Forwarded from Health Freedom for Humanity (Alec Zeck)
TICKETS HERE: https://healthfreedomforhumanity.brushfire.com/conference/525542
if you’re in Kansas City or the surrounding area on January 29th, please come join us!
$99 ticket includes:
•6-8 speakers (3:00-7:30)
•Catered Dinner provided by Enjoy Pure Food and Drink
•A DJ, dance party, cash bar, and meet/greet with other local Health Freedom Oriented People (7:30-10:00)
if you’re in Kansas City or the surrounding area on January 29th, please come join us!
$99 ticket includes:
•6-8 speakers (3:00-7:30)
•Catered Dinner provided by Enjoy Pure Food and Drink
•A DJ, dance party, cash bar, and meet/greet with other local Health Freedom Oriented People (7:30-10:00)
👍2
I’m commenting on this here because I’m tired of seeing this everywhere— not everyone who is a believer in germ theory is controlled opposition. That is such a ridiculous notion. Many of them simply have not questioned the foundational evidence for their perceptions.
❤4
Forwarded from Health Freedom for Humanity (Katie D’Errico)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Episode #56 of the Health Freedom for Humanity podcast is now live!
Follow this link to listen or watch:
https://www.flowcode.com/page/healthfreedomforhumanity
In this episode, Dr. Jess and Alec meet with Researchers and Authors Dawn Lester and David Parker for the first of a multi-part series. Dawn and David spent over 10 years writing and researching their book, What Really Makes You Ill? which extensively covers all things related to the true nature of health and disease.
For more information on Dawn and David, please visit:
https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/
To donate to Health Freedom for Humanity please visit: https://healthfreedomforhumanity.org/donate/
Follow this link to listen or watch:
https://www.flowcode.com/page/healthfreedomforhumanity
In this episode, Dr. Jess and Alec meet with Researchers and Authors Dawn Lester and David Parker for the first of a multi-part series. Dawn and David spent over 10 years writing and researching their book, What Really Makes You Ill? which extensively covers all things related to the true nature of health and disease.
For more information on Dawn and David, please visit:
https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/
To donate to Health Freedom for Humanity please visit: https://healthfreedomforhumanity.org/donate/
👍2
sars-cov-2-real-virus-pdf.pdf
183.4 KB
I’ll let you all find all of the logical fallacies/misrepresentations/lack of understanding of the scientific method in Mercola’s article where he “debunks” the no virus issue.
👍1
Here is my response to Mercola’s article (1/2):
First, I would like to start with this— appeals to authority are not scientific evidence. Because “insert expert says so” is not evidence. Logical fallacies do not take the place of scientific evidence that strictly adheres to the scientific method. I don’t care about your credentials— evidence that adheres to the scientific method is what matters.
When I ask for *one* paper in which a virus was isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced directly from the fluids of sick host and not as a result of a cell culture, understand I’m asking for foundational evidence for the existence of a virus.
Virolgists presuppose that there is a virus present in the fluids that are presented to the cell culture (alongside DMEM, fetal bovine serum, amphotericin/gentamicin, etc.), and assume that the virus in the snot is causing the cell to experience the cytopathic effect.
They have never established that a virus is present inside the fluids of a sick host, first, and second, have never taken said virus from the fluids and presented it to a healthy host to see if it causes disease.
Every electron micrograph image of what virologists refer to as a virus is a result of a cell culture experiment.
When asked to provide one single paper that shows a virus isolated, purified, characterized and sequenced directly from the fluids of a sick host (which they cannot provide), virologists, immunologists, etc. respond with some of the following answers:
1. “The virus is too weak to isolate/purify directly from the fluids.”
Okay… but also you say a virus is able to travel freely through the air, survive on a surface for hours, make it into the body, make it to a cell and break in, hijack the cell’s machinery and begin replicating?
2. “You’re not a virologist, you don’t get to determine what isolation is.”
Okay, but why can’t you provide one piece of foundational evidence to validate your claim that a virus is present in the fluids of a sick host and is the cause of disease?
3. “A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that’s why we use the cell culture.”
