Can you please provide me with one scientific paper which demonstrates the existence of "spike protein"?
It seems to me that before we describe the characteristics of a "virus", that we first isolate the alleged virus.
In addition to Christine Massey's 200+ institutions which can't provide evidence that "the virus" exists, this shows that neither the CDC nor the Corman Drosten team had "the virus" available when they made their rt-PCR test:
mr. kaufman was intriguing at the beginning when none knew anything ... now, we are all experts. SPIKE PROTEIN is the issue which bring injections as the main thing to debate!!
anything else intentionally or unintentionally diverts the conversation.
There is no methods section. I searched the main paper, and 5 attachments.
Lots of gobbledegook about "SARS-CoV-2" and "the pandemic" and "COVID infection", but no where does it mention how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated, let alone the "spike protein".
The Stanford study is the same Katharina Röltgen study published in Cell which you linked to previously. No Methods!!! No proof of isolation of SARS-CoV-2, let alone the mythical "spike protein".
Feel free to keep trying, but let's cut to the chase:
There are NO ORIGINAL, PUBLISHED PAPERS, using legitimate methods, where it has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. THIS IS A NECESSARY STEP before we do things like genome sequencing, or describing the proteins which coat the MYTHICAL VIRUS.
This is all JUNK SCIENCE, pandelis, with bogus models and fraudulent methods.
Hi Bill, i see you have commented on the rumble vid of Mikovits v Kauffman so was gonna reply there, but to me this article came straight to mind watching the vid. It seems the main point of contention for Mikovits is a) im only discussing retroviruses cause they are my area and b) retroviruses exist but the only ones pathogenic are those cultivated / improved in animal cell lines then injected into humans rather than by natural means. By virtue of this she concludes there are no 'natural' pathogenic viruses. Ie they need to be cultured and injected. It struck me that her position is very nuanced. She stated she has never been an adherent to germ theory. The whole interview felt like they were so close but so far to each others position. There's my hot take. I guess my question is... how much consensus is there to any of the definitions above? Her definition seems to be somewhere between Zac Bush and Jeff Greene. Ubiquitous, integral to life, not pathogenic. This is quite removed from the definition team novirus is sticking to. At very least team novirus has stated theirs from the outset. This is our working definition taken from virology. It would be great to know where people like Mikovits, Bush, Greene actually get theirs from. While that interview was a train wreck of 2 people talking past each other, i think this is essentially inevitable in any interview where there is not an agreed upon definition from the outset.
PS the best part for me is for anyone laughingly suggesting Kauffman lost his cool in their previous interaction, this interview laid bare how zen like he is in his manner and how unhinged and unable to have a 2 way convo Judy is.
You're really too kind. I'd say her position is Pure Confusion.
> Her definition seems to be somewhere between Zac Bush and Jeff Greene
Zach Bush, Jeff Greene, Larry Palevsky...
But guess what? If they ain't pathogenic, then don't call it a virus!
We've been told all of our lives, that viruses are:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Pathogenicity is INTEGRAL to the definition of so-called "viruses".
Im trying to give some benefit of doubt i guess. Yes I guess Iv always understood pathogenicity as being at the heart of the definition of virus. But who knows where that came from in my head. Absorbed through mass media over the years. Iv certainly never heard the detailed definition you have mentioned here until team no virus came about. Just cause these issues dont feature largely in peoples lives prior to 2020. Certainly not disagreeing with the definition. Im just saying, all those docs you have listed, they are educated, some at least talk a good game. Their definitions came from somewhere. Where? And how much adherence is there to those definitions? And how much to the one team no virus is running with? This article points out the problem. As does the video. People are singing from different song sheets, and i dont think those song sheets were just made up by them (are they?). These are just rhetorical questions unless you happen to know the answer. It does seem like an important aspect to me though.
Case in point, Mikovits says 'im only dealing with retroviruses cause this is my area". Straight away there is a sub category that must be different from other sub categories, and more specific than more general categories. Are these more useful or not? I dunno. Struggling to keep afloat as a layperson tbh! It would be good to know what the rest of the team thinks about these varying definitions.
