That's easy. Find and post an unbiased scientific study that unequivocally proves 'virus' exist. Go on, dare you! Prove everyone wrong. Nobody has managed to as yet. But maybe you will. Maybe.
Are you trying to tell Clare that she needs to provide more “evidence” than links to BBC online articles? Apparently today people like Clare know something to be true if they read it in an article. I kinda like first person knowledge. Anyone can parrot a post on the internet.
Clare is a scientist with a free mind. I'm not disparaging Clare at all. I encourage her to continue to search for the truth because the truth will set you free. And the truth, I'm certain, is virology is a lie bought about by greedy Big Pharmal--100% psyops.
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
Clare why are you still flogging the mainstream virology nonsense? No wonder doctors are held in such low esteem by many nowadays.
Viruses are if anything cell debris, stuff to be cleared out waste like household waste which can clog up the system, but not inherently disease causing.
You will find such stuff all over place no doubt, billions upon billions of all sorts shapes and sizes.
But saying they can be seen through an electron microscope (no doubt something is seen) and that these cause disease is rubbish. They are rubbish, that is the point.
Extracting such stuff from a diseased person, fiddling with it to make it suitable to view and then saying 'aha, this must be the cause of the illness' is an infantile research method.
They are found in healthy people as one would expect, metabolism is on-going all the time with cells breaking down and being replaced, the is basic knowledge which any doctor should know.
I worked this out in 2020, and I was slow and I am not a doctor. Why are you still stuck?
Claire - I invite you to consider debating Dr Sam or Mark Bailey on your proposed “viral” transmission mechanisms. Until such a debate is held and publicised I withhold any judgment on the accuracy of what is written here.
Indeed. And it is not only Dr Sam and Mark. There are hordes of highly qualified and experienced scientists in the field who are arguing that there is no scientific basis for 'virus'. There was even a scientist who put his money where his mouth is, and offered a large sum of money to anyone who could prove 'virus' exists. Nobody claimed that prize! It is interesting that nobody will have the debate, isn't it? I suppose if one believes so wholeheartedly that Santa exists, it is too difficult to cope with the revelation that maybe Santa is not real? Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
The three judges did not question the existence of the virus, the DAZ article adds. But the court considered the reward a promise, not a bet or prize draw, and therefore Lanka was entitled to determine the rules and the threshold for the criteria being met, which included his being free to not accept the studies offered by Bardens.
"
To me it seems like Lanka is not accepting proof submitted by Bardens. They accept the existense of the measels virus.
There’s a difference between “accepting” Something exists. And having the incontrovertible evidence for its existence. Neither scientists nor judges can provide such evidence for ANY virus, but the definition of the word virus.
In my words- “an infectious self-replicating biological agent that causes a specific set of symptoms in a person” and “which has proven to have the ability to transmit itself via bodily fluids to another person and cause the exact same symptoms”.
There is NO evidence for that in spite of numerous attempts to generate such evidence. Virology remains a “theory”
Precisely. And Jon's daft assertion '...They accept the existence of the measles virus,' just makes me cry with laughter! -- based on the court ruling which did not rule for or against the existence of anything!! If one wishes to believe in Santa, I guess that's a choice, but it does not mean Santa exists, just because one believes it! Sorry, it just doesn't. Barden failed to present a single credible and repeatable scientific study that showed ANY proof of transmission whatsoever. I would go one step further and say Virology has been disproven based on the fact that it cannot be proven. Thus, it remains a concept. Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
Of course. I don’t expect Claire to respond to this suggestion- since her entire reputation would be destroyed in less than 30 mins and she has a livelihood dependent on her unscientific position
Interesting. I don’t think we have quite come to the full understanding of viral respiratory transmission.
I have been looking at avian influenza and influenza and these viruses appear to ‘disappear’ for years. Maybe these are still in the environment. Certainly influenza virus has been found to survive freezing conditions.
Fascinating because 'virus' do not exist? Like Santa, it is a belief. Once it has been categorically proven by real science, then it will stop being a belief. Until then, however, why do we still assume 'virus' exists in science?
Clare is tragically under the false impression that Covid™ was a medical/epidemiological event which at this point based on the mountains of evidence, as well as what is happening right in front of us, is painfully inexcusable.
"Viruses do exist. They can be visualised using electron microscopy."
The field of virology was invented before the invention of EM. 'Viruses' started out as purely hypothetical, imaginary, speculative entities ('social constructs' if you like). They were invented because the germ theory of disease was already falling apart and they needed to prop it up, so they said "Disease must be caused by a particle so small we cannot even see it".
After the invention of the EM they pointed to the first sub microscopic particles they could find and said "Ah! That must be them!" Then they used a bunch of logical fallacies (affirming the consequent, circular reasoning, the reification fallacy) to make a connection between these perfectly innocent and (frankly) innocuous particles and sick people..... or indeed healthy people ('asymptomatic').
Virology's failure to even TRY to meet the most basic standards of science and logic, such as falsifiability via controls, means it will always remain valid ON ITS OWN TERMS which are far below the terms of science (AKA 'the scientific method').
What we end up with is 100 different ways of 'affirming' virology's claims using state-of-the-art fancy pants technology that the average man on the street cannot understand. But complexity, convoluted witchcraft and expensive gizmos do not make valid science.
We already have over 200 real world experiments which have consistently failed to demonstrate contagion by proximity or the sharing of bodily fluids. These experiments - on their own - make the concept of 'viruses' invalid, given that 'viruses' are said to be contagious particles transmitted by breathing, hugging and getting covered in other people's snot.
But we also have a bunch of control experiments proving that the particles commonly labelled 'viruses' are produced from standard virology cell cultures regardless of whether a 'viral sample' is added to the sterile culture or not. The 'viruses' (the particles) are just boring old breakdown products. Cellular debris. Extremely small nothing burgers.
Virologists have imbued these particles with 'magical powers' (the power to make people sick) that they simply do not have, and when it is observed that someone is not sick virologists call them 'asymptomatic'.
A reasonably intelligent dog can figure out that the consistent results of over a century of contagion experiments PLUS all the cell culture control experiments proves that these particles - while they do obviously exist - have nothing to do with how or why people get sick, because contagion is not even a mechanism and the particles are ever present anyway.
