I had often wondered whether to start a substack and never climbed over the starting hill. But my dislike of censorship has pushed me over it. You may have noticed that, among people who oppose the Covid fraud, more people now wonder, "Was there even a new disease? Is the PCR test valid at all? Was the alleged virus ever demonstrated to exist?" (My answers are No, No, and No.) They are good and timely questions if we don’t want to play whack-a-mole against one scamdemic after another.
The thing is, if you assert that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist and does not cause symptoms of disease, then you also assert that the GOF NIH/Wuhan laboratory experiments are a complete red herring, that the 'spike protein' does not cause any clinical symptoms either in the vaccinated or infected (because it doesn't exist), neither does the virus or its spike evoke an inflammatory immune response etc. etc. The list goes on. In essence, you are forced to construct an entire new plausible narrative and dismiss a huge body of published clinical research - from those pushing the Covid/vaccine narrative AND those very many medical experts challenging it - with regard to the events of the last nearly three years. I do not think that any of the virus sceptics have done that to my knowledge.
But having said that, I reel against censorship of any kind and feel that if you cannot accommodate somebody's views, if you disagree with them and cannot fruitfully debate with them after having become frustrated trying to do so, then you just ignore them, which is perhaps the best policy, rather than deleting their comments.
The 100 years thing just sounds childish and petty. I guess you must have really gotten under his skin. The more he engages in the whole practice of arguing with his audience, the less I'm a fan. Not that he cares one iota. But I bet it's becoming a turn off to other people.
I don't think anyone is looking for another source to re-validate the broken establishment. Seems like Eugypious wants to be that guy.
PCR testing has been used for a very long time and while it has limitations to it, I completely disagree with saying "they've misused this test, therefore this diagnosis is fake" - which is essentially your argument.
There was much discussion about flu cases dropping and that was explained quite early on that coronaviruses out-compete influenza viruses, so when the dominant virus remained a CoV, there just wasn't much influenza. All the claims that masking prevented flu (while claiming that Sars 2 was circulating because people hadn't masked hard enough) were all just fodder for the treadmill of media lies.
I didn't bookmark the charts when I saw them a few years ago but there is actual science out there about how CoV viruses have a host advantage and tend to replace influenza.
Personally, I think the debate about the PCR or the realness of the pandemic distracts away from the bigger conversations that are needed - should government have that power over their citizens, EVER? Is there a disease bad enough that government should take whatever steps they can and force their will on the individual? Are people inherently unable to make good decisions for themselves? My answers are no, no, and no. And unless THOSE topics are addressed, the PCR etc is a moot point to discuss because if you proved PCR useless, they'd just find another test.
The validity of PCR ultimately doesn't matter because governments search for ways to take power from citizens and as long as they can manipulate the public into giving up their natural rights, then there is a problem. It doesn't matter whether you think the virus is real or not. Or whether you think they should be using a different test method. Or anything else - what really matters is, are you ok with government taking away your freedoms because they said so? We can have that discussion without arguing about irrelevant things.
Dude, you can still find video talks by Kary Mullis on Odysee where he explains why the PCR MACHINES (there is no such thing as a "PCR test") can not be used to tell if a person has enough of a viral load to qualify as "infected." Simply put, these machines makes copies of what they are told to make copies of. If they find any in the sample they search.
If it finds one or if it finds fifty million, 1) it will not TELL YOU the amount it has found. It CAN'T. because 2) Its only function is to MAKE COPIES.
If all it needs to MAKE copies is to find one, we don't even know if it bothers searching for more if more exist. It's a photocopier of RNA sequences, not a tool that CAN measure the number OF them already present.
