Posted on 10/12/2020 3:01:20 PM PDT by ml/nj
[Full text minus the links.]
NOTE: Readers have sent me electron microscope images of what are claimed to be “isolated COVID virus.” An image here, an image there—this is NOT the way science is done, as I will explain fully in this article.
I have also been sent a CDC document that claims the COVID virus has been isolated. However, that document is dated two months earlier than the CDC document that admits they do not have the virus. So it means nothing.
Last week, I wrote and published two articles (here and here) exposing the root of the poisonous tree: the CDC admits it does not have an isolated COVID virus.
Therefore, SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, has never been proved to exist.
This shattering fact reveals the whole pandemic is a fraud. The virus, the test, the case numbers—all fraud. And the lockdowns were unnecessary and criminal.
Now I want to reveal the study that should have been done, at the outset, when scientists were first claiming there was a pandemic based on the discovery of “a new virus.”
Here’s what you would do if you were an actual scientist: you would line up a minimum of 500 people who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness. From each of them, you would extract tissue samples.
Then you would correctly and meticulously put each sample through a procedure that would result in 500 viewable electron microscope photographs—one from each patient. You would lay all these photos side by side.
You would answer three burning questions: do you see, in each and every photo, MANY particles of the same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, that same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, a virus you’ve never seen before?
If your answer to any of these questions is no, you go back to the drawing board. You haven’t found sufficient evidence of a new virus that is causing widespread illness.
If your answer is yes to every question, other researchers will then line up 500 new volunteers who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness, and they will perform this same experiment, in order to confirm or deny the findings of the first team of scientists.
If they, too, answer every burning question with a yes, then a third team of researchers performs their own experiment on 500 more volunteers. And if their answer to every question is yes, then you have something. Then you have an indication, according to conventional and traditional methods, that a new disease could be on the rise.
People continue to send me an occasional electron microscope photo from a research study on “the coronavirus.” Of course, as you can see, that is not what I’m talking about at all. A single photo from here, from there—irrelevant.
If you were an honest medical researcher, would you claim the result of giving a new drug to three patients justified the approval of that drug for use on a few hundred million patients? Not a chance. The same basic principle applies here.
The study I just described, with 500 patients each time, done several times with new teams, is what the scientific method demands: large studies; clear results; and then confirmation or rejection of the initial finding, by more scientists employing the same methods and materials.
One critic, after reading my description of the proper way to do a study on the purported “new coronavirus,” said, “This wouldn’t work because it is extremely labor-intensive.” Well, guess what? The result of declaring a pandemic caused by a virus that isn’t there…and the ensuing lockdowns and economic and human destruction stemming from that declaration…is “labor-intensive” to a far greater degree.
Stopping the production engine of the world on the pretext of finding a new virus, when no new virus has been correctly found and isolated, is a crime that supersedes the sweat and effort of doing proper science.
As far as what is actually going on in labs where researchers are fiddling with genetic sequences of this and that and making vast proclamations; don’t talk to me about science. Talk to me about liability and prison.
The word hear has more than one meaning.
“”But you SHOULD follow these links to previous articles as he says: Last week, I wrote and published two articles (here and here)
This seems so blatant to me that I wonder if I am missing something.
ML/NJ””
***
Rappaport seem correct in that there are no studies using the purified virus to create disease. The CDC likely never tried to isolate the virus, since there are no samples on hand.
However that does not mean that the virus does not or does exist. The CDC seems to have long given up rigorous science for approximations based on political correctness.
I wonder if all the analysis on the Wuhan Flu Virus were based upon the initial publication on analysis in China in mid January.
You've packed a bunch of self-contradictory statements together there.
If the virus passes easily through the mask; how does the mask become germ-filled?
If the mask is so porous, how does it reduce oxygen intake (hint: it doesn't)?
Granted: they are ugly.
Compared to completely shutting down the economy and isolating everyone from society; mask-wearing is a small ask. xoaster123 is right -- it's about risk management. In the case of mask-wearing, it's a tiny downside vs. a (potentially) big pay-off in terms of both the economy and lives saved.
Even if we were all to agree that the subject is 90% political and 10% medical; that 10% medical is still a big deal, vs the small irritation of mask-wearing.
There's no doubt the Left is making every effort to politicize every aspect of Covid-19 (starting with the name, vs. China virus) -- why is the Right rising to the bait, and making a political issue of mask-wearing? The Left baited a trap & you're accommodating them, by waltzing right into it.
Don’t forget the mRNA PCR test looks for only a portion of the virus. As used by the CDC to many amplifications are necessary as to make the results heavily prone to false positives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
PCR per its creator was designed for research not diagnosis.
p.38 “Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False-negative test
results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False-positive test results are more
likely when prevalence is moderate to low. “
Seems like they need a better test before dictating social actions and restrictions.
Risk management also says you should drive your car with a helmet, goggles, and a fire retardant suit.
No samples on hand? This crap has been going on for 8+ months and they still have no samples on hand? If not. when really why the hell not?
If the mask is so porous, how does it reduce oxygen intake (hint: it doesn't)?
There's no doubt the Left is making every effort to politicize every aspect of Covid-19 (starting with the name, vs. China virus) -- why is the Right rising to the bait, and making a political issue of mask-wearing? The Left baited a trap & you're accommodating them, by waltzing right into it.
Seriously. Basic physics. Do you have any idea how small 1.5 micron is? Do you think covid is the only nasty little germ out there floating in the air; especially in people filled spaces. They come in all kinds of sizes. The pores of the mask do fill up rendering them even more useless and harmful in no time at all. Twenty minute max. The amount of air you intake goes up as you work harder and walk more as the pores clog up decreasing your oxygen intake. I shouldn't need to explain basic common sense.