They are innocent bystanders. And given that they are likely to be present as innocent bystanders whenever you perform cell culture experiments, they can always be blamed for 'causing' sickness (or indeed asymptomatic non sickness).
And perhaps most importantly of all, these particles cannot speak and so cannot protest their innocence when accused of causing sickness, which makes them the ideal patsy to cover up the ACTUAL causes of sickness which include nutritional deficiency, seasonal changes, fear, stress and anxiety, lack of exercise and poor lifestyle, industrial pollution, chemical and EMF poisoning and big pharma drugs and vaccines.
Blaming disease on 'viruses' is like blaming poverty on redheads, after defining redheads as the cause of poverty. Now wherever there is poverty you simply locate the nearest redhead living in that area and this confirms the redhead model of poverty (circular reasoning). In affluent areas the detection of any redheads living there just means the area is currently asymptomatic.
Using logical fallacies you can make any old superstitious nonsense into something that appears to resemble 'science'. And something which is persuasive to the masses, allowing you to control the population and make lots of money. Virology is not cutting edge science, it is a return to the old superstitious shenanigans of the dark ages... complete with 'magic potions' and special costumes to ward off the 'evil spirits'.
The reason why 'virology' has become confused with 'science' is that people have forgotten that science is really a branch of philosophy (based on logic, reason, evidence) and not just a bunch of nerds in a billion dollar lab squeezing pipettes and playing on computers.
lol. Electron microscopy shows 'stuff'! That does not prove anything whatsoever. In order for 'virus' to be 'virus', it must exhibit the ability to replicate itself without killing the host. 'virus' has never been proven to exist at all, let alone exist in vivo. Just because one observes tiny particles of 'stuff' in an electron microscope, does not mean that 'stuff' will cause any harm, or indeed, it is even the particles you were trying to observe! An observation is not in itself science. Science dictates that an experiment must be repeatable. Thus, I repeat, post an unbiased scientific study that proves 'virus' particles exist in vivo, because any newbie can cobble together an experiment with random toxic chemicals in a test tube that will cause harm. Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown. It's a concept. It is not a tangible object. Wake up people!
Virus explains what is observed in the world and under the microscope and in a gene sequencer. No other theory explains what viruses do without gaping holes.
Your tragic attempt to bully people to not accept the most convincing evidence is kind of sad and either misguided or done with malice.
lol. And your attempt to insult me and belittle my inalienable right to have a point of view, is far sadder! You present no evidence to prove the existence of 'virus'. Instead, you have to try and 'bully' me into silence! Try it, and let's see who gives up first! Sorry, Santa does not exist! Game over! Virus is nothing but a concept: virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
You are kind of proving my point. We call that "collection of symptoms" a virus and we describe the various ways it works based on observation and research.
Now we have a name for it and still you don't like the name because you have not done the research yourself and you do not trust those that have.
You have a problem though, the people in the no-virus camp have no credible way to describe what happens.
Of course you have inalienable rights, we all do, nothing special there.
You hope that everyone will be as gullible as you so you can feel better about being conned. You claim bacteria can make us sick. That is nice, you admit they are inside us and around us. Yet sometimes people are not sick so you are ok with some bacteria or some people or some times not causing disease. That is actually pretty advanced for most no-virus folk.
Then you try to prove your position on viruses with a rhetorical question that is an opposite theory to bacteria which are only slightly more complex pathogens.
"If 'virus' are as abundant as bacteria and it is deadly, all life would by now be extinct, wouldn't it?"
Not all viruses are "deadly" or as you say we would all be dead. If someone told you that then you need to ask them for proof that all viruses HAVE TO BE deadly.
Don't feel too bad, I am not upset or concerned. I write here to encourage those on the fence to consider things logically and not fall for the divisive psy-op that is being used to confuse people who do not have the time or inclination to do further reading.
Not sure how Santa is involved in this but there was a bit of a grisly movie made in Finland on the topic some years back. Not my cup of tea but horror movie fans may get a chuckle out of it.
"Rare Exports, A Christmas Tale", (2010). I suppose is we were to believe one Santa movie was real we would have to believe all the others are lies. Or we can predict that they are all stories.
'Viruses are not ‘living’ organisms in that these need cells to replicate.' -- hence why the study MUST be conducted in vivo and not in vitro! And, if they are killing while they replicate, there would be no host left to continue their virology!! Thus, dead virus = no replication = nothing there in the first place!
It seems you are unaware that in-vitro studies of viruses are still done inside a living cell, just not inside a living organism (unless discussing bacteriophages when the bacteria is the cell and the organism).
You make statements that are simply irrelevant because you have to pretend that you do not know that a virus cannot self replicate and needs a host cell, either a single celled organism or a cell culture that is just one type of cell that is a suitable host.
One type of experimenting on (and replication of) viruses is to infect avian eggs, this allows the virus to be maintained in a easy to control environment that is sort of in-uevo where there is no chicken and no glass apparatus. Some vaccines are cultured in this way or were in the past.
I am getting the feeling that you do actually know how all this works but because of a reputation of paycheck that you have to maintain you are simply playing dumb. That does put you in the malice camp instead of the ignorant camp.
An infected cell contains lots of stuff! Isolate the harmful stuff and prove that it will cause harm to any life! That's the challenge. You up for that? Or is it just more words?
In addition, consider bacteria, we know that bacteria is everywhere, and all life is smothered in it inside and out. But, sometimes, bacteria can make life sick. Scientists do not fully understand why, however. If 'virus' are as abundant as bacteria and it is deadly, all life would by now be extinct, wouldn't it? Next time you observe the 'virus' under the microscope, touch it, and see if you are harmed. Digest it if you like. Nothing will happen. I would bet my life on that! And so would hordes of scientists.
Something can be viewed by the select few. That does not make them disease causing. They have in any event been extracted from the body so are not seen acting in the place they came from, merely in lab conditions where they have been fiddled with.
Immunity against respiratory pathogens is not that good. It mainly relies on cellular immunity. Furthermore colds can be caused by a lot of different organisms. And apart from some short term immunity through maternal antibodies for some pathogens, immunity is not transmitted between generations.
How can there be "endemic viruses in natural hosts"?
