Are Viruses Real?

[Aether Witch]

I don't think Sam is ignored because the media fears her.

She was a co-host in a New Zealand TV show, but was fired when the scamdemic started and she refused to toe the line. She was making videos at the same time and she was asked by the TV network to take down all the ones she'd made regarding the coof. She's also being bullied by the medical establishment, they're trying to act as if they've revoked her medical license, when she in is no longer a practicing doctor and in fact took herself out of the registry beforehand, probably expecting that this would happen.
The media definitely fears her, and the whole no-virus theory. If it were as crazy and implausible as some of you think, the media would foam at the mouth at the mere thought of making the official narrative more legitimate in contrast to this "crazy conspiracy theory". And yet most people are unfamiliar that this theory even exists. Yet, you can ask virtually anyone on the street if they're aware that the coof "comes from a lab", and they'll tell you they are.

 

[The Tall Man]

@Aether Witch
I am interested how deep you have crawled into the conspiracy hole.

Don't look them up just tell me which of these names you know of the top of your head.

Kevin McCairn
Michael Collins Piper
Cory Hughes
James Corbett
Ryan Dawson
Matthew North
Abby Martin
Adam Green
Doug Valentine
Devon Stack
Ryan Cristián
RedIce
Whitney Webb
Charlie Robinson

The top level criminals aren't excluded

Who are they according to you?

Also, high production value?

All the quality conspiracy research niggers I know have negative production value.

But tell me more about how she's pushed by the algorithm.

YouTube recommended her covid videos to me. I use YT without an account attached.

I've often considered that a lot of conspiracy theories are controlled opposition. A legion of "men covered in shit" to make everybody who doesn't toe the line look like schizos. The distrust of the established "truth" is well and good, but it's extremely easy for the powers that be to use your skepticism against you.

100%.
If you look at the history of the people who are now the rich and powerful, many of them are legitimized Mobsters, they killed, tortured and raped in the past, they are absolutely ruthless and definitely not beyond a little bit of lying.
People like Sonneborn or Wexner would personally rape and murder babies to get one stubborn politician indebted to them.
They spend trillions on researching PR aka propaganda and trillions on producing "media".

They know there is nothing better than a retard arguing on behalf of their opposition.

 

[S3y88]

If a dog with foam at the mouth bites you what do you do next ? I know for sure you would sell your first born for a shot

 

[Cheeseknife]

I am interested how deep you have crawled into the conspiracy hole.

Clearly arguing in good faith, I see.

All the quality conspiracy research niggers I know have negative production value.

High production value

So, which one is it?

If you look at the history of the people who are now the rich and powerful, many of them are legitimized Mobsters, they killed, tortured and raped in the past, they are absolutely ruthless and definitely not beyond a little bit of lying.
People like Sonneborn or Wexner would personally rape and murder babies to get one stubborn politician indebted to them.
They spend trillions on researching PR aka propaganda and trillions on producing "media".

They know there is nothing better than a retard arguing on behalf of their opposition.

 

[Cheeseknife]

If a dog with foam at the mouth bites you what do you do next ? I know for sure you would sell your first born for a shot

This is a good question. Seeing as how you've also answered it, I think you ought to explain how that all works and with proofs that said shot works the way you believe it works.

 

[Aether Witch]

I am interested how deep you have crawled into the conspiracy hole.

Don't look them up just tell me which of these names you know of the top of your head.

This is really silly, since this is supposed to be a test of my "conspiracy theory qualifications", relying on me having access to the same information you have, and listening to the same people you listen to. But I'll humour you:

James Corbett

Abby Martin

Ryan Cristián

Whitney Webb

All of the above do great work, although I've only become familiar with Abby Martin recently for her coverage of the genocide in Palestine. She seems great, though.
I've also translated a couple of articles by Whitney Webb into Spanish. I made pamphlets back in 2020 for James' Bill Gates documentary, which is how I discovered him on youtube (millions of views on this specific documentary, shortly before he was removed from the platform. I guess the algorithm was pushing him as well, and he's also controlled opposition?).

