Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Can you show me how they purified a virus such as to distinguish it from vesicles ?

They admit they cannot readily know which particles seen on TEM are ‘viruses’ vs vesicles, so they assume they can use markers and PCR (we’ve been over this) to identify the right ones.

How can they know which markers and genetic sequences are VIRUS SPECIFIC if they've never first identified the ‘viruses’ in the first place and proven them pathogenic.

You cannot claim to have ‘RNA specific’ material, for a ‘virus’ if you don't first have the ‘virus’ purified (from a human), characterized and PROVEN to be the *cause* of the disease being studied.

The circularity and the question-begging are fairly audacious.

 

We have a few here that need to move to Canada and join their people. LOL!

 

Canada is vying for world’s worst country in my view.

 

That is a lot of words for "I just made up what I claimed was in the paper." Stop making things up and people might give you a break.

Regardless, in review, you linked a meme that cited a paper you hadn't read but which states that it proved the existence of viruses. You did so because you thought it did the opposite (without reading it). When called out, you attacked the paper that you chose to cite with false information about its methods (which, of course, you hadn't read, so you just made stuff up). Now you are furiously hand waving with talking points that have actually nothing to do with the paper you cited and then attacked to avoid having to address any of these facts.

I think that just about sums up your actions on this topic today. GAME OVER!

 

By contrast, the only parts of a paper you can decipher is: (A) the title and (B) the conclusion.

I will admit to the error of declaring game over. You and your believers can’t even get the game started ...

Purification: Virology’s Black Sheep

 

Even if that were true, which it isn't as I showed you when you couldn't decipher another paper's methods and just made up methods as a result, that would be two more than you, as you don't even get that far in the paper.

You just declare every paper to have methods you would prefer and then state that you don't need to read them to know what is in them.

 

Ah, but the methods were found in your paper. And they were embarrassing. But not half as embarrassing as your shut-up viral tracking study.

 

I guess doubling down on your lies is an option. You claimed that they used materals and pointed me to a section that didn't exist to back it up. I provided the actual materials, which didn't match your claims at all, but you didn't have a paper from a kooky website to dispute that method so you changed topics quickly.

Embarrassing would be the word, but you have had to work your way around that as I laughed at you. Pretty similar to what you needed to do when you claimed there was no video and then I showed you a paper of a video.

 

For distraction purposes, you continue to hammer on my error wherein I directed you to the wrong section of your self-refuting paper before directing you to the right section of your self-refuting paper.

But why are you focusing on me and my occasional slip-ups ? Wait, is it because I exist ?

 

Because you keep making demonstrably false claims. For example, you claimed you read that paper, made up a method that didn't exist, and then pointed me to a non-existent section. You would prefer that my criticism of you was more narrow, only focused on the last part, so that is how you are trying to frame it, but I'm pointing out the whole series of outright lies you told. Not mistakes. You claimed things that were false while knowing that they were.

Now, you did it again here. You claimed something unture about a paper you hadn't read again. Stop doing that and I will stop criticizing you for doing it.

Let me know when you make the decision to stop doing that.

 

We can narrow it down to no study you’ve tendered, to date, has produced a purified virus, much less a virus shown to be pathogenic.

You’re 0-2 at this point. This latest was a less a study than an excerpt that simply presupposes a virus.

 

Once again, you were the one who cited this. I just pointed out that you did so without reading it as it clearly disputes your point. Then, you had to argue against the study you cited. It would be funny, but I think it is verging into sad territory.

 

Or we could pit my false statements against your studies.

Do my false statements prove viruses ?

Do your studies prove viruses ?

 

More on the plandemic... I think I might just open a bottle of champagne when that devil takes his last breath.

Your Opinion: Soros has economically destroyed 15 countries. We're next.

 

Rick, I think you've topped yourself in your effort to post the wackiest pieces you can find. Good grief.

 

Deaths exploding all over the world ...

Excess Deaths Higher in Finland in 2022 than in the U.K. in 'Pandemic Year' of 2020 – The Daily Sceptic

 

Try this one on for size... This should make your blood boil.

Instant blood-clot.

 

More on the graphene in the Pfizer clot shot...



BREAKING: FDA confirms Graphene Oxide is in the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines after being forced to publish Confidential Pfizer Documents by order of the US Federal Court

 

As usual, if you want complete misinformation, you know where to go to. See above. The real story? Graphene oxide was used in the original testing of the vaccine, but is not listed as an ingredient in the actual vaccine.

Our rating: False
The document in question describes a validation process in the lab that uses graphene oxide, but that process is not part of the manufacturing process. Graphene oxide is not present in the vaccines.​

 

LOL Rick.... hoodwinked again by wacko breathless garbage sites. Already proven that the graphene was utilized in TESTING the efficacy of the vaccine, not in it's actual manufacture. Fact check: Document shows graphene used to test vaccine, not make it But keep trying. LOL