assumption of ‘germ theory’ that viral particles infect cells and replicate… no one has directly observed this, only infered it according to an assumed theoretical construct.”
Are you taking the piss or what? I’ve already adressed this bollocks argument and yet here you are repeating it. I think you are actually trolling me, flerf-style.
There’s no way that you can come across as this articulate and seemingly intelligent and informed on the subject without also being at the same time a suberbly talented Peter Ian Staker.
“That is very weak science, with a high chance of error. You are talking about dynamic biological systems of great complexity”
As complex as biological processes are, when anybody attempts to appeal to the “complexity” of biology that sets my alarms bells ringing because I instantly think that this is the new argument replacing irreducible complexity but that’s by-the-by; the complexity of a thing still doesn’t invalidate the method used to observe, analyse and interpret it. Nice try knob end.
“Inference using nothing but static dead snapshots of samples created artificially is about as far away from the actual living environment as you can get!”
Why? Have you never heard of forensic science? If one of your loved ones is ever murdered, exhumed years later and tested then I assume you will also disregard that evidence as well?
“You missed the point about antibiotics and additives during cell culture. These things affect the cells themselves”
No I bloody haven’t. If you could provide some citation for your antibiotics/additives claim I’d be much appreciated.
“It is an artificial environment of cells that are struggling to survive without their usual conditions, then you stress them further with toxic influences.”
Where is the evidence for that claim? Whether the environment for those cells is artificial and whether they are struggling or not, that couldn’t be any less relevant! If there are Covid viral cells present then they can be detected and if they are detected then they are present – they don’t just spontaneously generate out of no pre-existing substrates.
“The key here is the science does not do proper controls in these experiments.”
You still haven’t proved that because you still haven’t demonstrated that the issues you raised were even worthy of consideration/mention in the paper, let-alone a variable to factor in.
“Hence why I highlighted that on the paper you referenced”
You really didn’t. You just said you did.
“It is deliberately vague”
It doesn’t seem vague.
“If they did true controls they would find the same cytopathic effects with non-viral samples as viral samples! It is the methodology which creates these effects, not a virus.”
Well then Professor, if you think you are so correct in your assertions then why don’t you get your ideas published in reputable journal?
Even better Walt, why don’t you just go down the pub, stand at the bar and tell anybody who’ll listen how you used to work for the government as a leading virologist but they fired you because you found out “da troof!” and now they follow you around everywhere and place cameras in your toilet bowl.
You’re a bloody idiot Lad.
PS. What shape is the Earth?
3
Viruses exist – this to me is incontrovertible. And properly researched and effective vaccines have saved and improved countless lives.
Never known anyone with polio or smallpox, but imagine they would have had a much better quality of life had they been offered the chance of vaccination against these terrible conditions.
And watch out for MNC – he’s going around exposing us Moonmen and our plot with the Jews to dominate the World – we’re going to have to keep him quiet with more bribes of pie, chips, gravy and a good strong cup of tea! 😃👍
5
I fear MNC has gone beyond that Vern.
Only a pint of Robinsons Trooper 666 can retrieve the situation.
3
Boris the snake has to treat us as adults.Not children.SAGE and onion party are now in control.They are pulling the strings.They want lockdown to continue.Push them all of a cliff.Advise only NOT dictate
5
Or as Flat Earthers would say…… “Push them of the fucking edge!”
3