All the quality conspiracy research niggers I know have negative production value.

What's good production value to you? Good lighting and editing? A professional presentation? Recording yourself sitting in a chair in a room in your house? By those standards, James Corbett doesn't have "negative production value", he's right on par with Sam Bailey. I'm dumbfounded as to why you think she has "great production value".

 

[Aether Witch]

If a dog with foam at the mouth bites you what do you do next ? I know for sure you would sell your first born for a shot

I wouldn't.

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a

 

[S3y88]

This is a good question. Seeing as how you've also answered it, I think you ought to explain how that all works and with proofs that said shot works the way you believe it works.

Go ahead inject yourself with the normal rabies strain and wait 20 days and if you survive i will belive you

 

[Drain Todger]

Unfortunately, this "activity" is only claimed to be viral, as I explained in a previous post, but there's no evidence that it comes from viruses. Electron microscopy produces imagery, yes, the interpretation of said imagery by virologists is completely baseless and antiscientific, though. I already explained the pitfalls of electron microscopy in previous posts and it's very well explained in A Farewell to Virology.

You can, 100%, do immunofluorescence staining and see cells in cultures being infected by viruses. This has been done with SARS-CoV-2, as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9202242/

https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/life-science/how-can-immunofluorescence-aid-virology-research/

This is clearly observable under a microscope.

I recommend picking up a nice virology textbook, like Fields Virology.

 

[S3y88]

Btw i do understand the doubtful attitude towards viruses existence given the scamdemic and the fact that they are not even considered to be alive by definition but at some point you become the embodiment of the false flag conspiracies.

This is a good question. Seeing as how you've also answered it, I think you ought to explain how that all works and with proofs that said shot works the way you believe it works.

From what i know it exposes you to a weaker strain of the virus so your body is knows how to fight it. This process is only effective until you start to show symptoms because at that point rabies have already traveled to your brain, also will make four points in the actual existence of the virus:
1. Can be seen on an electron microscope
2. The theory from the video you linked is that the virus is some sort of toxin, in which case i have the questions : Why are the bats not displaying symptoms like other mammals and why they don't die?
3. Rabies in birds, very rare in nature but why ? Why are birds not affected the same as mammals ? Maybe because birds have higher internal body temperature than mammals, the evidence for this is that in experimentation birds (like chickens) can be infected with rabies if their internal temperature drops (for example submerging their feet in cold water). So why is this if there is no actual virus ? why would internal temperature matter in case of a toxin
4. An 100% certain rabies test is done on an necropsy of a infected animal, in this case you will see that a certain area of the brain called hippocampus developed inclusions in the nerve cells called "negri bodies" and they don't appear in any other case. So if there is no virus making it's way up from the bite area to the brain then what is this ?

 

[Aether Witch]

You can, 100%, do immunofluorescence staining and see cells in cultures being infected by viruses. This has been done with SARS-CoV-2, as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9202242/

https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/life-science/how-can-immunofluorescence-aid-virology-research/

This is clearly observable under a microscope.

I recommend picking up a nice virology textbook, like Fields Virology.

The first 40 sec. video shows images of what she says is infection, and we must believe this because reasons, despite the fact that we have literally zero idea of how the experiment was conducted. Even with all that, there's no way of knowing that there is any "viral infection" in there, just because you genetically modified some so called antibodies so that they are fluorescent and glow under the microscope. Presence of "antibodies", that are (erroneously) claimed to only be present when there's a virus, does not equate virus presence.
https://odysee.com/@WakeUpMirror:3/tcoab:6 (Tom Cowan is great, too).
Also, that video is from Royal College London, which is generously funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. No conflicts of interest, nothing to see here, folks.

The second video doesn't provide any proof either, and is produced by a lab that sells you their products in order to do the fluorescence shenanigans.

The article you link simply describes the process, but again, it's not evidence of viruses. The fact that it's an in vitro procedure, where dying or dead cells are kept in a toxic chemical concoction that would never be present in a living organism just makes all of it pointless.

Not to mention again, that this is further profit for the labs that make these concoctions.

Lastly, that Leica ad is just that, an ad, pandering to sell their microscopes. They describe the fluorescence process and make baseless assertions about viruses and such, but it also doesn't constitute any evidence of anything.

I don't have the time nor the self-hatred to pick up a book written by virologists. I'll delegate that task to the Baileys and other researchers dedicated to exposing this scam. In fact, I know I've heard Sam Bailey reference that textbook in one of her videos, I just can't put my finger on which one. But whenever I've seen them quote the very materials used by virologists I haven't seen any good explanations, I'm afraid.

If anyone wants to see why antibodies aren't proof of viruses, I highly recommend this by Tom Cowan, who also has spent a lot of his life debunking the virus myth. I haven't watched the whole thing myself just yet, but everything I've seen by him so far has made lots of sense to me:

https://odysee.com/@hipsterious:3/Dr.-Tom-Cowan---mRNA-con-job,-adenoviruses,-antibodies:0

 

[The Tall Man]

Clearly arguing in good faith, I see.

Since I obviously know of all these conspiracy people, calling it "conspiracy hole" is just me being little cheeky

So, which one is it?

To quote myself "All the quality conspiracy research niggers I know have negative production value."
The correlation I have observed is, that the better and more detailed the information, the worse the presentation.

conspiracy theory qualifications

I really just wanted to know, to better sort you in my head.

All of the above do great work

I would recommend any of them over MSM, MAM.

which is how I discovered him on youtube (millions of views on this specific documentary, shortly before he was removed from the platform. I guess the algorithm was pushing him as well, and he's also controlled opposition?)

Corbett always tries to stay very safe. He also avoided the big one that get's you yeeted off immediately, namely Jewish interest groups.
I don't think he is a controlled opposition in the sense that he has an agent telling him what to do.
But him personally being Jewish definitely created a blind spot for him, he is a little bit of an unintentional controlled opposition actor.

What's good production value to you? Good lighting and editing? A professional presentation? Recording yourself sitting in a chair in a room in your house? By those standards, James Corbett doesn't have "negative production value", he's right on par with Sam Bailey. I'm dumbfounded as to why you think she has "great production value".

Corbett sometimes gets angry at viewers, he acts goofy and sometimes he is all over the place.
His overall presentation is a lot lower than what I have seen of Sam Bailey.

Her visual setup is good, it makes her look friendly and healthy.
Presentation is spot on, she conveys her emotions and words clearly, sticks to a well written script and always presents herself well.

You should just see this in context, for example with some of the top researchers of 9/11.
Their stuff is negative presentation, even tough their information is fantastic.

Adam Fitzgerald

https://odysee.com/@AdamFitzgerald:2/618c03e0-e4a7-4371-9e92-3d6d96499cd5:d

DJ Thermal Detonator aka Nelson

https://odysee.com/@TrutherTV:9/echoes-of-bojinka-jersey-city-cover-ups:e

Ryan Dawson

https://odysee.com/@SouloftheLost:c/dtg4MrnFDP9t:a

or Cory Hughes who created one of the best books about the JFK assassination.

https://odysee.com/@forbiddenknowledgenews:d/Project_08-10_HD-720p_MEDIUM_FR30_(9):4

His book is well organized and well worth reading.

https://coryhughes.org/

or Devon Stack, having intentionally annoying little pop ups and being edgy just for the sake of it.

https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b/adlfilespart1:c

Just look at this stuff it's atrocious, you can see that they only really care about the research itself.

I just observed that those that do the really deep research are weirdos that suck a presenting.

Last but not least, here the most relevant for this thread.
Kevin McCairn

https://rumble.com/v35p0pg-a-biowarfare-military-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-farkas-et-al-with-charles-rixe.html

 

[Vecr]

@Colloid @Drain Todger has anyone put forward, in this thread, a proposal on how a standard plaque assay gets the results in does without the presence of viruses? It's self controlling because different titrations of the input solution give a different number of plaques, so it can't be the CPE/cytopathic effect just caused by the experiment itself. It also can't be a dead tissue/anime animal contaminant either, because you can do the same thing with cloned viruses.

 

[Cheeseknife]

Go ahead inject yourself with the normal rabies strain and wait 20 days and if you survive i will belive you

Believe me about what?

 

[S3y88]

Believe me about what?

that the virus is not real

 

[Cheeseknife]

that the virus is not real

I didn't posit that. I just wanted you to give me your understanding of how a rabies shot actually worked.

 

[Aether Witch]

But him personally being Jewish

Where exactly did you get this? Any sources?

Corbett always tries to stay very safe.

If you say so?

He also avoided the big one that get's you yeeted off immediately, namely Jewish interest groups.

I would have too, if I had a constant flow of glowies repeatedly trying to make me say the neonazi thing. I hate zionism but I have absolutely nothing against actual jews who are just minding their own business. Corbett has denounced zionism at every chance he's gotten, and I don't see why he should have gone beyond that in any way. I don't actually believe that every problem in the world can be traced back to "da joos". That's retarded reductionism.

Her visual setup is good, it makes her friendly and healthy.
Presentation is spot on, she conveys her emotions and words clearly, sticks to a well written script and always presents herself well.

You should just see this in context, for example with some of the top researchers of 9/11.
Their stuff is negative presentation, even tough their information is fantastic.

So having an eye for aesthetics and presentation makes her have a great production value? I mean, she films in a room in her house, just like James. It's also worth noting that she does everything hand in hand with her husband Mark, so it's not just her. James also has an editor (Brock West), and I don't think his stuff looks bad at all, although the aesthetics department may be a little lacking.
James can be very passionate at times, making some regard him as "unprofessional", but I couldn't disagree more. He cites all his sources and does an incredible journalistic job.

All in all, I don't think having terrible presentation skills makes you a good source of information, and viceversa. (I'm also not saying those people you mentioned aren't good sources of information).

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

Caring about the fact that I agree with someone else in a debate thread about a topic that I agree with.

I'm sorry, all I hear is "MUH STICKERS!!!!"

 

[Drain Todger]

@Colloid @Drain Todger has anyone put forward, in this thread, a proposal on how a standard plaque assay gets the results in does without the presence of viruses? It's self controlling because different titrations of the input solution give a different number of plaques, so it can't be the CPE/cytopathic effect just caused by the experiment itself. It also can't be a dead tissue/anime contaminant either, because you can do the same thing with cloned viruses.

The thing is, the proteins that viruses use for cell entry have been characterized and their functions delineated. How they undergo endocytosis, how they fuse with cell membranes, and so on. If viruses weren’t infectious, then they couldn’t be used in a replication-defective form to deliver, for instance, plasmids into cells. We know for a fact that they can be used to transform cells, and assays can be done to observe the presence of the protein produced by the inserted code. If viruses weren’t infectious and weren’t capable of entering cells, if they were just cellular junk spewed out by exocytosis as terrain theory advocates assert, then it would be impossible to repurpose them for carrying payloads into cells.

The entire argument is ridiculous and falls apart when exposed to even the slightest scrutiny. Viruses not being real would have many other observable consequences aside from people not getting sick from them, ones that are incompatible with real-world observations. You wouldn’t be able to culture them, you would be able to use them as vectors for transfection, phage therapy wouldn’t work, immunofluorescence staining would show nothing, and so on.

Arguing that viruses aren’t real while not having any actual virology knowledge is like insisting the sky is green without knowing the first thing about Rayleigh scattering and expecting the spectrum of visible light to rearrange itself to conform to your fantasies. It’s self-evidently bunk.

 

[Drain Todger]

you would be able to use them as vectors for transfection

*wouldn’t

Damn phone keyboard.