1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    22 Mar '21 16:59
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    Well, you will continue your troll ways regardless.
    The bottom line is the specificity of the virus cannot be duplicated in a lab because of the near uncountable variations that have to be gone through to get to the ones that show the ability to penetrate human and other cells.

    But of course you will deny that since your Phd thesis on this subject has proven otherwise. Can you show us your Phd thesis?
    Predictably, you think you know better than a Nobel Prize winner for Medicine. His credentials are better than yours, wildgrass and the other dork that doesn't want to accept reality.

    The bottom line is the specificity of the virus is determine by virus genetic engineers that know much more about how viruses work than anybody else that claims to. These are biowarfare aspects of the military. They don't share their knowledge with others legally. It is top secret info on a need to know basis.

    Speculating on the limitations of scientists who are far more experts than armchair critics with far less expertise is a leap of faith on your part. You don't know. You are just repeating gossip.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    22 Mar '21 19:14
    @Metal-Brain
    Ah, because someone who wins the NP prize means he is infallible.
    Got it.

    So the bottom line is thousands of people who got the C19 vaccine will die of cancer, is that your stance?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    23 Mar '21 01:58
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    Ah, because someone who wins the NP prize means he is infallible.
    Got it.

    So the bottom line is thousands of people who got the C19 vaccine will die of cancer, is that your stance?
    No more than viruses do. It increases the risk, but it doesn't mean you will get cancer anytime soon. Hep C increases risk, but it isn't necessarily a death sentence. It could take decades.

    Don't worry, you will probably die of a heart attack first.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    23 Mar '21 19:401 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Predictably, you think you know better than a Nobel Prize winner for Medicine. His credentials are better than yours, wildgrass and the other dork that doesn't want to accept reality.

    The bottom line is the specificity of the virus is determine by virus genetic engineers that know much more about how viruses work than anybody else that claims to. These are biowarfare a ...[text shortened]... h far less expertise is a leap of faith on your part. You don't know. You are just repeating gossip.
    Let's debunk this once and for all shall we? These guys aren't (yet) Nobel winners, but they seem to know what they're talking about. Unlike Dr. Montagnier, they have data to support their thesis.
    Lack of the definite origin of 2019-nCoV has led to speculation that 2019-nCoV might be derived from genetic manipulation or even for the purpose of use as a bioweapon.... A recent informally presented report showed that 2019-nCoV had four insertions in the spike glycoprotein gene that is critical for the virus to enter the target cells when compared to other coronaviruses... This study implies that 2019-nCoV might be generated by gaining gene fragments from the HIV-1 genome..... Our results demonstrated no evidence that the sequences of these four inserts are HIV-1 specific or the 2019-nCoV viruses obtain these insertions from HIV-1.... Blast against viral sequence database also showed these insertion sequences widely exist in all kinds of viruses from bacteriophage, influenza, to giant eukaryotic viruses (Table 1).... Sequences that completely match the insertion 3 and 4 sequences were not found in any HIV-1 sequences. This clearly shows that these insertion sequences are widely present in living organisms including viruses, but not HIV-1 specific... Biased, partial and incorrect analysis can dangerously lead to conclusions that fuel conspiracies and harm the process of true scientific discoveries and the effort to control the damage to public health.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    24 Mar '21 04:291 edit
    @wildgrass said
    Let's debunk this once and for all shall we? These guys aren't (yet) Nobel winners, but they seem to know what they're talking about. Unlike Dr. Montagnier, they have data to support their thesis.
    Lack of the definite origin of 2019-nCoV has led to speculation that 2019-nCoV might be derived from genetic manipulation or even for the purpose of use as a bioweapon.... ...[text shortened]... control the damage to public health.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
    What sequence?
    Where did they obtain that sequence?

    You seem to be willfully ignoring the allegation that most of the sequencing is fraudulent. Where did they get the data from? You need to establish the data is legit and not fraudulent.

    https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    24 Mar '21 04:53
    Bill Gates' good friend Fauci funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
    Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

    https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

    In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

    Did we get our money's worth?
  7. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    24 Mar '21 21:25
    @metal-brain said
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    "#4 SARS-CoV-2 the Theoretical Virus: CDC Admitted They Made a Digital Virus of 30,000 Base Pairs Using 37 Actual Sample Base Pairs

    As covered in my previous article SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus, the CDC has already admitted that SARS-CoV-2 is a computer-generated digital virus, not a real living virus ...[text shortened]... it here."