Well, your definition is that of a unicorn. It does not exist. People need to understand the term "Virus" was hijacked by the Rockefellers over 100 years ago. Previous definitions were quite different. Virus.... was the pus that exuded from a wound.. I.e. Toxins being expelled in the attempted healing process. Sprinkling fairy dust on the term "virus" does not make it exist. It actually prolongs the fallacy. This video is well worth the 2 hours. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FzVSjmbOEjIK/
It's not really my definition. It's a precise definition of what the virologists have been pushing for 100 years.
Yes it's a Unicorn. But this is a necessary step to be able to prove what they are saying is pseudoscientific hogwash ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORDS. While this definition does not occur in any citable source, it does represent the story we've been told for 100 years, in precise language.
I am well aware of Poornima Wagh. I have been aware of her since March. I did listen to this interview previously. She's clearly very intelligent. However, she just showed up out of no where with this amazing story. Seems Odd. I have questions about her credentials, research, and timeline relating to her academic record. She's got no published papers (which is rare for a person with just 1 Phd, she's got 2), and she's got a rather invisible history on the internet, apart from some political fundraising, and some religious stuff. I know of some experts (whom I won't name) who have been trying to reach her and have a conference call, to suss her out a bit, but she's been playing hide-and-seek, while she continues to do interviews. So, I am choosing not to share her stuff until "the elders" give her the green light, as I am utterly unqualified to vet her academic/research work.
I tried to search her too and I found that she has a finance degree, but couldn't verify a PhD in virology. Doesn't mean she doesn't have them, but I couldn't find her authored any scientific papers.
I'd be reluctant to promote her without vetting her. And why is she coming forward now?
Part of the problem is that people like Dr. Zack Bush come forth and proclaim that viruses are not necessarily pathogens, that just about everything contains viruses, the vast majority of which are benign. He is of course assuming their existence is a proven thing.
I do not understand a definition of something that has never been "isolated" or something that was never to be found on or in a living organism? If I understand Dr Cowan and Dr Kaufman, they seem to argue that the way we "find" viruses is quite insane (monkey kidney serum, toxic materials, starving, electron still images..etc) and that they were never really found, only produced "in silico" so what am I missing with defining something that has never been found or isolated? Are they ( Kaufman & Cowan) only talking about HIV and Covid?
But what if "Replication-competent, intra-cellular, obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure" iare included in a hypothesis about a phenomenon in an outdated medical paradigm?
while we argue on the definition of virus and if it really exists, hunderds of millions of double doses of pfizer and moderna are being produced to get injected into the bodies of billions (from few months old and above) this fall.
yes, the virus might have not been located, or even might be synthetic lab produced ... but that is the main issue??? if people were really interested at least someone would have launched an investigation into the origins ... but no, we have to argue if it exist or not ...
common awake up ... people are being injected with Spike Protein which is the worse toxin man ever produced in trillions ... bodies are being turned into factories of producing this Spike Protein and we argue if there is a virus or not ???
The virus argument is the most important one… this is getting to the root of the problem. Everything else is just cutting away branches.
The germ theory model of disease is what is used to keep us in fear, used to control, and is being weaponized against us. This helps to keep big pharma and their sycophants perpetually making money off of our ignorance about illness.
Andrew Kaufman started this debate earlier in the pandemic, and it was somewhat intriguing at that time.
however, at this point - after 3 years of dealing with this, we all know (and by we i mean billions of people) that there are some pathogens out there which are making people sick ... some have even died depending on personal circumstances.
now what it is, was artificially created or not i suppose it is important.
Interestingly though, none in congress or government wants to investigate if this is lab created or not.
Having said all that - talking about roots of the problem - what is more important for billions of people is the BIOWEAPON ... with what exactly are toddlers being injected ... what is being injected as a 5th dose into billions ...
increase on number of deaths year over year is over 30-35% depending on the country .... something is going out there.
to argue there are no viruses and nothing is going on is ignoring all this reality.
Again when mr. Kaufman was discussing it few years ago, it was intriguing but at this point the issue is THE INJECTION - should the toddlers be injected ??? should healthy people receive a 5th jab which targets still alpha version which does not exist.
Most importantly, WHAT IS inside these shots ... none knows.
i am no expert on viruses but there are tens of thousands of articles out there about viruses.
i got sick myself, plus many people i know have gotten sick; in addition, several close relatives have been in hospital for more than one month. a few have died as well.
None wants to investigate it if it is lab created or not.
Again, you are equating "got sick" with "must have been a virus, or some pathogen." Again refer to Part 1 of this series. Mark Crispin Miller has done good things, but has totally punted in regard to the question as to whether there is any scientific proof for a virus, "natural" or "lab made." There are NO SUCH PROOFS. Miller also takes it for granted that injections can lead to the creation of spike proteins in the body, again no proof of this. What's most likely causing people to get sick from the shots is the graphene oxide in them. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/20/the-elephant-and-the-spike/
Even the transmission/ contagion part has yet to be scientifically proven.
tell that to billions out there ...
Please explain how working on Root causes is somehow being negligent or malicious to the "billions out there"?
Spike protein is a poison to kill billions globally, without anyone noticing.
each vaxx inject trillions of spike into your body and turn your body into a spike producing factory ... a poison.
diverting the conversation to smt else is detrimental to billions ... pls listen carefully to this doctor ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NTbQtsdQYU6u/
"Spike protein"
Can you please provide me with one scientific paper which demonstrates the existence of "spike protein"?
It seems to me that before we describe the characteristics of a "virus", that we first isolate the alleged virus.
In addition to Christine Massey's 200+ institutions which can't provide evidence that "the virus" exists, this shows that neither the CDC nor the Corman Drosten team had "the virus" available when they made their rt-PCR test:
https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/p/christine-massey-200
Christine's FOI collection here: http://TinyURL.com/NoRecordFound
mr. kaufman was intriguing at the beginning when none knew anything ... now, we are all experts. SPIKE PROTEIN is the issue which bring injections as the main thing to debate!!
anything else intentionally or unintentionally diverts the conversation.
here is another important study ...
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9
There is no methods section. I searched the main paper, and 5 attachments.
Lots of gobbledegook about "SARS-CoV-2" and "the pandemic" and "COVID infection", but no where does it mention how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated, let alone the "spike protein".
CDC Quietly Removes Statement that Says “mRNA and the Spike Protein Do Not Last Long in the Body” from Their Website
https://nworeport.me/2022/08/14/cdc-quietly-removes-statement-that-says-mrna-and-the-spike-protein-do-not-last-long-in-the-body-from-their-website/
Not relevant to the question of proof of the Spike Protein.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/
This is an EDITORIAL, not a research study, with proper controls.
here you go bill ... Stanford study ... there are plenty out there
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/18/stanford-study-finds-vaccine-mrna-and-spike-protein-persist-for-months-following-vaccination-but-not-following-infection/
https://newsrescue.com/stanford-study-finds-cytotoxic-spike-protein-level-in-vaccinees-overlaps-with-the-range-of-spike-antigen-in-acute-infection/
The Stanford study is the same Katharina Röltgen study published in Cell which you linked to previously. No Methods!!! No proof of isolation of SARS-CoV-2, let alone the mythical "spike protein".
Feel free to keep trying, but let's cut to the chase:
There are NO ORIGINAL, PUBLISHED PAPERS, using legitimate methods, where it has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. THIS IS A NECESSARY STEP before we do things like genome sequencing, or describing the proteins which coat the MYTHICAL VIRUS.
This is all JUNK SCIENCE, pandelis, with bogus models and fraudulent methods.
Hi Bill, i see you have commented on the rumble vid of Mikovits v Kauffman so was gonna reply there, but to me this article came straight to mind watching the vid. It seems the main point of contention for Mikovits is a) im only discussing retroviruses cause they are my area and b) retroviruses exist but the only ones pathogenic are those cultivated / improved in animal cell lines then injected into humans rather than by natural means. By virtue of this she concludes there are no 'natural' pathogenic viruses. Ie they need to be cultured and injected. It struck me that her position is very nuanced. She stated she has never been an adherent to germ theory. The whole interview felt like they were so close but so far to each others position. There's my hot take. I guess my question is... how much consensus is there to any of the definitions above? Her definition seems to be somewhere between Zac Bush and Jeff Greene. Ubiquitous, integral to life, not pathogenic. This is quite removed from the definition team novirus is sticking to. At very least team novirus has stated theirs from the outset. This is our working definition taken from virology. It would be great to know where people like Mikovits, Bush, Greene actually get theirs from. While that interview was a train wreck of 2 people talking past each other, i think this is essentially inevitable in any interview where there is not an agreed upon definition from the outset.
PS the best part for me is for anyone laughingly suggesting Kauffman lost his cool in their previous interaction, this interview laid bare how zen like he is in his manner and how unhinged and unable to have a 2 way convo Judy is.
>her position is very nuanced
You're really too kind. I'd say her position is Pure Confusion.
> Her definition seems to be somewhere between Zac Bush and Jeff Greene
Zach Bush, Jeff Greene, Larry Palevsky...
But guess what? If they ain't pathogenic, then don't call it a virus!
We've been told all of our lives, that viruses are:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Pathogenicity is INTEGRAL to the definition of so-called "viruses".
Im trying to give some benefit of doubt i guess. Yes I guess Iv always understood pathogenicity as being at the heart of the definition of virus. But who knows where that came from in my head. Absorbed through mass media over the years. Iv certainly never heard the detailed definition you have mentioned here until team no virus came about. Just cause these issues dont feature largely in peoples lives prior to 2020. Certainly not disagreeing with the definition. Im just saying, all those docs you have listed, they are educated, some at least talk a good game. Their definitions came from somewhere. Where? And how much adherence is there to those definitions? And how much to the one team no virus is running with? This article points out the problem. As does the video. People are singing from different song sheets, and i dont think those song sheets were just made up by them (are they?). These are just rhetorical questions unless you happen to know the answer. It does seem like an important aspect to me though.
Case in point, Mikovits says 'im only dealing with retroviruses cause this is my area". Straight away there is a sub category that must be different from other sub categories, and more specific than more general categories. Are these more useful or not? I dunno. Struggling to keep afloat as a layperson tbh! It would be good to know what the rest of the team thinks about these varying definitions.
Well, your definition is that of a unicorn. It does not exist. People need to understand the term "Virus" was hijacked by the Rockefellers over 100 years ago. Previous definitions were quite different. Virus.... was the pus that exuded from a wound.. I.e. Toxins being expelled in the attempted healing process. Sprinkling fairy dust on the term "virus" does not make it exist. It actually prolongs the fallacy. This video is well worth the 2 hours. https://www.bitchute.com/video/FzVSjmbOEjIK/
It's not really my definition. It's a precise definition of what the virologists have been pushing for 100 years.
Yes it's a Unicorn. But this is a necessary step to be able to prove what they are saying is pseudoscientific hogwash ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORDS. While this definition does not occur in any citable source, it does represent the story we've been told for 100 years, in precise language.
I am well aware of Poornima Wagh. I have been aware of her since March. I did listen to this interview previously. She's clearly very intelligent. However, she just showed up out of no where with this amazing story. Seems Odd. I have questions about her credentials, research, and timeline relating to her academic record. She's got no published papers (which is rare for a person with just 1 Phd, she's got 2), and she's got a rather invisible history on the internet, apart from some political fundraising, and some religious stuff. I know of some experts (whom I won't name) who have been trying to reach her and have a conference call, to suss her out a bit, but she's been playing hide-and-seek, while she continues to do interviews. So, I am choosing not to share her stuff until "the elders" give her the green light, as I am utterly unqualified to vet her academic/research work.
I tried to search her too and I found that she has a finance degree, but couldn't verify a PhD in virology. Doesn't mean she doesn't have them, but I couldn't find her authored any scientific papers.
I'd be reluctant to promote her without vetting her. And why is she coming forward now?
Check this out. Starts in ~14 hours from now.
https://event.webinarjam.com/register/5/lqov4bn
Thanks, I will try to catch it. I signed up.
Wow. A very Interesting and detailed reply. I'll watch for further info from you as time passes. Thanks!.
Part of the problem is that people like Dr. Zack Bush come forth and proclaim that viruses are not necessarily pathogens, that just about everything contains viruses, the vast majority of which are benign. He is of course assuming their existence is a proven thing.
I knew there was someone i forgot.
Do you have a good link to where Zach Bush says this? I'll add him if you've got one. I want to make sure I out him in the right category.
Thx
https://www.lukestorey.com/transcripts/dont-fear-the-virus-your-bodys-immunity-blueprint-humanitys-awakening-w/-dr-zach-bush-304
Perfect, thx!
I do not understand a definition of something that has never been "isolated" or something that was never to be found on or in a living organism? If I understand Dr Cowan and Dr Kaufman, they seem to argue that the way we "find" viruses is quite insane (monkey kidney serum, toxic materials, starving, electron still images..etc) and that they were never really found, only produced "in silico" so what am I missing with defining something that has never been found or isolated? Are they ( Kaufman & Cowan) only talking about HIV and Covid?
> I do not understand a definition of something that has never been "isolated"
Haha, exactly, Mike. It's like asking a Unicorn-chaser for a good description of a typical specimen.
It's an odd situation. In order to refute the existence of viruses, we first need a good working definition *according to virologists*.
I'll try to make an edit to make that more clear, but my UPS just died and my computer crashed, so I've got to deal with this first.
But what if "Replication-competent, intra-cellular, obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure" iare included in a hypothesis about a phenomenon in an outdated medical paradigm?
Ok, I see the point. I'll clarify with an edit. Thx.
while we argue on the definition of virus and if it really exists, hunderds of millions of double doses of pfizer and moderna are being produced to get injected into the bodies of billions (from few months old and above) this fall.
yes, the virus might have not been located, or even might be synthetic lab produced ... but that is the main issue??? if people were really interested at least someone would have launched an investigation into the origins ... but no, we have to argue if it exist or not ...
common awake up ... people are being injected with Spike Protein which is the worse toxin man ever produced in trillions ... bodies are being turned into factories of producing this Spike Protein and we argue if there is a virus or not ???
awake up before is too late ...
Well, I've got a post coming in this "Virus Confusion" series on the topic of the importance and primacy of "the virus".
But for now... What Kristen said !
The virus argument is the most important one… this is getting to the root of the problem. Everything else is just cutting away branches.
The germ theory model of disease is what is used to keep us in fear, used to control, and is being weaponized against us. This helps to keep big pharma and their sycophants perpetually making money off of our ignorance about illness.
Andrew Kaufman started this debate earlier in the pandemic, and it was somewhat intriguing at that time.
however, at this point - after 3 years of dealing with this, we all know (and by we i mean billions of people) that there are some pathogens out there which are making people sick ... some have even died depending on personal circumstances.
now what it is, was artificially created or not i suppose it is important.
Interestingly though, none in congress or government wants to investigate if this is lab created or not.
Having said all that - talking about roots of the problem - what is more important for billions of people is the BIOWEAPON ... with what exactly are toddlers being injected ... what is being injected as a 5th dose into billions ...
increase on number of deaths year over year is over 30-35% depending on the country .... something is going out there.
to argue there are no viruses and nothing is going on is ignoring all this reality.
Again when mr. Kaufman was discussing it few years ago, it was intriguing but at this point the issue is THE INJECTION - should the toddlers be injected ??? should healthy people receive a 5th jab which targets still alpha version which does not exist.
Most importantly, WHAT IS inside these shots ... none knows.
i am no expert on viruses but there are tens of thousands of articles out there about viruses.
How do we know that there is a pathogen out there making people sick? See part 1 of this series.
Haha, thx! 😊
i got sick myself, plus many people i know have gotten sick; in addition, several close relatives have been in hospital for more than one month. a few have died as well.
None wants to investigate it if it is lab created or not.
The vaxx is the real poison.
https://markcrispinmiller.com/2022/01/spike-protein-is-a-poison-to-kill-billions-globally-without-anyone-noticing-dr-shankara-chetty/
Again, you are equating "got sick" with "must have been a virus, or some pathogen." Again refer to Part 1 of this series. Mark Crispin Miller has done good things, but has totally punted in regard to the question as to whether there is any scientific proof for a virus, "natural" or "lab made." There are NO SUCH PROOFS. Miller also takes it for granted that injections can lead to the creation of spike proteins in the body, again no proof of this. What's most likely causing people to get sick from the shots is the graphene oxide in them. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/20/the-elephant-and-the-spike/
whatever ... all these people who have gotten sick are my relatives, i got sick too ... no need to argue.
the issue is SPIKE PROTEIN ... you are diverting attention when millions are dying ... criminal
it certainly serves somebody .... hmmmmm.... let me see .... fraudci?? peut etre ... who knows ...