Ik ontving een email van een ex-lezer, geadresseerd aan een twintigtal redacties van allerlei media. Terugkerend thema van deze ex-abonnee: "virussen bestaan niet". We zijn er volgens die stroming allemaal ingetrapt. Virussen bestaan niet dus we zijn misleid dus de lableak is onzin dus het is een complot. Of zoiets. Dit is de laatste keer dat ik hier tijd aan besteed, hoezeer ik ook kan meegaan in de rol van big pharma en de verwevenheid met overheden. Hieronder het stuk dat de redacties moest overtuigen (deels, ik vond het halverwege wel mooi geweest). Ik heb mijn opmerkingen over de bewijsvoering tussengevoegd in paars. Er werd in de email ook verwezen naar een video But I couldn't get through that.
Lablek: A sophisticated deception?
The ongoing investigations into the elusive Covid Pandemic murder mystery have been polluted by all manner of obfuscations and deceptions. Chief among these shaky assumptions are the various versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus lab-leak theory, which has more lives than a wildcat and possesses the ability to resurface as often as the zombies lurking in the woods on the outskirts of the city.
Anyone who thinks that the lab leak theory was ever dead is very easily fooled.
Once the curtain is raised on the unsubstantiated lab leak hypotheses, the socially staged wizardry of the Covid Pandemic is revealed to be the basic scheme that it is.
"base scheme", ik vermoed dat daarmee een vooropgezet plan wordt bedoeld. De lablek hypothese is niet ongefundeerd. Ik snap het meervoud 'lablekhypothesen' ook niet, alsof het om een grabbelton met loze uitspraken gaat.
"Ongrijpbaar", "Vervuild", "wankel", "ongefundeerd"... Bij elke suggestieve woordkeuze is wel een vraag te stellen. We hebben te maken met een hartstochtelijk opiniestuk. Het is duidelijk welke kant de auteur ons op wil hebben. Gideon van Meijeren is er niets bij. Zelfs als hij 100% gelijk heeft, weet hij het zo te brengen dat bij de toehoorders alle rolluiken naar beneden gaan. Dit is een contraproductieve communicatiestrategie: de 'gestrekt-been-headkick'. Juist degenen die je zou willen informeren, voelen radicalisering waardoor je ongeloofwaardig wordt. Met bevlogenheid moet je oppassen. Het leidt al gauw tot een kansloze benadering.
The lab-leak claim states that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered quasi-biological, lethal gain-of-function phenomenon rather than one created by the Computer-generated construction. It Initial research article illustrates that the virus in question was nothing more than an in-silico appearance, a simulacrum created by demonstrably unreliable genomic sequencing.
De lablek-claim stelt niet dat het onderzoeksdoel viel onder de definitie 'gain-of-function', al is het zeker een optie. Het is uit een lab afkomstig, dat is de lablek theorie. Hoe het precies met de sequencing zit weet ik niet. Na dat eerste onderzoeksartikel waarnaar wordt verwezen is er nog heel veel gebeurd maar het is een expertise die niet de mijne is, ik kan daar weinig over zeggen. Virus of niet? What I don't understand is what it would make to the course of the pandemic response. In labs all over the world, infectious pathogens and protection against them are being used. Compare it to gas masks and tearAsh, but contagious. The military-industrial complex is pouring hundreds of millions into this. Follow the money, I think. This is not an idee-fixe. Whether it's a virus or something else, they don't care at all, as long as it's contagious (or not, depending on the purpose of use) and sickening and/or deadly. The PCR test would also be fake, because viruses do not exist. That reasoning is also wrong. After all, you can always make fake tests, for which the existence or non-existence of viruses is irrelevant.
This theory is based on the fanciful story that an escaped virus from a hyperreality TV show miraculously slipped out of a biological research facility in faraway Wuhan, China, went on a global rampage and killed millions of people.
It is by no means miraculous. It happens regularly and obstructive security measures are evaded. Do I really need to keep going into this nonsense? (In the original article there are links to other articles, please check them because I won't copy them here anymore, it will take me too much time.)