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-theoretical-virus/5735833
    https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/novel-coronavirus-sarscov2-images
  8. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    24 Mar '21 21:35
    @metal-brain said
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    "#4 SARS-CoV-2 the Theoretical Virus: CDC Admitted They Made a Digital Virus of 30,000 Base Pairs Using 37 Actual Sample Base Pairs

    As covered in my previous article SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus, the CDC has already admitted that SARS-CoV-2 is a computer-generated digital virus, not a real living virus ...[text shortened]... it here."

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-theoretical-virus/5735833
    Though I only skimmed it, this is my favorite line from the article you poached from a website ostensibly dedicated to "research on globalization":
    “In silico” is pseudo-Latin for “theoretical”; in plain English, synonyms for theoretical are “imaginary” and “make-believe.”
  9. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '21 22:161 edit
    @metal-brain said
    What sequence?
    Where did they obtain that sequence?

    You seem to be willfully ignoring the allegation that most of the sequencing is fraudulent. Where did they get the data from? You need to establish the data is legit and not fraudulent.

    https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html
    All the relevant information is in the article and publically available. To address your questions, sequences are deposited in genbank from several labs with all relevant contact info. The scientists are public figures. I think if you are questioning the validity you can email the authors directly to ask for the raw chromatograms. Their contact info is in the article. They respond.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    25 Mar '21 14:35
    @soothfast said
    https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/novel-coronavirus-sarscov2-images
    Those are images, not a genetic sequence.
    Irrelevant.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    25 Mar '21 14:371 edit
    @wildgrass said
    All the relevant information is in the article and publically available. To address your questions, sequences are deposited in genbank from several labs with all relevant contact info. The scientists are public figures. I think if you are questioning the validity you can email the authors directly to ask for the raw chromatograms. Their contact info is in the article. They respond.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/
    Why don't you do that?
    Don't you want to know?

    The original Corman-Drosten paper admits they used a theoretical virus sequence for all their work and calculations. They, like the CDC and every government and agency, claim this is only because no isolate was ever available. I wonder if any of these scientists every asked WHY the isolate has never been available?

    Why don't you ask them?
  12. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    26 Mar '21 03:37
    @metal-brain said
    Why don't you do that?
    Don't you want to know?

    The original Corman-Drosten paper admits they used a theoretical virus sequence for all their work and calculations. They, like the CDC and every government and agency, claim this is only because no isolate was ever available. I wonder if any of these scientists every asked WHY the isolate has never been available?

    Why don't you ask them?
    I do know. I have read the paper and seen the sequence.

    I was only suggesting that you reach out to the researchers if you think the info is fraudulent. It's pretty simple. Just ask them. Their correspondence email is in the paper and they are quite accessible.

    Please post back here with their reply.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    26 Mar '21 17:48
    @wildgrass said
    I do know. I have read the paper and seen the sequence.

    I was only suggesting that you reach out to the researchers if you think the info is fraudulent. It's pretty simple. Just ask them. Their correspondence email is in the paper and they are quite accessible.

    Please post back here with their reply.
    You say they will respond, but how do you know that? The only way you could know that is if you messaged them to find out.

    Be honest for a change. What do you really know and not know?
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    27 Mar '21 00:41
    @Metal-Brain

    Are you so stupid you can't email them yourself? I guess that kind of thing is against your MO as a pro level troll.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    27 Mar '21 07:06
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain

    Are you so stupid you can't email them yourself? I guess that kind of thing is against your MO as a pro level troll.
    Can't you?
    Are you so stupid you can't email them yourself?

    I already confirmed it with the sources provided. The problem with you is you still will not believe it. It is you that needs to email them. Facts will not sway you. You will keep rejecting it because of incredulity alone unless you do.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/insanity-pcr-testing-saga/5740563
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree