History of Fauci and PCR test (Beware - use your own due diligence)

[Rideback]

Oh to have been a fly on the wall listening to his doctors discuss treatment options in front of him.

[pasayten]

Would have been interesting if they had treated Trump with only his own favorite treatment regimes...

[Rideback]

your Dr Pierre Kory has already been debunked. Look up the definition of 'randomly controlled'. The rest of your word salad is nothing more than repeating your grifters' lies without context or any logic.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... treat-cov/

Trump was, btw, given remdisivir and he claimed it saved his life. Likewise, Trump's docs did not give him ivermectin.

[woodman]

Woodman, just so I get it, you weren't promoting Remdisivar when you told the story of your friends having success with it? And where are the other drugs that are more successful? Where is your proof, and please don't just tell another story but show actual scientific proof.

And you didn't answer my question why it is that you don't question where your grifter pals get their $ from...I'm waiting.

Dr. Pierre Kory cites 4 randomly controlled trials on large numbers of people to show efficacy of ivermectin. I personally don't think that ivermectin is necessarily the miracle that he says... Remdesivir is a disaster though. I was saying that my friend thinks remdesivir helped him, but studies show many are harmed. I wouldn't credit remdesivir with helping my friend, but he obviously thinks it has helped him. He believes it so much that he won't do independent research. Instead, he is firmly in that camp. Placebo effect, or nocebo effect is powerful...https://brandnewtube.com/watch/pierre-k ... 32yXl.html

You underestimate the power of media to capture the hearts and minds of you and people in the community getting this reinforced every day for over 2 years. Look up Mass Formation Psychosis. If people who control the media that you consume have a nefarious agenda, and they have been planning this for a long time, they will do what they can to distract you from their tactics. It sounds like you believe that all youtubers are driven strictly by making $, but their motivations are as varied as the world itself. They are not part of some monolithic agenda that practices censorship of the opposing side. My "grifter pals" are not driven by $ or a nefarious agenda. If some of these people appear to be rejected by their peers is only because a fact checker site says they were "debunked" or whatever... Dr. Stefan Lanka is no longer a virologist by his own choosing, because he saw the flaws in it.

This is the future. They only appear to be grifters because we have been lied to since the 18th century starting with a guy named Edward Jenner, and then came Louis Pasteur who was a fraud. These professional pals of mine are emboldened by the fact that they stand on the shoulders of giants you've hardly heard of because of the whitewash of the truth. Dr. Tom Cowan said that even if he wasn't sharing his insights it wouldn't matter because the cat is out of the bag. It is just a matter of time before the masses understand the science fraud. Repeating the same science fraud over and over again doesn't make it any less fraud, except now they have up to half of the public in the US willing to follow them off a cliff with PPE on. Because people around the world have had so much time on our hands, the power of the internet has empowered many people to do independent research. This is something that I think the controllers didn't take into consideration. A lot of lay people, including mom's, housewives, and truck drivers are experts now.

If you don't question the scientism of this plandemic, then you are creating the means for us to be enslaved, but if you see that this truly was a plandemic, and the only thing that changed was the signaling in the media, and government, and there was no spike in deaths to indicate an actual pandemic, then you would hopefully use that skepticism of the media and government to look more deeply, and if you discover that terrain theory supports the proof of what we observe, then you no longer have to fear an infectious particle, and life is better. Why would you insist that we still need to fear a contagious virus if it is proven that no such thing exists in nature?

[Rideback]

Woodman, just so I get it, you weren't promoting Remdisivar when you told the story of your friends having success with it? And where are the other drugs that are more successful? Where is your proof, and please don't just tell another story but show actual scientific proof.

And you didn't answer my question why it is that you don't question where your grifter pals get their $ from...I'm waiting.

[pasayten]

Well Brad, I have to give you credit for being passionate and persistant... However, in my honest opinion, most all of us here are in the light on the side of proven real science and verified data... We are not horses and are not thirsty anyway... That just leaves you still in the dark with your carnival barkers and grifters... Maybe a few Trumpsters will drink the kool-aid... But no problem... This is all OK on a BB with the freedom for all voices...

[woodman]

So Woodman, you know that Remdesevir is FDA approved, right? https://www.veklury.com/

Also, while you point out that the researchers in the articles I provide list any conflicts of interest that they have at the bottom of each piece, openly giving the public and other researchers a clear eye into what could be affecting their judgment you are insisting on turning a blind eye towards the people who you rely on to form your opinions. Your sources don't publish or tell you how much money they're making off their grift, they don't tell you who pays them to fill the screens of people like you who are searching in the wrong places for answers, they don't tell you that they really don't have any actual expertise in the areas that they're rattling off opinions on...yet you continue to believe them, because...why?

I can lead a horse to water....

At some point I have to hope that you see the light, since no matter what I share, it doesn't appear to make any difference with you people... It's okay. I feel like I'm plantings seeds, and even if just one person makes a connection to what I am trying to show, then it will be worthwhile. I could provide evidence of the failure of remdesivir, and I suspect that you would provide the same study that my friend uses to prove it's efficacy. We can't both be correct. That is for sure. If I tell you that other drugs have proven to work better than remdesivir, and they cost pennies on the dollar, but remdesivir that costs perhaps 100X more has become the preferred drug, does that seems suspicious at all? It has been a failure for Covid just as the other drug that was used in many nursing homes early in 2020, which in itself explains a spike in deaths.

I think it would be useful to resist the urge to fact check everything. Did you ever consider who writes the fact checkers check??? Who owns most of the media? Vioxx was responsible for over 100,000 deaths, but it was FDA approved as well.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fJuFcR3kg0K3/

[Rideback]

So Woodman, you know that Remdesevir is FDA approved, right? https://www.veklury.com/

Also, while you point out that the researchers in the articles I provide list any conflicts of interest that they have at the bottom of each piece, openly giving the public and other researchers a clear eye into what could be affecting their judgment you are insisting on turning a blind eye towards the people who you rely on to form your opinions. Your sources don't publish or tell you how much money they're making off their grift, they don't tell you who pays them to fill the screens of people like you who are searching in the wrong places for answers, they don't tell you that they really don't have any actual expertise in the areas that they're rattling off opinions on...yet you continue to believe them, because...why?

[woodman]

Is virology past its 'cell' by date? https://www.bitchute.com/video/mUWDjoL0i9xI/


Thanks again for providing a rare platform that reflects freedom to share ideas that are unpopular, but that I think are vitally important and timely... In the end those other local guys will realize they were wrong to not allow free discourse on a BB format. They are missing out IMO.

[woodman]

The doctor never mentioned about increased risks with more cortizone shots. You may be correct that just one shot may have sped up my healing, but he didn't say anything about that either. The cortizone shot affects the endocrine system of the body from what I understand, so there can be complications affecting the whole body. At some point ,atleast with some people, it can produce unwanted side effects.

[woodman]

You gotta serve somebody. I'm just a messenger...short 2 minute video:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/there-ar ... yhOM3.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPh1qC6TQpI&t=1749s

[Rideback]

Repeated cortisone shots can damage tissue when given in the same spot. But your one shot would have more likely helped the healing process. Your doctor could have told you that.

I take it you still haven't read the links I gave about your quacks so you're still being conned. Sigh.

[PAL]

Full of it.

[woodman]

You gotta serve somebody. I'm just a messenger...short 2 minute video:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/there-ar ... yhOM3.html

[woodman]

I can't make heads or tails out of your story.

I think he is confirming that he does not get medical advise from a personal physician.

The pandamic has given another reason why universal health care should be the law of the land.

I think the last time I went to a physician with a medical issue that I had was about 8 years ago. I was having knee problems after I jogged for 2 miles or so on the high school track. In Winthrop he did an MRI, and confirmed that I had some "arthritis" in my knee, but he qualified it by saying that 50% of people over 50 have some arthritis. I had a cortizone shot scheduled for a few weeks later, but prior to the appointment I cancelled because I did research that indicated that a cortizone shot only helps in the short term,and usually does more harm than good, and I didn't need to be playing tennis that badly, but rather I believed that I could somehow heal my knee condition, and basically that is what I did through a healthy diet, and consistent light exercise such as vigorous walking for 3 miles or so. A year later, and my knee was back to 100%, and I was able to play tennis like I had before I hurt my knee, and I have been able to jog, although when I jog I take shorter strides (higher cadence/youtube video) which puts less stress on the knees, so I run a little slower, but I get the same benefits. So, I benefited by figuring it out for myself. Who knows where I would be if I followed through with the cortizone shot.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/live-q-a ... 6FVq1.html

[Rideback]

I can't make heads or tails out of your story.

[woodman]

I just want to say that I have been thinking about viruses, etc., for about 4 years or so. I remember asking my boss when I worked in home construction about 3 years ago what he thinks about vaccines, and if he and his family get the flu vaccine, and he said no way. It wasn't even on his radar. Fast forward to Dec. 2019, and I shared some stuff with him from my point of view. For some reason he and his family were all in on this one. I just want to point out how his attitude towards vaccines changed with this new season...

The other thing is that the first week of Jan/2020 I wrote a short letter to the editor of the MV News before Covid was even a thing yet in the US. My letter concerned a news story from the previous week out of Okanogan. 2 people came down with hep. B, and it was resolved. Also, 2 people were apparently exposed to the 2 people who were infected. The writer of the news story said that all 4 were vaccinated. This didn't make sense to me at all that the 2 that were infected would also be vaccinated, and so I wrote a letter to the editor to see if this was correct. I asked any medical professionals to respond to my letter to give me insight, but nobody responded. To my way of thinking back then, it didn't make sense to me that the 2 people who were infected would get the jab if they developed natural immunity. This is just to give you a sense that I have been thinking about these things before Covid got started.

[woodman]

From WHO:
'Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, for example at a conversational distance. The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe. Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth (droplet transmission).

The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel farther than conversational distance (this is often called long-range aerosol or long-range airborne transmission).

People may also become infected when touching their eyes, nose or mouth after touching surfaces or objects that have been contaminated by the virus.'

THE LAST sentence explains why gloves are worn so that touching surfaces you won't pick up the virus on those surfaces. That also explains why your NY people who were in lockdown contracted the virus; food deliveries, medical deliveries all came with surfaces that contained the virus.

As far as identifying the virus there are literally thousands of articles, peer reviewed on this. Here's one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456621/

There is nothing in their rhetoric that proves contagion. I'd suggest appealing to the common sense science rather than authority figures that are telling you how it behaves. Incidentally, a lot of the "scientific papers" that you refer to are deliberately designed to be so complex that even the local tiny home builder admits that he can't follow the complexity. That's what I call being stuck in the weeds... It' not that complicated. I noticed who sponsors these science web-sites. A friend and his wife took remdesivir when he went to the hospital, and he was diagnosed with Covid. He and his wife recovered just fine. They are both very healthy in their mid-70's. He says he doesn't need the jab because of having Covid, so that is the right decision, but now he is sold on remdesivir, and he sends me "a popular study" that shows remdesivir works well. I see on the web-site that the sponsors are companies like Gilead Sciences which produces REmdesivir, and I read all the apparent conflicts of interest at the end, and I wonder why he doesn't see what I see. When the literature gets very complicated you may be stuck in the weeds...

[Rideback]

From WHO:
'Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, for example at a conversational distance. The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe. Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth (droplet transmission).

The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel farther than conversational distance (this is often called long-range aerosol or long-range airborne transmission).

People may also become infected when touching their eyes, nose or mouth after touching surfaces or objects that have been contaminated by the virus.'

THE LAST sentence explains why gloves are worn so that touching surfaces you won't pick up the virus on those surfaces. That also explains why your NY people who were in lockdown contracted the virus; food deliveries, medical deliveries all came with surfaces that contained the virus.

As far as identifying the virus there are literally thousands of articles, peer reviewed on this. Here's one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456621/

[woodman]

I did not check any of Rideback's feedback yet. That being said, instead of resorting to name calling which might be fine, but doesn't really accomplish anything, I just want to reflect on how the world has been held hostage to this "contagious virus". In the beginning there was the familiar refrain of "Stay home, stay safe". Mask wearing and social distancing were sold as common sense measures that we all should take for "the greater good". People were mesmerized by the case counts on the Johns Hopkins dashboard, and followed religiously what the CDC and WHO were telling us.

Step back and think about how you can't do a simple experiment to prove a contagious virus exists simply by taking the lung fluid or snot from a sick person who is suspected of having Covid-19, (and has gotten a positive test result for Covid), and placing that lung fluid or snot into a healthy host to produce the disease in the healthy host, and they are unable to prove transmissibility under controlled conditions yet you think that we should wear PPE and social distance even though under controlled conditions someone's snot will not infect the host, and you think I'm on the wrong track???

I remember hearing about how people living alone in the NYC area were on lockdown, and they didn't have any contact with other's, yet they would get sick, and when they would be sent to the hospital, they tested positive for Covid-19. How did you get sick with Covid if there was no contact with others?

First things first: If you can't prove contagion under controlled lab conditions, either in vitro or in vivo, with the end result being that the particle has infected a healthy host, then why all the PPE??? I say quit deferring to all your experts...

They did experiments during The Spanish flu on soldiers, and on horses to try to prove transmissibility of a virus, and they failed. Germ theory has been quite the psy op weapon. The Boogie man that can't be proven, and so small that you can only detect part of the genome sequence. Did you know that this is how they say there is a virus? It is too small to see the whole genetic sequence. That is how we know it is there. If people are getting sick in clusters or within families, that does not prove a contagious virus.

[Rideback]

There's a reason that your Dr. Robert Malone has been banned from you tube & twitter:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 ... ccine-sci/

Joe Rogan is a failed comedian and actor. And his interview with Peter McCollugh demonstrates why he's gotten in so much hot water with Spotify for his disinformation https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 77603.html

Peter Luesberg has been debunked over the years but he's like the Energizer Bunny, he keeps on banging away at his drum.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1980675/ That link has half a dozen articles on his failures.

Your story about Patrick King in Alberta was yet again another conspiracy that court records disprove.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2PE0EX

[woodman]

... the burden is on science to prove a virus has been isolated rather than posting electron micrographs with an arrow pointing to the supposed culprit

You must be joking.

Nobody "isolates" a virus that way.

At a very high level, how they correlate a specific virus to specific disease is they look for DNA or RNA traces specific to that virus in an infected cell. If the traces (really fragments) are large enough and you find them in high enough concentrations then you very likely have isolated the virus causing the infection.

Keep in mind that how science gets portrayed on teevee and how it actually gets done aren't the same.

There is no way to differentiate between exosomes and "viruses" on an electron micrograph image. IMO, when you look at the big picture exosomes are what are being observed budding out of the cell. Exosomes are the result of intercellular housecleaning, an endogenous phenomena, so technically exosomes might be thought of as a result of "outfection" not infection.

As far as proving a contagious particle is concerned getting back to Koch's Postulates, basically you would need to remove some lung fluid from someone who is sick, who is said to have Covid-19, and place that lung fluid into a healthy host to produce the same symptoms. When you can do this you have proved the existence of the contagious pathogen. It just doesn't make sense to me why they can't prove a virus in this way rather than culturing the biological material like they do. If someone has a "high viral load" I should think it would be simple to prove a contagious virus.

As far as proving the complete genome of the virus, as far as I know they are only able to find pieces or snippets of what they refer to as the virus, and run this on a computer program, and so the genome is said to have been found in silico, or through a computer program.

[woodman]

The issue of virus isolation was used by Patrick King in Alberta, Canada. The Chief medical officer received a subpeona to appear in court, and she could not prove the existence of the virus...

"Ok, the first thing you need to know is that the person Patrick King is talking about as having served a subpoena on is the same Dr Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health in Alberta Canada.