Both mean that the type of "virus" is always present in the host, does no harm there and still "breaks out" from there, although "herd immunity" is supposed to prevent exactly THAT. According to this, a "virus" should never be able to escape from the endemic host because the final destination has been reached there and no multiplication can take place due to the "antibodies".
If there were endemic viruses in natural hosts that are actually passed on from there by "zoonotic jump", this would throw the entire antibody theory overboard, which has more logical holes than a Swiss cheese anyway.
Can you close these logical holes?
Another aspect of the "endemic hosts": where did THEY "get infected"? Animals, supposedly always the origin of plndmcs, seem to suddenly have "viruses" from "somewhere" out of nowhere that do not harm them and make the leap despite immunity, and "pandemics" never take place in the animal kingdom via animal populations and the food chain either. Is it perhaps because animals don't have a wallet and therefore the wild is not a profitable market?
One more thing, if immunity to 'virus' exists, why do we still get colds? Surely, after thousands of years of humankind, humans should be 'immune' to the 'cold virus' by now?
I think you fail to appreciate the differences in diseases. A endothelial targeting airway disease is like vandalism and graffiti on your perimeter wall. A more serious infection may be akin to a break in to your house and a potentially lethal disease may be sort of like a safe cracker.
In the same way as a caretaker may wash or paint the wall to remove the vandalism we would add a second lock to our door and possibly even burglar bars to our windows and a new alarm system to our safe. We do not as a matter of course to the most expensive and long lasting upgrades to security for a low impact transient issue outside out home. We clean up the mess and move on. Every year some NEW vandal with a new type of paint will spray the wall and we clean up. However the activity in the neighborhood will remind us to check our locks and alarms and every time there is an attempted break in we make sure to renew our alarm monitoring contract.
There is no way to prevent vandalism on the perimeter of our self, we just make sure we take our Vitamin-D3 and magnesium and it works like Teflon paint on the wall and the graffiti does not stick well. Spending money on a new armed response contract for every vandal incident would bankrupt us and the same is true of the adaptive immune system. We want to choose the security systems we put in place with care.
I think the immune system = the body's ability to detect damage and attempt to self-heal. The body never gets trained to identify intruders, otherwise, by now, after 1000's of years, humankind should be immune to everything! Disease is from within, caused by numerous factors. Sometimes it's because a toxin gets in, sometimes it is because the body is lacking in nutrients, and there are factors which are simply unknown. Vitamin-D3 (vital amin), gives a clue to human biology and it's needs. It needs a lot to keep it healthy.
I suppose you are aware of how people (and other animals) can have a disease (that they can pass onto others) and then they never have it again. I understand that it is more fun to try and confuse people by saying it is a toxin that jumps from person to person and no longer works on a person that got sick from it before.
The human body does not genetically transmit immunity. It is not needed to be immune to diseases that are no longer in existence or not circulating in your community. After about 6 months our body starts to develop antibodies when fighting off a more serious infection. If our innate immune system prevents serious disease we do not make antibodies because that part of our immune system, the adaptive immune system is not activated. This is a efficiency mechanism. Think of the FBI most wanted poster wall. They put the names of the worst criminals there that we need to watch out for. They do not put all criminals and they do not put those that are in jail. There is no need for anyone to have a antibody for a plague variant that dies out in the Middle Ages.
Evolution has figured out the ways to do the best with the resources that are available. We fight the pathogens, those that cause serious disease we make antibodies so that next time it is easier.
Some pathogens do not usually get into our circulation so they seldom cause antibodies. Diseases that seldom get into out circulation cannot be fought by antibodies unless they happen to get into our circulation, this is the case for pretty much all upper airway diseases. Our innate immunity fights them off and it ends there. If our innate immunity is not good enough we get sick or if we had that pathogen before we might have antibodies to fight it off easier.
Vitamin-D3 helps out immune system (innate and adaptive) work more efficiently. If our innate system is working well our adaptive has less work to do. Win-win.
I came across the 'no virus' position about 2021 and thought 'surely not'. The 'fact checkers' pointed to papers that had 'viral isolate' in the title and therefore 'no virus is debunked' but of course it's become obvious that factcheckers rely on people's laziness or desire to find a quick way of dismissing some uncomfortable truth because if you take the time, as suggested by the Bailey's for eg, to look at the methodology it's clear that all they mean is that a biological soup was 'isolated' from a patient not a purified virus. At least that was the state of the factcheckers debunk.
Since going with 'no virus' I've not avoided so called infectious people and have had folk cough almost in my face and haven't 'caught' anything. It makes me wonder if people get ill because they think they will. Also if flu viruses are highly contagious and mutate every season why don't we all get flu every year? I had 'flu' 20 years ago but nothing as debilitating as that since. All anecdotal. We try to eat as clean as possible now which might explain a reduction in the need to have a 'healing crisis' (fever/cold symptoms) if you go with a terrain model of disease. Seems to me we've been living in a tyrannical regime for a long time!
Respect to Clare Craig for her great knowledge and I've still got an open mind about viruses - that they may or maynit exist but in my stupidity I expect viral particles that we're supposed to breath out to be easily 'captured' and purified and shown to cause the same disease symptoms in another person by aerosol exposure. Or similarly, infected lung tissue full of millions of replicating viruses should, you'd have thought, be easily purified and visualised etc.
Regarding images I don't think anyone can say that visualised particles are viruses. For one thing you find exactly the same particles appearing in proper control experiments where there is no virus in the sample -they all are probably vesicles produced by the cell breakdown process (?)
In the Boston Board of Health Spanish Flu experiment they couldn't infect even one of the 100 healthy 'volunteers'. Apparently all contagion research draws a blank? If true then maybe it's because there is no viral transmission. People get ill but it's your own body generating an attempted healing crisis.
Quite so. I have written my own response to Clare, but the so-called viruses are found in healthy and diseased people, so as metabolism is on-going all the time one will find cell debris in its billions.
Waste it is and must be disposed of but not inherently disease causing, like household waste must be adequately cleared.