But it *is* in the fluids of a sick person, right? So why can’t it be taken directly from fluids? And how do you know for certain the other cell culture ingredients aren’t causing the CPE? Further, how do you know that a “virus needs a host to replicate” if you’ve never isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced one directly from the fluids of a sick host? How do you know how one behaves in nature if you haven’t even found it in nature? And what is the human body if not a giant cell culture?
4. “There’s not enough virus present in the fluids to isolated/purify it.”
Excuse me— what? I thought we were talking about a pathogenic disease causing agent that overwhelms the body and produces high “viral loads” in really sick people. Not enough present in the fluids? How many people would it take for there to be “enough virus” present? How can you assign attributes to something you haven’t first shown to exist in nature (in the fluids of a sick host)?
Pseudoscience is anything that doesn’t follow the scientific method but claims to be scientific. Virology has never validated the foundational claim of a pathogenic virus existing inside the fluids of a sick host and has never done control experiments. Virology is pseudoscience.
If you hypothesize “X exists and causes Y”, then you need to show that X exists and directly observe X causing Y.
You can’t say “if X exists, then Y. Y, therefore X exists” if you have never shown that X exists, and seen it causing Y. An affirming the consequent logical fallacy.
The claim is: “a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” The natural and logical response to that claim is “please provide proof that a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” That’s what we’re asking for. It is simple, and this evidence has *never* been shown.
Additionally, if everyone in the world understood the implications of this, this whole charade would be over:
First, I would like to start with this— appeals to authority are not scientific evidence. Because “insert expert says so” is not evidence. Logical fallacies do not take the place of scientific evidence that strictly adheres to the scientific method. I don’t care about your credentials— evidence that adheres to the scientific method is what matters.
When I ask for *one* paper in which a virus was isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced directly from the fluids of sick host and not as a result of a cell culture, understand I’m asking for foundational evidence for the existence of a virus.
Virolgists presuppose that there is a virus present in the fluids that are presented to the cell culture (alongside DMEM, fetal bovine serum, amphotericin/gentamicin, etc.), and assume that the virus in the snot is causing the cell to experience the cytopathic effect.
They have never established that a virus is present inside the fluids of a sick host, first, and second, have never taken said virus from the fluids and presented it to a healthy host to see if it causes disease.
Every electron micrograph image of what virologists refer to as a virus is a result of a cell culture experiment.
When asked to provide one single paper that shows a virus isolated, purified, characterized and sequenced directly from the fluids of a sick host (which they cannot provide), virologists, immunologists, etc. respond with some of the following answers:
1. “The virus is too weak to isolate/purify directly from the fluids.”
Okay… but also you say a virus is able to travel freely through the air, survive on a surface for hours, make it into the body, make it to a cell and break in, hijack the cell’s machinery and begin replicating?
2. “You’re not a virologist, you don’t get to determine what isolation is.”
Okay, but why can’t you provide one piece of foundational evidence to validate your claim that a virus is present in the fluids of a sick host and is the cause of disease?
3. “A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that’s why we use the cell culture.”
But it *is* in the fluids of a sick person, right? So why can’t it be taken directly from fluids? And how do you know for certain the other cell culture ingredients aren’t causing the CPE? Further, how do you know that a “virus needs a host to replicate” if you’ve never isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced one directly from the fluids of a sick host? How do you know how one behaves in nature if you haven’t even found it in nature? And what is the human body if not a giant cell culture?
4. “There’s not enough virus present in the fluids to isolated/purify it.”
Excuse me— what? I thought we were talking about a pathogenic disease causing agent that overwhelms the body and produces high “viral loads” in really sick people. Not enough present in the fluids? How many people would it take for there to be “enough virus” present? How can you assign attributes to something you haven’t first shown to exist in nature (in the fluids of a sick host)?
Pseudoscience is anything that doesn’t follow the scientific method but claims to be scientific. Virology has never validated the foundational claim of a pathogenic virus existing inside the fluids of a sick host and has never done control experiments. Virology is pseudoscience.
If you hypothesize “X exists and causes Y”, then you need to show that X exists and directly observe X causing Y.