Just post the segments of the video(s) where he says this. The end.
this is very interesting to read. I think you are absolutelty right, the dangerous questions are now being asked so virus posts are popping up more and more- especially with the latest 80% death in mice paper and nonsense https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/peer-reviewed-articles-are-not-published
I was also called insane today and linked in a post out virus deniers! https://pete843.substack.com/p/virus-denial-is-a-form-of-mass-formation
I am glad you decided to write on sub stack welcome
Jo
The thing is, if you assert that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist and does not cause symptoms of disease, then you also assert that the GOF NIH/Wuhan laboratory experiments are a complete red herring, that the 'spike protein' does not cause any clinical symptoms either in the vaccinated or infected (because it doesn't exist), neither does the virus or its spike evoke an inflammatory immune response etc. etc. The list goes on. In essence, you are forced to construct an entire new plausible narrative and dismiss a huge body of published clinical research - from those pushing the Covid/vaccine narrative AND those very many medical experts challenging it - with regard to the events of the last nearly three years. I do not think that any of the virus sceptics have done that to my knowledge.
But having said that, I reel against censorship of any kind and feel that if you cannot accommodate somebody's views, if you disagree with them and cannot fruitfully debate with them after having become frustrated trying to do so, then you just ignore them, which is perhaps the best policy, rather than deleting their comments.
hi Sanjoy, we've got another lab leak!!! I've updated my post and used your line as a new title https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/peer-reviewed-articles-are-not-published
😺
I don’t agree with you yet about viruses but I am open to all arguments and have subscribed on the advice of Good Citizen. FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH!!
The 100 years thing just sounds childish and petty. I guess you must have really gotten under his skin. The more he engages in the whole practice of arguing with his audience, the less I'm a fan. Not that he cares one iota. But I bet it's becoming a turn off to other people.
I don't think anyone is looking for another source to re-validate the broken establishment. Seems like Eugypious wants to be that guy.
subbed via RSS so I don't show up in your subscribers, but looking forward to anything else you care to opine on. Cheers!
It seems describing the fraud of virology is a banning offense over on that substack. Here's another substacker who was banned for it:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/on-eugippius
PCR testing has been used for a very long time and while it has limitations to it, I completely disagree with saying "they've misused this test, therefore this diagnosis is fake" - which is essentially your argument.
There was much discussion about flu cases dropping and that was explained quite early on that coronaviruses out-compete influenza viruses, so when the dominant virus remained a CoV, there just wasn't much influenza. All the claims that masking prevented flu (while claiming that Sars 2 was circulating because people hadn't masked hard enough) were all just fodder for the treadmill of media lies.
I didn't bookmark the charts when I saw them a few years ago but there is actual science out there about how CoV viruses have a host advantage and tend to replace influenza.
Personally, I think the debate about the PCR or the realness of the pandemic distracts away from the bigger conversations that are needed - should government have that power over their citizens, EVER? Is there a disease bad enough that government should take whatever steps they can and force their will on the individual? Are people inherently unable to make good decisions for themselves? My answers are no, no, and no. And unless THOSE topics are addressed, the PCR etc is a moot point to discuss because if you proved PCR useless, they'd just find another test.
The validity of PCR ultimately doesn't matter because governments search for ways to take power from citizens and as long as they can manipulate the public into giving up their natural rights, then there is a problem. It doesn't matter whether you think the virus is real or not. Or whether you think they should be using a different test method. Or anything else - what really matters is, are you ok with government taking away your freedoms because they said so? We can have that discussion without arguing about irrelevant things.
Anyone dumb enough to get an MRNA flu vaccine at this point, should only expect to the get the Darwin participation prize. We'll miss you.
Substack can be...glitchy. Did he really ban you from commenting again?
Dude, you can still find video talks by Kary Mullis on Odysee where he explains why the PCR MACHINES (there is no such thing as a "PCR test") can not be used to tell if a person has enough of a viral load to qualify as "infected." Simply put, these machines makes copies of what they are told to make copies of. If they find any in the sample they search.
If it finds one or if it finds fifty million, 1) it will not TELL YOU the amount it has found. It CAN'T. because 2) Its only function is to MAKE COPIES.
If all it needs to MAKE copies is to find one, we don't even know if it bothers searching for more if more exist. It's a photocopier of RNA sequences, not a tool that CAN measure the number OF them already present.
Just post the segments of the video(s) where he says this. The end.