Played right into their hands Clare.Sewage samples, Delta, Omicron, a joke played on you. Anyone for a fake PCR test, ramped up to the wazoo or how about isolating a bit of variant from the sewage? I'm afraid you don't get it & by the looks & the sounds of it you never will. By supporting the "variants" nonsense gave these creatures the opportunity for the full scale assault, across the world @ the same time, to jab everyone who didn't move. By the way did you ever test the sewage or see the results with your own eyes or did you just believe? 🤔
Just to be clear: NOTHING about my initial letter to Clare was a joke, an entrapment strategy, or anything along those lines.
She said on X that SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus. I've been probing lab origin and zoonotic hypotheses for awhile now, including the PhDs and other experts who hold different views. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/index-what-do-i-think-about
I used Substack to make my inquiries because Clare did not see my questions to her on X, thanks to X's stupid algorithms.
This is a respectful exchange of ideas and I will reply in full to Clare via my Susbtack after spring break.
She and I both already know that we disagree substantially.
The idea at this point - at least from my perspective - is to document differences and (hopefully) be instructive to others, as they work out for themselves what they do/don't believe occurred.
Hi Jessica, I don't recall having a go at you. Anyway I must have touched a nerve & I have a name so be respectful & use it if you wish to communicate with me. Please don't lecture me as to what I can & cannot say & no worries if you can't handle it. If this is just an exchange of ideas why not do it privately & respectfully, instead of giving the appearance of entrapment & your ideas & theories are smarter than hers?
Direct address using a name isn't necessary in a direct reply. "Hi" is friendly and sufficient IMO.
You did not "have a go" at me but said "played into their hands" in your reply to Clare's letter to me, and the pronoun reference is unclear.
No nerve touched and I am not lecturing you or attempting to restrict your opinion.
This is a public forum and I have an interest in reiterating my intentions so that the audience does not misconstrue them.
Clare and I have exchanged a few emails in the past.
I am a huge fan of public intellectual debate and dialogue.
This is not a "personal" issue and there is no need for privacy. In fact, I would argue that, during the COVID era, private groups have (mostly unintentionally) served to SUPPRESS and discourage conversations that should be in the public realm.
I knew it, touched a nerve, you know all, sanctimonious dill. Teacher says; "Australians need to work extra hard to earn her regard." I might be the ONLY Australian who EVER gave your public spats a cursory glance, so Australia is safe from your inward looking, navel gazing, petulant comments Jess. Fact is, you & Clare are very similar sheila's. Poor Irving Berlin & look up discernment, you might learn something. Bored now.👍🇦🇺🦘😃
Peaks happen at predictable times of year. Yeah, flu seaspn. The virus has never been isolated. This was a PCR test caused pandemic. You are part of Couey's bike show. People being infected? With what? RNA cannot pandemic.
There is zero signature of contagion in the mortality stats. All the symptoms you scapegoat the ‘virus’ for are more rationally-explained by diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors.
Clare, please clear up the following breaks in logic with your concept of "viral spread":
The lack of mass deaths among homeless people worldwide.
The lack of mass deaths in slums worldwide.
The self-declarations of virological institutions worldwide that it is not possible to obtain pure isolates from aerosols because the pathogens are too small and too fragile.
The self-declarations of the same institutions that no pathogens have been or can be obtained directly from body fluids. It is always necessary to take the detour via cell culture and added chemicals.
Virology's own statements that the identical genome of SARS-CoV-2 can never be found, but only variants can be calculated (through assembly and alignment). Therefore over 16 million variants already in gene databases in 2022)
The absence of further waves since the end of the test regimes.
The careless handling of masks and all material that should be considered highly contaminated.
The absence of waves, clusters and peaks in deaths in countries that have taken no action (e.g. African countries, Belarus).
How could a zoonosis occur if the natural host animal (realistically, this cannot be a single animal, but an animal species) does not fall ill, ergo must have antibodies, ergo cannot be contagious, ergo cannot spread. Alternatively, the entire vaccine logic falls apart.
The cat is way out of the bag on virus and the pseudoscience of virology now and yet Dr Clare is still full of it. A little sad really.
Go on - persuade me otherwise.
That's easy. Find and post an unbiased scientific study that unequivocally proves 'virus' exist. Go on, dare you! Prove everyone wrong. Nobody has managed to as yet. But maybe you will. Maybe.
Are you trying to tell Clare that she needs to provide more “evidence” than links to BBC online articles? Apparently today people like Clare know something to be true if they read it in an article. I kinda like first person knowledge. Anyone can parrot a post on the internet.
Clare is a scientist with a free mind. I'm not disparaging Clare at all. I encourage her to continue to search for the truth because the truth will set you free. And the truth, I'm certain, is virology is a lie bought about by greedy Big Pharmal--100% psyops.
Perhaps a real scientist would actually perform the research and experimentation rather than google articles in the mainstream media.
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
It's all fraud piled on top of fraud.
The average age of Covid death was ABOVE the average age of death.
Catch this deadly virus, and, statistically, you live longer!
Catching this deadly virus is actually beneficial compared to not catching it.
This is what's known as an Absurdity.
If virus theory has absurdities like this then it is obviously deeply, deeply flawed.
Clare why are you still flogging the mainstream virology nonsense? No wonder doctors are held in such low esteem by many nowadays.
Viruses are if anything cell debris, stuff to be cleared out waste like household waste which can clog up the system, but not inherently disease causing.
You will find such stuff all over place no doubt, billions upon billions of all sorts shapes and sizes.
But saying they can be seen through an electron microscope (no doubt something is seen) and that these cause disease is rubbish. They are rubbish, that is the point.
Extracting such stuff from a diseased person, fiddling with it to make it suitable to view and then saying 'aha, this must be the cause of the illness' is an infantile research method.
They are found in healthy people as one would expect, metabolism is on-going all the time with cells breaking down and being replaced, the is basic knowledge which any doctor should know.
I worked this out in 2020, and I was slow and I am not a doctor. Why are you still stuck?
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster?utm_source=publication-search
Correct BM, Clare is a real worry & can't cop a bit of pushback.
It’s so embarrassing at this point that I’m not even going to ask any questions.
Claire - I invite you to consider debating Dr Sam or Mark Bailey on your proposed “viral” transmission mechanisms. Until such a debate is held and publicised I withhold any judgment on the accuracy of what is written here.