It is she who admitted that neither she nor Alberta Health had the requested documents for the court case… it was she who finally admitted, in court admissible documents, that the Emperor Has No Clothes.

And then she got out in front of it by changing all the rules and easing nearly all of the restrictions BEFORE this case could bite her in the bum. I think the shocking and dramatic changes to the rules were not what she wanted to do, and were not triggered by the vaccination rates or ANYTHING else… she knew she’d lost in court, the Government had lost in court, and now she was switching to ‘damage limitation’ mode and trying to get in front of the inevitable fallout, which will take months or years to fully play out.

[Another disclaimer – It’s VITAL to note something here, the fact the virus has not been isolated means it cannot be shown to exist in a court of law. Courts do not deal in reality, they never have. They deal in what can be shown to be true within the walls of that court room. In truth they deal in fiction all the time, all kinds of things that aren’t true are treated as if they are, all kinds of things which ARE true are treated as if they aren’t. What matters here is whether they can prove the existence of this thing called Covid 19 within the court room!

Now that doesn’t mean there IS no virus, I’m on the record time and again pointing out that there HAS been a spike in deaths in many countries that shows us clearly there is SOMETHING… but no Government and no Health Department has the right to be making mandates and laws and imposing restrictions on the basis of something they actually haven’t yet proven the specific existence of and cannot prove in a court of law. THAT is the significance of what has happened here.]

[mister_coffee]

... the burden is on science to prove a virus has been isolated rather than posting electron micrographs with an arrow pointing to the supposed culprit

You must be joking.

Nobody "isolates" a virus that way.

At a very high level, how they correlate a specific virus to specific disease is they look for DNA or RNA traces specific to that virus in an infected cell. If the traces (really fragments) are large enough and you find them in high enough concentrations then you very likely have isolated the virus causing the infection.

Keep in mind that how science gets portrayed on teevee and how it actually gets done aren't the same.

[woodman]

Repeating the same false narratives from the same grifters over and over will not make them true.

and now the anti vax movement thinks a"high court in Germany has ruled that there is no evidence of the existence of a measles virus".

That of course is a lie which is an indication that the anti vax movement desires to kill children by bringing back measles.

Ray, it might be time to take away a platform that supports sociopathic Behavior.

"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others."

Maybe I have gone too far in trying to share what my findings indicate, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden is on science to prove a virus has been isolated rather than posting electron micrographs with an arrow pointing to the supposed culprit
After all there are a lot of trained scientists and doctors that are not enthusiastic about this jab, but they also believe that these viruses have been isolated, but even if I disagree with many of them, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I don't use fact check indiscriminately.

I follow Dr. Robert Malone even though he says that he got the jab. Is he a sociopath, too?

I also follow Dr. Peter McCollough. He does not deny that there is a virus. Dr. Peter McCollough has been sounding the alarm for over a year now. His position is that 90% of the deaths from Covid could have been avoided if early treatment protocols were readily available. Is he a psychopath, or a sociopath? Is Joe Rogan a sociopath for having these 2 doctors on his program? I would argue that the sociopaths are the ones trying to censor the other sides of an issue, and those that are discouraging public discourse.

Dr. Judy Miskovits believes that the HIV virus has been isolated, and I disagree with her on that. She was recently in a rather heated debate with Dr. Andrew Kaufman on this issue. They both are against this jab, but they disagree on the issue of isolation.

These people have risked a lot, especially Dr Judy Miskovits.

Dr. Peter Duesberg was a professor at Cal Berkeley, and back in the '80's he was considered one of the leading experts on virology in the world. He said that there was no causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, and because of this he lost his funding, and he was marginalized in many other ways. He was scheduled to be on a segment of 60 minutes, but at the last minute they canceled him, and replaced him with Dr. Fauci. Duesberg believed HIV was real, but he claimed that it is a harmless passenger virus. Scientists that say the virus isolation is an issue believe that Duesberg actually missed an important opportunity because of his failure to recognize the isolation issue.

I am not going to mention the isolation issue anymore since it isn't helping...