As for taking the bait; reacting to a propaganda message and insolent governors who insist on taking away our freedoms is a vital part of fight back against this nonsense.
Would you rather we all just mewed along like sheep? No thanks. Sheeple behavior has never been my style.
Gee...bet Vitamin D3 intake is better than masks....but that doesn’t serve the pharmaceutical companies or stockholders well.
Germs <> Viri. These are two completely different things, and the mask nazis are requiring everyone to wear a mobile petri dish on their face all day long.
Compared to completely shutting down the economy and isolating everyone from society; mask-wearing is a small ask.
Sorry, both were too much to ask. Both are unnecessary for the vast majority of people out there.
Even if we were all to agree that the subject is 90% political and 10% medical; that 10% medical is still a big deal, vs the small irritation of mask-wearing.
Maybe to you. Not to me. I have no ideas what kind of risk factors you have. If you want to walk around with a petri dish on your face all day long, feel free to do so. No one is going to stop you . However, this Karen-like behavior of insisting that every one else conform to what you want them to do is an anathema to a Free Republic, which is what I though folks on this site support.
The Left baited a trap & you're accommodating them, by waltzing right into it.
Nope. You have walked right into them by spreading and their insane propaganda. I'm sure the jackboots on the left thank you for your support.
1. Arrive at restaurant, fish three month old single-use surgical mask out of car's filthy cupholder (still slightly sticky from this morning's 84oz diet Pepsi).
2. Strap up with three month old single-use surgical mask.
*MAGICAL ANTI-GERM BARRIER ENGAGE!!!*
3. Proceed into restaurant, opening door with same handle grabbed by 200 people so far today.
4. Hostess has immediate seating for your woke party of three. Walk past entire restaurant of unmasked people. It's ok, they're sitting.
5. Sit down.
*SEATED ANTI-GERM FORCEFIELD ENGAGE!!!*
6. Safely within your anti-germ forcefield, remove mask. Browse menu while making relaxed inhales of the same recirculated AC air previously inside the lungs of the 200 people that also grabbed the door handle.
7. Waitress drops off drinks bare handed.
8. Grab drink with your bare hand. Sip leisurely, secure in knowing you're within your anti-germ forcefield of seatedness.
9. Too many drinks. Need to pee. Don the magical anti-germ barrier mask as you leave your anti-germ forcefield of seatedness.
10. Walk past 40 unmasked restaurant patrons. Open bathroom with same door knob grabbed by 100 other people so far today.
11. Return to table past same 40 unmasked restaurant patrons.
12. Remove mask. Once again safe in your anti-germ forcefield of seatedness. Waitress takes your sweaty drink glass with her bare hand, refills, hands back to you. You accept with your bare hand. Grab some bread and eat it. Same hand. Yum Yum.
13. Meal complete. Mask on. Walk past 40 unmasked patrons. Make full body contact with at least 4 people waiting at the hostess stand as you squeeze your way back to the door - no matter, they're all also wearing their magical anti-germ barriers.
14. Grab exit handle, which you are now the 220th person of the day to touch. Eating out successful.
15. Breathe a sigh of relief knowing that even after leaving the protection of your home and venturing out into the scary world of the public, you are essentially sterile - thanks to your state approved methods of magical germ mitigation.”
If this doesn't show how utterly ridiculous all these mask rules are then there's no hope in convincing you the rest is utter nonsense too. I'm not saying there isn't a virus. I'm saying it is so blown out of proportion all semblance of reality has been left at the door. Welcome to "Wonderland" where nothing is as it seems.
I refuse to live in fear like so many do today.
Amen
"Filtration theory of particulate removing respirators is well understood and has been extensively described.4,5 For particles smaller than 100 nm, diffusion is the dominant removal mechanism. Brownian diffusion is caused by collisions between particles and air molecules. The resulting random motion increases the probability of a particle contacting one of the filter fibers. Filtration efficiency due to Brownian diffusion increases as particle size decreases. Once the particle is collected onto a fiber, it will adhere to the filter fiber due to Van der Waals forces. "
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-and-respirator-use.pdf
The masks are actually more effective against virus-sized particles than they are against slightly larger particles.
Why aren’t county health care workers, as part of a study, randomly testing the hands of servers and patrons for coronavirus, as well as other things, such as glasses, check folders, door handles, etc.?
I’m almost afraid to know the answer, for it will be used to justify closing restaurants or at least disallowing people to eat finger foods.
Of course, they won’t tell you about all the other nasties said hands and objects test positive for and always have throughout the ages.
Do you have any links to explain the magical properties of bandanas?
Risk management says it’s smart to wear one.
_____________________________
Risk management as in corporate liability mitigation?
Risk management as in avoiding local Karens?
*Smart* does not equal effective or scientifically validated.
...Rappaport is FOS, deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting the CDC documents to create clickbait articles for the revenue it generates and people keep posting his crap here.
_________________________
Rappaport is an old-fashioned investigative journo. He has been cancelled by MSM and narrative gatekeepers and smeared.
He is a gadfly and he is looking really rough these days, but he has a professional background per old-fashioned norms and he is worth taking into consideration.
I check out what he has to say, but I don’t dismiss him out of hand or apply ad hominems.
...even if it is not the coronavirus.
______________________________
If it’s not coronavirus, how can it be a coronavirus isolate?
Also: don’t they utilize amplification to get enough viral fragments to test?
I’d be happier if test results were accompanied by the information of how many cycles of amplification were used when they report a positive test.
I’d say the language is opaque.
... “Wonderland” ...
___________________
Spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.