Indeed. And it is not only Dr Sam and Mark. There are hordes of highly qualified and experienced scientists in the field who are arguing that there is no scientific basis for 'virus'. There was even a scientist who put his money where his mouth is, and offered a large sum of money to anyone who could prove 'virus' exists. Nobody claimed that prize! It is interesting that nobody will have the debate, isn't it? I suppose if one believes so wholeheartedly that Santa exists, it is too difficult to cope with the revelation that maybe Santa is not real? Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
What is the name of the scientist? Do you have a link?
The microbiologist Dr Stefan Lanka. https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/german-judges-in-court-cases-did-not-rule-on-whether-measles-virus-exists-idUSL1N3721SR/ and this is the fact check.
Thank you. If I read the article:
"
The three judges did not question the existence of the virus, the DAZ article adds. But the court considered the reward a promise, not a bet or prize draw, and therefore Lanka was entitled to determine the rules and the threshold for the criteria being met, which included his being free to not accept the studies offered by Bardens.
"
To me it seems like Lanka is not accepting proof submitted by Bardens. They accept the existense of the measels virus.
There’s a difference between “accepting” Something exists. And having the incontrovertible evidence for its existence. Neither scientists nor judges can provide such evidence for ANY virus, but the definition of the word virus.
In my words- “an infectious self-replicating biological agent that causes a specific set of symptoms in a person” and “which has proven to have the ability to transmit itself via bodily fluids to another person and cause the exact same symptoms”.
There is NO evidence for that in spite of numerous attempts to generate such evidence. Virology remains a “theory”
Precisely. And Jon's daft assertion '...They accept the existence of the measles virus,' just makes me cry with laughter! -- based on the court ruling which did not rule for or against the existence of anything!! If one wishes to believe in Santa, I guess that's a choice, but it does not mean Santa exists, just because one believes it! Sorry, it just doesn't. Barden failed to present a single credible and repeatable scientific study that showed ANY proof of transmission whatsoever. I would go one step further and say Virology has been disproven based on the fact that it cannot be proven. Thus, it remains a concept. Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
Of course. I don’t expect Claire to respond to this suggestion- since her entire reputation would be destroyed in less than 30 mins and she has a livelihood dependent on her unscientific position
Interesting. I don’t think we have quite come to the full understanding of viral respiratory transmission.
I have been looking at avian influenza and influenza and these viruses appear to ‘disappear’ for years. Maybe these are still in the environment. Certainly influenza virus has been found to survive freezing conditions.
It is fascinating.
Fascinating because 'virus' do not exist? Like Santa, it is a belief. Once it has been categorically proven by real science, then it will stop being a belief. Until then, however, why do we still assume 'virus' exists in science?
Of course Santa exists! If he didn't, his existence would be impossible to fake because too many people would be in on it.
Viruses do exist. They can be visualised using electron microscopy.
Objects can be visualised by EM, but as to the question of what a particular object is, it’s merely assertion.
Clare is tragically under the false impression that Covid™ was a medical/epidemiological event which at this point based on the mountains of evidence, as well as what is happening right in front of us, is painfully inexcusable.
Mike please have a look at my latest article, where I address the genomics/sequencing part of Clares arguments: https://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread
"Viruses do exist. They can be visualised using electron microscopy."
The field of virology was invented before the invention of EM. 'Viruses' started out as purely hypothetical, imaginary, speculative entities ('social constructs' if you like). They were invented because the germ theory of disease was already falling apart and they needed to prop it up, so they said "Disease must be caused by a particle so small we cannot even see it".
After the invention of the EM they pointed to the first sub microscopic particles they could find and said "Ah! That must be them!" Then they used a bunch of logical fallacies (affirming the consequent, circular reasoning, the reification fallacy) to make a connection between these perfectly innocent and (frankly) innocuous particles and sick people..... or indeed healthy people ('asymptomatic').
Virology's failure to even TRY to meet the most basic standards of science and logic, such as falsifiability via controls, means it will always remain valid ON ITS OWN TERMS which are far below the terms of science (AKA 'the scientific method').
What we end up with is 100 different ways of 'affirming' virology's claims using state-of-the-art fancy pants technology that the average man on the street cannot understand. But complexity, convoluted witchcraft and expensive gizmos do not make valid science.
We already have over 200 real world experiments which have consistently failed to demonstrate contagion by proximity or the sharing of bodily fluids. These experiments - on their own - make the concept of 'viruses' invalid, given that 'viruses' are said to be contagious particles transmitted by breathing, hugging and getting covered in other people's snot.
But we also have a bunch of control experiments proving that the particles commonly labelled 'viruses' are produced from standard virology cell cultures regardless of whether a 'viral sample' is added to the sterile culture or not. The 'viruses' (the particles) are just boring old breakdown products. Cellular debris. Extremely small nothing burgers.
Virologists have imbued these particles with 'magical powers' (the power to make people sick) that they simply do not have, and when it is observed that someone is not sick virologists call them 'asymptomatic'.
A reasonably intelligent dog can figure out that the consistent results of over a century of contagion experiments PLUS all the cell culture control experiments proves that these particles - while they do obviously exist - have nothing to do with how or why people get sick, because contagion is not even a mechanism and the particles are ever present anyway.
They are innocent bystanders. And given that they are likely to be present as innocent bystanders whenever you perform cell culture experiments, they can always be blamed for 'causing' sickness (or indeed asymptomatic non sickness).
And perhaps most importantly of all, these particles cannot speak and so cannot protest their innocence when accused of causing sickness, which makes them the ideal patsy to cover up the ACTUAL causes of sickness which include nutritional deficiency, seasonal changes, fear, stress and anxiety, lack of exercise and poor lifestyle, industrial pollution, chemical and EMF poisoning and big pharma drugs and vaccines.
Blaming disease on 'viruses' is like blaming poverty on redheads, after defining redheads as the cause of poverty. Now wherever there is poverty you simply locate the nearest redhead living in that area and this confirms the redhead model of poverty (circular reasoning). In affluent areas the detection of any redheads living there just means the area is currently asymptomatic.
Using logical fallacies you can make any old superstitious nonsense into something that appears to resemble 'science'. And something which is persuasive to the masses, allowing you to control the population and make lots of money. Virology is not cutting edge science, it is a return to the old superstitious shenanigans of the dark ages... complete with 'magic potions' and special costumes to ward off the 'evil spirits'.