You can’t say “if X exists, then Y. Y, therefore X exists” if you have never shown that X exists, and seen it causing Y. An affirming the consequent logical fallacy.
The claim is: “a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” The natural and logical response to that claim is “please provide proof that a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” That’s what we’re asking for. It is simple, and this evidence has *never* been shown.
Additionally, if everyone in the world understood the implications of this, this whole charade would be over:
👍13❤1🔥1
Here is my response to Mercola’s article (2/2)
Stefan Lanka, a virologist, has conducted the first ever *proper* control experiments of both virology’s vero cell culture virus isolation experiments and the so-called genomic sequencing of SARS-COV-2— the foundational evidence for all of COVID19.
First, for context, I will explain the procedure used by all virologists to “isolate” a virus.
If you read the methodology of any “SARS-COV-2 virus isolation paper”, you will find that the procedure is as follows:
Minimally filtered snot from a sick host is added to a vero cell culture (monkey kidney cell) alongside cytotoxic antibiotics like gentamicin/amphotericin (usually at 3x normal concentration). They also add “minimal nutrient medium,” which is the minimal amounts of nutrients— DMEM (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium) and fetal bovine serum— to keep the cell alive. They also sometimes add trypsin. The cell breaks down into a bunch of fragments— called the cytopathic effect. They then stain and heat the fragments to prepare them for electron microscopy, take pictures of them and call them “viruses.”
In phase 1 of Stefan’s control experiment, he followed the exact same procedure except that he did not introduce a sample from a sick host (which virologists presuppose contains the virus, but never validate) to the culture, but used all of the other same ingredients. The exact same cytopathic effect happened, thus proving that the foundational evidence used by virologists to claim the existence of a pathogenic virus is pure pseudoscience.
In phase 2 of the control experiment, Stefan used all of the same ingredients as in the control (antibiotics, minimal nutrient medium, etc.), except that he added yeast to take the place of the snot that supposedly contains the virus and the supposed virus RNA that is uploaded into a computer program to generate a so-called “viral genome.” As Dr. Cowan describes in his recent book, Breaking the Spell, “the reason for adding the yeast RNA is because of the way that the genome of a ‘virus’ is found, a computerized process called ‘alignment.’ The alignment process starts with fragments of RNA and constructs a theoretical genome—one that never exists at any point in the actual sample. This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces into an entire ‘genome.’ It is for this reason that every complete genome of SARS-CoV-2 is referred to as an ‘in silico’ genome, meaning a genome that exists only in the computer. As long as you have enough of these RNA fragments and provide the template, the computer can recreate any genome.”
Stefan was able to recreate 100% of the so-called SARS-Cov-2 genome without any clinical sample from a sick person present, but rather a random sample of yeast.
Could there be a pathogenic disease causing virus? Absolutely. Has the existence of one been scientifically established? No. The evidence is severely lacking at best and completely pseudoscientific and fraudulent at worst, especially given we’ve flipped the entire world upside down over it.
Stefan Lanka, a virologist, has conducted the first ever *proper* control experiments of both virology’s vero cell culture virus isolation experiments and the so-called genomic sequencing of SARS-COV-2— the foundational evidence for all of COVID19.
First, for context, I will explain the procedure used by all virologists to “isolate” a virus.
If you read the methodology of any “SARS-COV-2 virus isolation paper”, you will find that the procedure is as follows:
Minimally filtered snot from a sick host is added to a vero cell culture (monkey kidney cell) alongside cytotoxic antibiotics like gentamicin/amphotericin (usually at 3x normal concentration). They also add “minimal nutrient medium,” which is the minimal amounts of nutrients— DMEM (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium) and fetal bovine serum— to keep the cell alive. They also sometimes add trypsin. The cell breaks down into a bunch of fragments— called the cytopathic effect. They then stain and heat the fragments to prepare them for electron microscopy, take pictures of them and call them “viruses.”
In phase 1 of Stefan’s control experiment, he followed the exact same procedure except that he did not introduce a sample from a sick host (which virologists presuppose contains the virus, but never validate) to the culture, but used all of the other same ingredients. The exact same cytopathic effect happened, thus proving that the foundational evidence used by virologists to claim the existence of a pathogenic virus is pure pseudoscience.
In phase 2 of the control experiment, Stefan used all of the same ingredients as in the control (antibiotics, minimal nutrient medium, etc.), except that he added yeast to take the place of the snot that supposedly contains the virus and the supposed virus RNA that is uploaded into a computer program to generate a so-called “viral genome.” As Dr. Cowan describes in his recent book, Breaking the Spell, “the reason for adding the yeast RNA is because of the way that the genome of a ‘virus’ is found, a computerized process called ‘alignment.’ The alignment process starts with fragments of RNA and constructs a theoretical genome—one that never exists at any point in the actual sample. This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces into an entire ‘genome.’ It is for this reason that every complete genome of SARS-CoV-2 is referred to as an ‘in silico’ genome, meaning a genome that exists only in the computer. As long as you have enough of these RNA fragments and provide the template, the computer can recreate any genome.”
Stefan was able to recreate 100% of the so-called SARS-Cov-2 genome without any clinical sample from a sick person present, but rather a random sample of yeast.
Could there be a pathogenic disease causing virus? Absolutely. Has the existence of one been scientifically established? No. The evidence is severely lacking at best and completely pseudoscientific and fraudulent at worst, especially given we’ve flipped the entire world upside down over it.
👍4🔥2
I’m sorry, but “This is the new definition of isolation only used by virologists because virologists are experts and they say so” does not equate to science, nor does it prove “virus.”
Alec_Zeck's_response_to_the_statement_made_by_Joseph_Mercola_regarding.pdf
35.5 KB
PDF version of my response to Joe Mercola’s article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus.”
Christine here. I’ll be hosting a voice chat again tomorrow, Jan 18th at 3pm Pacific, 5pm Central, 6pm Eastern or whatever time it converts to in your time zone. For those who haven’t attended one before they’re an informal chance to say hi, connect, acknowledge where we’re at and explore whatever topics or themes feels most relevant for us. The banner at the top of the channel shows the countdown to it and you can click on that banner at the time of to join. Looking forward to it.
Discernment. Cleverly crafted disinformation that seems to be “exposing corruption” but is simply perpetuating the narrative in a different way for future scenarios. As Dr. Sam Bailey has stated, “just because it was written down on paper doesn’t mean it’s true or biologically possible.” Also, as she states, content on GOF seems to be promoted while content on lack of proof of viruses is scrubbed from the internet… hmmm….
Did something happen in a lab? Yes, I do believe so. Was a “bio-weapon” created in a lab? Yes, I do believe so. But it wasn’t a 🦠, it was the shot.
Did something happen in a lab? Yes, I do believe so. Was a “bio-weapon” created in a lab? Yes, I do believe so. But it wasn’t a 🦠, it was the shot.
👍14
What does the scientific evidence tell us about the shape of the earth? What about your personal observations?
Anonymous Poll
25%
Evidence: round | Observations: flat
39%
Evidence: round | Observations: round
31%
Evidence: flat | Observations: flat
5%
Evidence: flat | Observations: round
👍4🔥2
Albert-Einstein-The-Earth-Mover-1.pdf
1.3 MB
Interesting information. Keep an open mind. Keep exploring.
❤1
Christine here. The voice chat I’m hosting today is starting in 5 minutes. You can click on the banner at the top of the channel to join. For those who haven’t attended one before they’re an informal chance to say hi, connect, acknowledge where we’re at and explore whatever topics or themes feels most relevant for us.
Thank you all who joined in for the voice chat today. I appreciate you and what becomes available as we come together.
I’ll be back to host another voice chat next Tuesday, Jan 25th at 3pm Pacific, 5pm Central, 6pm Eastern or whatever time that converts to for you. You’re welcome to join in for that.
~Christine
I’ll be back to host another voice chat next Tuesday, Jan 25th at 3pm Pacific, 5pm Central, 6pm Eastern or whatever time that converts to for you. You’re welcome to join in for that.
~Christine
👍4