Door te suggereren dat het virus een door de mens gemaakte microbiële moordenaar was, vermijden de verkondigers van het laboratoriumlekverhaal dat de afgelopen drieënhalf jaar een opzettelijke, zeer georganiseerde slachting van de wereldbevolking was onder het mom van de bescherming van de "volksgezondheid".
Deliberate, organized? Why not the position of the stars? Or a Mayan calendar cycle? Or opportunistic protection of self-interest? There is just as much evidence for this.
Unfortunately, many knowledgeable people who are skeptical of the pharmacological fantasies of the medical industry are still trapped in the lab leak circuit of the Covid merry-go-round.
Te midden van de hyperfocus op gain-of-function onderzoek, furin splitsingsplaatsen, restrictie-enzymen en de rest van de sciencefiction vernaculaire die de lab-leak hypothese in wetenschappelijk klinkende mumbo jumbo hullen, ligt een elementaire vraag: "Houdt deze theorie ook maar een greintje stand?".
Gain-of-function research, furin cleavage sites, restriction enzymes are realities. What you don't understand isn't necessarily untrue. There are also frequent references to computers in a way that reminds me of the Amish. Computers are tools that we use, among other things, to analyze and design microstructures. Whether it is a poison (which does not multiply in organisms) or a virus (a poison that can multiply in organisms and become infectious).
Een opvallende eigenaardigheid die de dreiging van een "biowapen uit het lab" in twijfel trekt, is het feit dat de "Covid-19" sterfgevallen de leeftijds-/risicostratificatie en seizoensgebonden curve volgen van griep en longontsteking (twee ziekten die tot 2020 door gezondheidsautoriteiten op één hoop werden gegooid in hun grafieken).
Of dat iets in twijfel trekt kun je pas zeggen als je het doel weet van zo'n biowapen. Misschien hebben ze het wel juist zo gemaakt dat het het patroon van griep volgt, om jullie op het verkeerde been te zetten! (Ik bedoel dit als geintje hoor, niet dat dit straks ook weer als 'bewijs' wordt aangevoerd). Volgens de virusontkenners there will and must be an evil genius. I see it as an expression of the typical human penchant for religion, which is then Personified.
Equally inexplicable is the fact that flu cases reported in 2020 suddenly disappeared in many countries.
Er is altijd een dominante variant die eerder en grootschaliger toeslaat dan minder geslaagde varianten binnen het tijdraam van een bepaalde immuniteitshabitat. En dat veel griep aan Covid is toegeschreven lijdt geen twijfel. Dat is goed verklaarbaar zonder paranoïde scenario's. De hypothese met de minste aannames is de waarschijnlijkste.
Ondertussen zijn veel sterfgevallen door longontsteking sinds 2020 frauduleus toegeschreven aan "Covid" op overlijdenscertificaten. Zelfs als de biowapen theorie werkelijkheid zou zijn, zouden we misschien opgelucht moeten zijn, omdat Covid slechts twee soorten populaties leek te kunnen treffen:
- people over 80 with multiple comorbidities and
- other chronically ill people who were already in hospitals and nursing homes or were sent there.
Maybe that was the intention. Or maybe it was because the bioweapon wasn't finished yet. Or was it just a lab accident by someone who was trying to save the world from the next pandemic, which would also mainly affect people over 80.
In deze instellingen werden "Covid" patiënten onder dwang "behandeld" met giftige medicatie, aan kalmerende middelen en beademingsapparatuur gelegd die hun longen opbliezen of deden instorten en in hun kamers achtergelaten om een pijnlijke, eenzame, wanhopige dood te sterven.
Familieleden mochten niet bij hen zijn om hen te troosten, om vragen te stellen over de macabere protocollen die genadeloos werden toegepast en om hen uit de "dodencellen" te verjagen.
Ja, en? Waarom waren die mensen eigenlijk naar het ziekenhuis gekomen? En dan nog, als dit waar is, hoe draagt dat dan bij aan de stelling dat virussen niet bestaan? Het zou met een virus ook zo kunnen gebeuren. 'Ze deden het om ons te pesten'? Ook dat klinkt religieus: een almacht die het op ons voorzien heeft.
Dat het sterftecijfer dat aan Covid werd toegeschreven zo laag was onder de rest van de wereldbevolking bewijst dat het vermeende "biowapen" een blindganger was.
Deze uitspraak alleen al. Het kan ook een test zijn geweest. Of een stiekeme aerogene chip-implantatie met bijwerkingen. Of het ging uiteindelijk om de vaccinaties, ter voorbereiding op een alien-invasie. De aliens kunnen de meest volgzamen er nu met een simpele scan uitpikken om ze te verkrachten in hun UFO's. Of het was gewoon een ongelukje.
In fact, to hang on to the lab leak theory and the grandiose narrative of the Covid pandemic requires twisted mental gymnastics and a blind faith in the esoteric.
Well, I'm tempted to give up here. Following the rules of logic seems to you to be twisted brain acrobatics. I can imagine something about it, because a blind faith in evil conspiracies requires little brainpower. Not to say: little brainpower is required.
Talloze ongerijmdheden wijzen erop dat de theorie van het lablek - en mogelijk het virus zelf - een mythe is.
Here are a few quirks that should prompt any sane person to question the lab leak theory:
(1) Dit zogenaamde Covid-virus sloeg blijkbaar zonder waarschuwing toe. Er was geen waarneembaar bewijs van besmetting eind 2019 of begin 2020 dat zou leiden tot een massale sterfte. In de VS en in vermeende hotspots elders begon het Covid-doodsgebeuren te worden gemeld precies in dezelfde week dat de WHO een wereldwijde pandemie afkondigde - half maart 2020.
How on earth is that sudden appearance an argument against a lab leak? Did other viruses jump to orange first or something? Denis Rancourt also uses this simultaneity of proclamations and outbreaks, but I don't see him substantiating it anywhere. The proclamations were just quite accurate, so indeed about the same time as the outbreak began, sometimes a little earlier. If they had announced it six months earlier, it would have been more suspicious. A month later, too. This is idle chatter.
ASK:
What dark magic was involved that trained this microbial Kraken to be released only on administrative orders and to peak synchronously only in certain locations?
Apparently, you expect all locations to be neatly finished one by one, regardless of seasonal conditions, etc.
Are we to believe that a suddenly super-spreading, deadlier than flu, well-functioning virus was waiting for a government decree to create an excess of deaths?
No, you don't have to. That's something you've come up with yourself by not considering accurate proclamation and not thinking about weather conditions, holidays, or whatever.
Why didn't this deadly virus cause mass mortality in the Chinese city where a lab leak allegedly occurred at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Why? Maybe it wasn't the most vulnerable population at the time, did you ever think about that? The reliability of the official Chinese figures is also sometimes questioned. It may also be that fining, punishing and locking up people helps to reduce general mortality. Plenty of possibilities. Wie zal het zeggen, jullie in elk geval niet want elke vraag leidt bij jullie tot het antwoord "Dus het was geen virus dus het was zo gepland".
En hoezo 'geen massale sterfte'? 56% oversterfte in Wuhan is toch geen kattepis. (klik voor studie)
"In Wuhan's DSP districts, the observed overall mortality rate was 56% higher than expected.
Conclusies: Behalve in Wuhan werd in andere delen van China geen toename van de totale mortaliteit gevonden tijdens de drie maanden van de covid-19 uitbraak. De lagere sterftecijfers aan bepaalde niet aan covid-19 gerelateerde ziekten kunnen worden toegeschreven aan de daarmee samenhangende gedragsveranderingen tijdens de lockdown."
Research from February 2021
(2) This alleged virus did not migrate from northern Italy to central or southern Italy, nor did it affect other parts of Europe. Instead, it improbably jumped straight to a public hospital in Elmhurst in the Corona neighborhood of Queens, New York City.
QUESTION: Was that a fluke or not?
There have been more places where infected people have infected large groups of others under optimal conditions due to a lack of common-sense measures. The après-ski party and carnival, for example, or nursing homes. Lots of people, little outside air, proper humidity.
(3) De "eerste golf" van Covid-doden in de VS vond bijna uitsluitend plaats in verpleeghuizen en ziekenhuizen, niet in de algemene bevolking.
ASK:
How is it possible that this virus was so demographically smart?
Same question, same answer: There have been more places where infected people have infected large groups of others under optimal conditions due to a lack of common-sense measures. The après-ski party and carnival, for example, or nursing homes. Lots of people, little outside air, proper humidity.
Why did it focus so specifically on those institutions, filled with the sick, the weak, and the elderly, and so completely overrun them?
Dat ze overspoeld werden heeft niets te maken met de medicatie die ze toedienden. Even nadenken: jullie 'plan' houdt dus in dat mensen eerst via een relatief onschuldig virus (of nee: denkbeeldig) ziek moesten worden gemaakt zodat ze in ziekenhuizen konden worden doodgespoten en doodbeademd. Beetje omslachtig, niet? Dat kan toch echt veel handiger.
Zou het hoge sterftecijfer in ziekenhuizen en verpleeghuizen niets te maken hebben met hun toepassing van gevaarlijke protocollen, hun eenzijdige "do-not-resuscitate"-bevelen en hun blijkbaar doelbewuste beleid van verwaarlozing?
Ja dat geloof ik best. En daarom is het DUS geen virus...? En geen lableak? Er gaat iets helemaal fout in die logische reeks. Een 'drogreden' heeft meestal nog wel wat weg van echte argumentatie maar hier is gewoon elk verband zoek.
(4) Tijdens die vermeende "eerste golf" waren de getroffen mensen voornamelijk arm en velen waren gehandicapt.
QUESTION: How is this Frankenstein virus programmed to avoid upper-middle-class people and wealthy people? How did it know to shun healthy and capable people? Aren't the poor always more susceptible to disease? Do we need a viral event to explain this?
Any relapse affects the poor first. So is climate change. Do you also ask the question of how climate change Know that he must first strike the poor? Really something for the stupid questions category, I'm not even going to explain that. Could the lableak story only be valid if a representative part of the world's population had died? Otherwise, it's not a bioweapon and so it's not a virus and therefore not a lab leak? There is no strings attached.
(5) Tijdens die eerste golf, als we het verhaal van de "zich verspreidende ziekteverwekker" moeten geloven, moeten we geloven dat dit virus geografisch uitgekookt was. Hoe kon het dat bepaalde counties en metrogebieden in bepaalde staten in de VS werden getroffen, terwijl aangrenzende regio's niet werden getroffen? Vreemd genoeg lagen veel van deze door Covid getroffen counties in de VS vlak naast gebieden die niet getroffen waren, waaronder in de metroregio NYC, waar het virus niet in staat leek om rivieren over te steken.
VRAAG: Was deze "gain-of-function" hobgoblin ontworpen om provincie-, staats- en landsgrenzen te herkennen en zich te beperken tot stedelijke gebieden, terwijl voorstedelijke en landelijke gemeenschappen grotendeels met rust werden gelaten?
Dit zijn merkwaardige vragen voor iemand die zich in het onderwerp heeft verdiept. Gegevens worden over het algemeen per land/staat gemeten en beschikbaar gesteld. Je zou eerder aan administratieve verschillen of aan verschillende maatregelpakketten kunnen denken (nota bene worden die verderop in het artikel 'uiteenlopende resultaten' said). Het verschil tussen stedelijke en landelijke gebieden... ik hou op. Het is werkelijk dom om te denken dat je iets te vertellen hebt en dan met dit soort basic onbegrip op de proppen komt. Laat je fantasie eens werken of nog beter: lees je in!
(6) Zelfs na de "eerste golf" waren de bevolkingsgroepen die het exclusieve doelwit leken te zijn van dit "biowapen", zowel in als buiten instellingen, ouderen, zieken en gehandicapten - mensen die vatbaarder zijn voor allerlei soorten aandoeningen.
QUESTION: Why did the supposedly new virus overtake children and younger adults and healthy people?
So first you make it suspicious that the virus is selective and then you make it suspicious that less vulnerable people will get their turn anyway? What!?
(7) Deze in het lab uitgelekte demonische entiteit doodde veel meer slachtoffers op plaatsen waar de feitelijke politiestaat "noodmaatregelen" het hevigst waren en veel minder slachtoffers in aangrenzende rechtsgebieden met mildere maatregelen.
QUESTION: Why?
Because the virus read the newspaper about the disproportionate measures and hit back extra hard at reluctant jurisdictions. Okay?
What each of these bizarre events illustrates is that there was no global viral event.
Why not, did we miss something? I mainly see assumptions, inconsistencies and logical errors.
Instead, we saw radically different public health policies and mandates in a handful of jurisdictions around the world produce radically different health outcomes.
So different measures, all aimed at virus control, led to different results. Does that mean a virus or not? Incomprehensible. It is obvious that different behaviours lead to different results. What do you conclude from that? 👇
Thus, it is implausible to attribute this converging set of conditions to a lab-leaked daemon or pathogen of any kind. It must be attributed to a coordinated campaign orchestrated by powerful interest groups and their collaborators in academia, the medical industry, and the media.
"Convergerend"...? En als je het zelf niet kunt verklaren is het DUS een georkestreerde campagne. Right. Zo maak je een complot van alles wat je niet doorgrondt.
We're only halfway through the piece, but I've seen enough. No more e-mails please. I'm open to substantiated hypotheses, but they're not going to come from this corner.
If you want to read the rest, go ahead! For me, this chapter is now definitively closed.
Coincidentally, Jan Bonte had something similar going on and he concludes with a wonderful quote that I am happy to adopt:
"It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out".
P.s.: I don't respond to comments or emails anymore. I've already spent too much time on it.
Simplicity is the hallmark of truth.
After reading a few paragraphs, intuition says: this is evil Chat Gpt.
I think the article you are discussing makes a false connection: A lab leak cannot exist because viruses have never been demonstrated (cf. the well-known postulates).
This denies the existence of gene sequences that could cause disease under the right circumstances.
This is commonly referred to as virus.
It would be interesting to see if these gene sequences can also satisfy the postulates.
I think that in the end Pasteur also came to see 'disease' as multi-factorial.
Although you indicate that you do not comment on the comments, I would like to ask you to make an exception to this link.
Maybe you're already familiar with this one.
For me, this article still raises questions about the existence of the virus phenomenon.
Thanks in advance.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/10/10/kochs-postulates-and-the-great-asymptomatic-escape/
Sorry, it just doesn't interest me. Infections exist and so do epidemics. As far as I'm concerned, it will soon become clear that we should not have called this a 'virus'. So they worked on something else in the lab. For example, a lab leak can also be about chemicals.
Koch's postulates were useful in the 19th century and a step in the right direction. I wouldn't get stuck in it. If you do that, we will never get rid of those droplet infections.
And about Pasteur: read Jan Bonte's tweet. In addition, Pasteur, however groundbreaking and important, does not really represent the current state of science. He died in 1895.
Well, I think it's been enough.
🙂
Thank you for your quick response.
Last comment from my side,
as far as germs are concerned, Koch's postulates are as relevant today as they were then.
(Given how you design your own blogs, I think you'll find it an interesting article that I sent).
Only the first one: "The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms."
You can't get away with that these days. First of all, he talks about 'micro-organisms', which is a term that was used differently then, in the 19th century, than it is now, with our scans and electron microscopes. You have to wonder if he would have included viruses. After all, these are not organisms.
By the way, Pasteur didn't even know about the existence of viruses, so to relate his statements to that... Nowadays, in addition to the doctor's eye, there are also electronic aids and statistics.
Also take a look at proteins, causative agents of disease processes (the word 'germs' sounds too organic): the famous Spike protein.
This is everywhere, especially when it enters the bloodstream, everywhere in your body, even in the brain and reproductive organs. So also in complaint-free bodies. Are these organs 'healthy'? What about metastatic cancer (not an organism either, by the way)?
Or are those organs in which you find some of those 'germs' no longer 'healthy', precisely because that 'germ' has been found in them? Then that postulate becomes circular reasoning.
What someone thought about it 150 years ago I take note of and I see it as an important step in a scientific process. But don't test it anymore... Why would you?
The late Rev. Klaas Hendrikse said: "God does not exist, God happens".
Paraphrasing to that, you could say, "Viruses don't exist, viruses happen." And we all experience the latter, if only because of the annual colds and flu.
Anton, now we are in the middle of a postal exchange.
With today's advanced equipment you would be able to identify microorganisms (read pathogens) much better and I would say submit them to the logical postulates.
Even if it's a gene sequence...
What's the problem?
The fact that this has still not been achieved with viruses and also with bacteria (see article) is food for thought.
(That we can get sick is a fact, but how exactly this complex process works...)
The fact that Big Pharma has generally reduced this to 'bugs' / germs is in my opinion too simple, but it does fit into the revenue model.
Moving on to the first postulate: asymptomatic carriers of 'pathogenic' bacteria are clearly in conflict with the first postulate.
For example, the Sars Cov2 virus has not yet been demonstrated via the logical postulates.
No isolation and purification let alone reused for reinfection in another organism.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/.
None other than R Foucier is also of the opinion that Koch's postulates are the standard. https://www.science.org/content/article/ron-fouchier-new-coronavirus-we-need-fulfill-kochs-postulates
( ps he thought he had isolated the Sars Cov virus, see article)
Sick v. Health.
Can you be asymptomatically?
Regarding your example of biodistribution, that's a nice thought exercise.
If I go with you....
When is an organ sick?
If we take the definition of being sick into account, there is a disruption of homeostasis, physically and/or psychologically.
In this case, the organ is impeded in its normal functioning, and is generally accompanied by symptoms.
With regard to the spike protein, you can argue as long as the organ functions without hindrance, it is not diseased even if the spike protein would have elements.
Burkhardt has shown through staining that vaccine-related spikes have caused organ damage, gene sequences...?
Anyway, also for a protein, spike protein in this case, as a pathogen the same will apply, if it cannot meet the logical postulates, isolation, purification, reinfection with identical symptoms in another organism, then nothing has been demonstrated and you cannot attach any further consequences to it and therefore the postulates are still relevant.
Having said all this, the question remains for me whether gene sequences alone can make people sick
Well said Casper. Unfortunately, Anton doesn't dare to confront his cognitive dissonance, like so many others. It is useless to try to convince him, I have noticed in email exchange. The statements and claims he makes are unsubstantiated and when asked for evidence, nothing comes, as always with people who cling desperately to the virus/germ model.
About "spike": that too has never been demonstrated, see for example the work of Dr. Scoglio on this (https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/Conversations-with-Dr-Cowan-Ep-58-Stefano-Scoglio:e).
To think about: why do you assume that something that is based on a dogma (the central dogma of genetics) is true, when you clearly recognize that germ theory is a hoax? Read the critical article https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ Agreed, really fascinating.
Now I'm very curious if this post will pass Anton's censorship. 😉
Leo, I respect everyone's vision/opinion and it's not about convincing anyone.
I work in healthcare myself and find this interesting subject with many implications regarding healthcare and illness. It is about exchanging vision points of view and Anton took the time to reflect on this and that is appreciated.