The reason why 'virology' has become confused with 'science' is that people have forgotten that science is really a branch of philosophy (based on logic, reason, evidence) and not just a bunch of nerds in a billion dollar lab squeezing pipettes and playing on computers.
Beautiful work Corona Studies. 🏆
Yes yes yes and especially the phrase: a reasonably intelligent dog 🐶
lol. Electron microscopy shows 'stuff'! That does not prove anything whatsoever. In order for 'virus' to be 'virus', it must exhibit the ability to replicate itself without killing the host. 'virus' has never been proven to exist at all, let alone exist in vivo. Just because one observes tiny particles of 'stuff' in an electron microscope, does not mean that 'stuff' will cause any harm, or indeed, it is even the particles you were trying to observe! An observation is not in itself science. Science dictates that an experiment must be repeatable. Thus, I repeat, post an unbiased scientific study that proves 'virus' particles exist in vivo, because any newbie can cobble together an experiment with random toxic chemicals in a test tube that will cause harm. Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown. It's a concept. It is not a tangible object. Wake up people!
Virus explains what is observed in the world and under the microscope and in a gene sequencer. No other theory explains what viruses do without gaping holes.
Your tragic attempt to bully people to not accept the most convincing evidence is kind of sad and either misguided or done with malice.
lol. And your attempt to insult me and belittle my inalienable right to have a point of view, is far sadder! You present no evidence to prove the existence of 'virus'. Instead, you have to try and 'bully' me into silence! Try it, and let's see who gives up first! Sorry, Santa does not exist! Game over! Virus is nothing but a concept: virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
Santa DOES exist!
He got stuck in my chimney one Christmas Eve!
You are kind of proving my point. We call that "collection of symptoms" a virus and we describe the various ways it works based on observation and research.
Now we have a name for it and still you don't like the name because you have not done the research yourself and you do not trust those that have.
You have a problem though, the people in the no-virus camp have no credible way to describe what happens.
Of course you have inalienable rights, we all do, nothing special there.
You hope that everyone will be as gullible as you so you can feel better about being conned. You claim bacteria can make us sick. That is nice, you admit they are inside us and around us. Yet sometimes people are not sick so you are ok with some bacteria or some people or some times not causing disease. That is actually pretty advanced for most no-virus folk.
Then you try to prove your position on viruses with a rhetorical question that is an opposite theory to bacteria which are only slightly more complex pathogens.
"If 'virus' are as abundant as bacteria and it is deadly, all life would by now be extinct, wouldn't it?"
Not all viruses are "deadly" or as you say we would all be dead. If someone told you that then you need to ask them for proof that all viruses HAVE TO BE deadly.
Don't feel too bad, I am not upset or concerned. I write here to encourage those on the fence to consider things logically and not fall for the divisive psy-op that is being used to confuse people who do not have the time or inclination to do further reading.
Not sure how Santa is involved in this but there was a bit of a grisly movie made in Finland on the topic some years back. Not my cup of tea but horror movie fans may get a chuckle out of it.
"Rare Exports, A Christmas Tale", (2010). I suppose is we were to believe one Santa movie was real we would have to believe all the others are lies. Or we can predict that they are all stories.
They are distinct in their appearance and show pathology in infected cells. Viruses are not ‘living’ organisms in that these need cells to replicate.
'Viruses are not ‘living’ organisms in that these need cells to replicate.' -- hence why the study MUST be conducted in vivo and not in vitro! And, if they are killing while they replicate, there would be no host left to continue their virology!! Thus, dead virus = no replication = nothing there in the first place!
It seems you are unaware that in-vitro studies of viruses are still done inside a living cell, just not inside a living organism (unless discussing bacteriophages when the bacteria is the cell and the organism).
You make statements that are simply irrelevant because you have to pretend that you do not know that a virus cannot self replicate and needs a host cell, either a single celled organism or a cell culture that is just one type of cell that is a suitable host.
One type of experimenting on (and replication of) viruses is to infect avian eggs, this allows the virus to be maintained in a easy to control environment that is sort of in-uevo where there is no chicken and no glass apparatus. Some vaccines are cultured in this way or were in the past.
I am getting the feeling that you do actually know how all this works but because of a reputation of paycheck that you have to maintain you are simply playing dumb. That does put you in the malice camp instead of the ignorant camp.
An infected cell contains lots of stuff! Isolate the harmful stuff and prove that it will cause harm to any life! That's the challenge. You up for that? Or is it just more words?
Because they do not exist at all! Lots of words, zero proof.
Wait - then how can they replicate at such vast rates - over the oceans even???
In addition, consider bacteria, we know that bacteria is everywhere, and all life is smothered in it inside and out. But, sometimes, bacteria can make life sick. Scientists do not fully understand why, however. If 'virus' are as abundant as bacteria and it is deadly, all life would by now be extinct, wouldn't it? Next time you observe the 'virus' under the microscope, touch it, and see if you are harmed. Digest it if you like. Nothing will happen. I would bet my life on that! And so would hordes of scientists.
Something can be viewed by the select few. That does not make them disease causing. They have in any event been extracted from the body so are not seen acting in the place they came from, merely in lab conditions where they have been fiddled with.
Immunity against respiratory pathogens is not that good. It mainly relies on cellular immunity. Furthermore colds can be caused by a lot of different organisms. And apart from some short term immunity through maternal antibodies for some pathogens, immunity is not transmitted between generations.
Lots of excuses, but zero proof, as usual.
How can there be "endemic viruses in natural hosts"?
Both mean that the type of "virus" is always present in the host, does no harm there and still "breaks out" from there, although "herd immunity" is supposed to prevent exactly THAT. According to this, a "virus" should never be able to escape from the endemic host because the final destination has been reached there and no multiplication can take place due to the "antibodies".
If there were endemic viruses in natural hosts that are actually passed on from there by "zoonotic jump", this would throw the entire antibody theory overboard, which has more logical holes than a Swiss cheese anyway.
Can you close these logical holes?
