Lmfao. I friggin knew it. Long John Silvers IS a part of a money laundering operation 😂😂😂: https://www.governmentslaves.news/long-john-silvers-is-a-large-scale-marijuana-money-laundering-operation/

My son demanded to get on stage last weekend so he could sing his favorite song. Enjoy. Happy Easter! 🐰

Mike Stone with another absolute banger of an article 🔥: https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/18/beware-the-snake-oil-salesmen/?fbclid=IwAR3k9isvYBPI5e2vkMoF3S5RiOTXJzvvk4dENt4h5NmulsmMDlgWX8Qv2Jo

Had to share this incredible commentary RE: viruses from my friend Jordan Brooks—

so I am “unqualified” to understand what constitutes as pseudoscience? Good to know. I actually tried to summarize and simplify my response for you, so I’m surprised that you found that to be a “word salad.” You better focus on reading this response then, because there is so much to pick apart here.

First, “spending all those decades learning how to” follow a specific procedure that yields repeatable results does not mean that the underlying mechanism is well understood or even true at all. I’m an engineer, so I work with models all the time and am able to achieve satisfactory results - but I also understand their limitations. Mathematics and models absolutely can and do yield predictable results and can be very pragmatic, but that does not mean the story behind it is true. Again very poor logic on your part. I would say this is probably why so many people can be fooled - many struggle with logic and also many get lost in mathematical models as if that somehow proves causation. Now whether or not someone is intentionally fooling others, or whether they are simply fooling themselves with their bias, is impossible for me to know as that dives into speculation - but let’s stick to the science on this discussion, as I’m not interested in ascribing motives to other people, especially ones I’ve never even met. Furthermore, it really doesn’t matter how long anyone has been doing something or how many people believe it to be so - if it doesn’t follow logic, then it is still illogical and needs to be called out.

But anyway, let’s look up pseudoscience, shall we?

pseudoscience (noun):

“A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
False or pretended science; a pretended science.
Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.”

So i always considered the scientific method to be paramount in distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, and the above definition seems to support that. So with that, can you please explain to me how they follow the scientific method in “viral isolation”? I’ll even give you a hint on where I’m going with this - what is the independent variable that they manipulate in in their experiments to prove causation? You need that before you can even begin your experiment to prove causation (in other words, if X causes Y, then X needs to exist and you need to show that before you can even begin). If you can start with that, without using any fallacies of logic (good luck with that part), then we can get somewhere.

And for the record about my “own misguided personal opinion”, we can dissect any one of the viral isolation papers if you wish? You can choose whichever one. I actually do not make the positive claim here on what is causing any illness, I am simply refuting the claim of virus based on lack of evidence and the logical interpretation of their own experiments. I resort to the scientific method and the obvious logical fallacies in the “viral isolation” papers - that’s not my opinion, the method is pretty strict and transparent and the fallacies are also very apparent once you understand what they are doing.

As far as all the other comparisons you made with sequencing - while there is more I need to learn about how it was all initially validated, I can say that it stands to reason that one must PURIFY a novel micro-organism before attempting to sequence it. If a genome was already known amongst other organisms with known genomes, then of course there would be computational methods to confirm its presence without purification - but that’s not at all the scenario we are dealing with here.

So are you arguing that they have purified a virus? Or are you arguing that they do not need to and the methods used can determine a genetic sequence of an organism that was previously unknown? Those are 2 different arguments.

And once you clarify your stance on this, I’ll ask again to please confirm the independent variable in their “standard technique” of “viral isolation.” That is, after all, needed before you can even attempt to prove causation using the scientific method.

As my friend Jordan said above— anything that claims to be science but doesn’t strictly adhere to the scientific method is, by definition, pseudoscience.

Vaccinated Have Up To SIX Times the Infection Rate of Unvaccinated, NZ Govt Data Shows
https://gellerreport.com/2022/04/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-nz-govt-data-shows.html/