Anton, I fully understand that you are trying to engage with everyone and that you want to end this discussion now. To throw in a few more terms, cognitive consonance is really an insult and projection is evil. In fact, using the word "censorship" is childish in my eyes. What really matters is the good work of all your information (and that of others) to make everyone, supporters and opponents of the madness that has been done to us, aware for our good and for the future of our (grand)children. I know from the immunologist/toxicologist in my family that there is still a lot to research. Pierre Capel can tell a very striking story about this for the layman. Almost the whole world has been convulsively held hostage (many murdered, perhaps) with a zoonosis virus hoax and with that so-called only prick solution. Casper, Leo and others are going to do something useful and that may also be research into your side of the virus story but please not here.
Hi C, you can't end a discussion with "I'm done with it" and things like "epidemics exist". If you make such claims, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It's not up to critical questioners like me to prove that something doesn't exist – apart from the fact that you can never prove a negative, but I doubt you understand that.
Referring to figures like Capel, who must mean well, is pointless, because he doesn't really ask critical questions either. And the immunologist in your family is trained with an education that is determined and set up by the pharmaceutical industry. Do you really think the butcher disapproves of his own meat?
You mention "cognitive consonance", the term I use is "cognitive dissonance".
About "censorship": I suspect that the 😉 one I put with it has escaped you, just as the one that has escaped Anton.
Finally, C, who are you to decide where I can and can't discuss something? Pretty similar to what the government does. If you create your own site, you have the right to speak, not here.
@Anton: I appreciate your work and your efforts to bring things into the limelight, but I think it's a shame that we can't have a really substantive discussion. As I emailed you, I really hope that one day you will be able to break free from your lifelong programming and that you can really start asking critical questions.
Dear Leo, Content would be nice but you give me the feeling that I HAVE to agree with you and that's why I don't want to discuss that here so again "go do useful work or you may already be doing that" but your way of starting the conversation is not mine. Examples: Calling Prof Capel a figure, without asking, already knowing where and how the immunologist studied in my family, words like "lifelong programming" etc. I really like to read on this site and Anton often indicates that he has little time so my appreciation is enormous and as far as I am concerned this site should become very big, of course with pleasant debates if Anton wants to but that is not my business and so I show respect when he indicates that he is not interested (and has already had an email exchange). Responding to you here now is because you are making assumptions about the immunologist in my family, etc. My immunologist's site where we wanted to share information with heart and soul to help people was already censored in May 2020 and worse... that's why my name is C. With love (perhaps too little patience ;), see my wink so that people don't overlook it) and peace on earth (and beyond, but that's another discussion ;), see wink), warm regards!
Hahaha, I stopped reading halfway through your piece. You were surely bored that you went into this? Respect though. 🙂
No, on the contrary, it takes up too much of my already scarce time. But I wanted to make it clear one more time why I'm no longer interested in this. Apparently, that didn't work out and I'm being reproached and now there's even talk of 'my censorship'. So be it.
"My censorship"? Unbelievable. Personally, I put people on mute who ridicule the moon landings. I'm done with that too.
Quite a story, but this video also made me go into the virus denier process
Take a look at what influenced me:
https://odysee.com/@Hmanpro:e/Time_To_Go:b
The former virologist who speaks in this is Dr Stefan Lanka who has 100000 euros
promised to the one who can prove the existence of the measles virus
more study at http://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
Dr S Lanka is part of the 'Tom Cowan' group with S and M Bailey- K.Corbett- A.Kaufmann and others.
Cowan is co-author of the contagion myth, J.Bonte had his opinion on it...
From this group comes 'the no virus challenge'.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/15/the-no-virus-challenge/
It's even better Johan, the virologist who provides the evidence for a virus – any – can even raise 1.5 euros in Germany, see https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/15-million-prize-for-proof-of-a-coronavirus. Good to see that you have also entered the "denier" process, I hope you can follow the same path as I have done for the past four years. What a whole new world has opened up for me. I no longer understand why I ever believed in the fairy tale of infectious diseases. But I also understand that a lot of people still believe in that – after all, I was once one of them myself.