Another aspect of the "endemic hosts": where did THEY "get infected"? Animals, supposedly always the origin of plndmcs, seem to suddenly have "viruses" from "somewhere" out of nowhere that do not harm them and make the leap despite immunity, and "pandemics" never take place in the animal kingdom via animal populations and the food chain either. Is it perhaps because animals don't have a wallet and therefore the wild is not a profitable market?
One more thing, if immunity to 'virus' exists, why do we still get colds? Surely, after thousands of years of humankind, humans should be 'immune' to the 'cold virus' by now?
I think you fail to appreciate the differences in diseases. A endothelial targeting airway disease is like vandalism and graffiti on your perimeter wall. A more serious infection may be akin to a break in to your house and a potentially lethal disease may be sort of like a safe cracker.
In the same way as a caretaker may wash or paint the wall to remove the vandalism we would add a second lock to our door and possibly even burglar bars to our windows and a new alarm system to our safe. We do not as a matter of course to the most expensive and long lasting upgrades to security for a low impact transient issue outside out home. We clean up the mess and move on. Every year some NEW vandal with a new type of paint will spray the wall and we clean up. However the activity in the neighborhood will remind us to check our locks and alarms and every time there is an attempted break in we make sure to renew our alarm monitoring contract.
There is no way to prevent vandalism on the perimeter of our self, we just make sure we take our Vitamin-D3 and magnesium and it works like Teflon paint on the wall and the graffiti does not stick well. Spending money on a new armed response contract for every vandal incident would bankrupt us and the same is true of the adaptive immune system. We want to choose the security systems we put in place with care.
I think the immune system = the body's ability to detect damage and attempt to self-heal. The body never gets trained to identify intruders, otherwise, by now, after 1000's of years, humankind should be immune to everything! Disease is from within, caused by numerous factors. Sometimes it's because a toxin gets in, sometimes it is because the body is lacking in nutrients, and there are factors which are simply unknown. Vitamin-D3 (vital amin), gives a clue to human biology and it's needs. It needs a lot to keep it healthy.
I suppose you are aware of how people (and other animals) can have a disease (that they can pass onto others) and then they never have it again. I understand that it is more fun to try and confuse people by saying it is a toxin that jumps from person to person and no longer works on a person that got sick from it before.
The human body does not genetically transmit immunity. It is not needed to be immune to diseases that are no longer in existence or not circulating in your community. After about 6 months our body starts to develop antibodies when fighting off a more serious infection. If our innate immune system prevents serious disease we do not make antibodies because that part of our immune system, the adaptive immune system is not activated. This is a efficiency mechanism. Think of the FBI most wanted poster wall. They put the names of the worst criminals there that we need to watch out for. They do not put all criminals and they do not put those that are in jail. There is no need for anyone to have a antibody for a plague variant that dies out in the Middle Ages.
Evolution has figured out the ways to do the best with the resources that are available. We fight the pathogens, those that cause serious disease we make antibodies so that next time it is easier.
Some pathogens do not usually get into our circulation so they seldom cause antibodies. Diseases that seldom get into out circulation cannot be fought by antibodies unless they happen to get into our circulation, this is the case for pretty much all upper airway diseases. Our innate immunity fights them off and it ends there. If our innate immunity is not good enough we get sick or if we had that pathogen before we might have antibodies to fight it off easier.
Vitamin-D3 helps out immune system (innate and adaptive) work more efficiently. If our innate system is working well our adaptive has less work to do. Win-win.
Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
There is no ‘transmission’. The symptoms arise from within. ‘Viruses’ are just the new demon.
It has been written in another context about those 'who are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.'
Respiratory disease comes from air polution and other toxic substances causing teh body to react to negate them as far as possible.
Viruses are cellular waste arising from the on-going metabolism which occurs in diseased and healthy bodies.
As to appear to disappear, oh dear, lots of things do that, it is meaningless
I came across the 'no virus' position about 2021 and thought 'surely not'. The 'fact checkers' pointed to papers that had 'viral isolate' in the title and therefore 'no virus is debunked' but of course it's become obvious that factcheckers rely on people's laziness or desire to find a quick way of dismissing some uncomfortable truth because if you take the time, as suggested by the Bailey's for eg, to look at the methodology it's clear that all they mean is that a biological soup was 'isolated' from a patient not a purified virus. At least that was the state of the factcheckers debunk.
Since going with 'no virus' I've not avoided so called infectious people and have had folk cough almost in my face and haven't 'caught' anything. It makes me wonder if people get ill because they think they will. Also if flu viruses are highly contagious and mutate every season why don't we all get flu every year? I had 'flu' 20 years ago but nothing as debilitating as that since. All anecdotal. We try to eat as clean as possible now which might explain a reduction in the need to have a 'healing crisis' (fever/cold symptoms) if you go with a terrain model of disease. Seems to me we've been living in a tyrannical regime for a long time!
youcantcatcha virus. this is balony
Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
lableakoron purpose
Respect to Clare Craig for her great knowledge and I've still got an open mind about viruses - that they may or maynit exist but in my stupidity I expect viral particles that we're supposed to breath out to be easily 'captured' and purified and shown to cause the same disease symptoms in another person by aerosol exposure. Or similarly, infected lung tissue full of millions of replicating viruses should, you'd have thought, be easily purified and visualised etc.
Regarding images I don't think anyone can say that visualised particles are viruses. For one thing you find exactly the same particles appearing in proper control experiments where there is no virus in the sample -they all are probably vesicles produced by the cell breakdown process (?)
In the Boston Board of Health Spanish Flu experiment they couldn't infect even one of the 100 healthy 'volunteers'. Apparently all contagion research draws a blank? If true then maybe it's because there is no viral transmission. People get ill but it's your own body generating an attempted healing crisis.
Quite so. I have written my own response to Clare, but the so-called viruses are found in healthy and diseased people, so as metabolism is on-going all the time one will find cell debris in its billions.
Waste it is and must be disposed of but not inherently disease causing, like household waste must be adequately cleared.
Thank you for such a clear summary. I wish my brain could lay it all out so logically!
It’s all nonsense and Clare knows it - or she would claim the £3000 if only to make a point.
Played right into their hands Clare.Sewage samples, Delta, Omicron, a joke played on you. Anyone for a fake PCR test, ramped up to the wazoo or how about isolating a bit of variant from the sewage? I'm afraid you don't get it & by the looks & the sounds of it you never will. By supporting the "variants" nonsense gave these creatures the opportunity for the full scale assault, across the world @ the same time, to jab everyone who didn't move. By the way did you ever test the sewage or see the results with your own eyes or did you just believe? 🤔
https://peoplesvaccineinquiry.co.uk/video/dr-claire-craig-pathologist/
Hi.
Just to be clear: NOTHING about my initial letter to Clare was a joke, an entrapment strategy, or anything along those lines.
She said on X that SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus. I've been probing lab origin and zoonotic hypotheses for awhile now, including the PhDs and other experts who hold different views. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/index-what-do-i-think-about
I used Substack to make my inquiries because Clare did not see my questions to her on X, thanks to X's stupid algorithms.
This is a respectful exchange of ideas and I will reply in full to Clare via my Susbtack after spring break.
She and I both already know that we disagree substantially.
The idea at this point - at least from my perspective - is to document differences and (hopefully) be instructive to others, as they work out for themselves what they do/don't believe occurred.
Hi Jessica, I don't recall having a go at you. Anyway I must have touched a nerve & I have a name so be respectful & use it if you wish to communicate with me. Please don't lecture me as to what I can & cannot say & no worries if you can't handle it. If this is just an exchange of ideas why not do it privately & respectfully, instead of giving the appearance of entrapment & your ideas & theories are smarter than hers?
Direct address using a name isn't necessary in a direct reply. "Hi" is friendly and sufficient IMO.
You did not "have a go" at me but said "played into their hands" in your reply to Clare's letter to me, and the pronoun reference is unclear.
No nerve touched and I am not lecturing you or attempting to restrict your opinion.
This is a public forum and I have an interest in reiterating my intentions so that the audience does not misconstrue them.
Clare and I have exchanged a few emails in the past.
I am a huge fan of public intellectual debate and dialogue.
This is not a "personal" issue and there is no need for privacy. In fact, I would argue that, during the COVID era, private groups have (mostly unintentionally) served to SUPPRESS and discourage conversations that should be in the public realm.
Colleagues and I modeled this here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/dialogue-wpierre-kory
And made another kind of attempt here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/question-everything-except-that-thing
All the best
Thanks for the lesson Jessica 👍🇦🇺🦘
No -- rhank YOU for demonstrating
a) your duplicity, and
b) why - as a result of the COVID Era - Australians have to work extra hard to earn my regard
https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/response-to-jessica-hockett/comment/97086359?r=jjay2&utm_medium=ios
This is my last response to you.
God Bless America, land that I love.
I knew it, touched a nerve, you know all, sanctimonious dill. Teacher says; "Australians need to work extra hard to earn her regard." I might be the ONLY Australian who EVER gave your public spats a cursory glance, so Australia is safe from your inward looking, navel gazing, petulant comments Jess. Fact is, you & Clare are very similar sheila's. Poor Irving Berlin & look up discernment, you might learn something. Bored now.👍🇦🇺🦘😃
Actually, I had thought you were being unforgivably rude, Roc, and ruining the decorum at this forum.
But now I see that you're an Aussie, no worries mate! :)
As we say here in Oz mate, piss off & mind your own business.👍🇦🇺🦘
Peaks happen at predictable times of year. Yeah, flu seaspn. The virus has never been isolated. This was a PCR test caused pandemic. You are part of Couey's bike show. People being infected? With what? RNA cannot pandemic.
Yes. Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
There is zero signature of contagion in the mortality stats. All the symptoms you scapegoat the ‘virus’ for are more rationally-explained by diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors.
If anyone has a direct contact link to Claire please PM me
I can no longer accept that so called “experts” continue to assume no one will question them. Science is a process of continuous questioning
Claire doesn’t seem to acknowledge this
If she engages in debate then I will be open to have a discussion on her views
Otherwise I will pen her into the category of “Controlling the NARRATIVE”
Engage with me Claire
In the interests of your authenticity as a human being.
Clare,
Sars-cov-2 was already present in sewage water samples from the beginning of 2019 in Barcelona.
Other studies found sars-cov-2 via PCR or antibodies testing in Italy, France, Brazil, USA from september - december.
There was no new virus spreading. Excess mortality was 100% caused by lockdowns.
Main driver excess mortality was in nursing homes: please read following article https://www.science.org/content/article/physician-has-studied-fukushima-disaster-decade-and-found-surprising-health-threat
Second driver: shutting down hospitals. Longer response times for heart attacks, neglect diabetes patients,…
3rd driver: over use mechanical ventilation, overmedication, isolating “patients” in hospitals causing huge anxiety and stress.
Yes - I know. I have discussed the autumn 2019 beginning here: https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/response-to-jessica-hockett
I have also repeatedly written about policy induced deaths.
Why do you need to hold on to a theory, when everything can be explained much more easily? You are 95% there, let go of the 5%, you don’t need it.
Please read the fukushima article. The similarities are eye opening.
The dumb PCR tests just confirmed you were human! Virus = a collection of symptoms where root cause is unknown.
Clare, please clear up the following breaks in logic with your concept of "viral spread":
The lack of mass deaths among homeless people worldwide.
The lack of mass deaths in slums worldwide.
The self-declarations of virological institutions worldwide that it is not possible to obtain pure isolates from aerosols because the pathogens are too small and too fragile.
The self-declarations of the same institutions that no pathogens have been or can be obtained directly from body fluids. It is always necessary to take the detour via cell culture and added chemicals.
Virology's own statements that the identical genome of SARS-CoV-2 can never be found, but only variants can be calculated (through assembly and alignment). Therefore over 16 million variants already in gene databases in 2022)
The absence of further waves since the end of the test regimes.
The careless handling of masks and all material that should be considered highly contaminated.
The absence of waves, clusters and peaks in deaths in countries that have taken no action (e.g. African countries, Belarus).
How could a zoonosis occur if the natural host animal (realistically, this cannot be a single animal, but an animal species) does not fall ill, ergo must have antibodies, ergo cannot be contagious, ergo cannot spread. Alternatively, the entire vaccine logic falls apart.
Hi Clare.
My response is here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/response-to-clare-craig-88e
Thanks.
I've written a detailed response to your sequencing claims here: https://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread