More and more court challenges are occurring. They are no longer fighting on the grounds that lockdown etc are unconstitutional but that the emergency law which overrides and suspends normal (constitutional) law is based on a fraud. The data and the available science simply cannot establish the need for any emergency law. There is ample scientific proof to demonstrate that we are not in a pandemic. Before you watch the interview between Spiros and Dr. Pam Popper a few tweets that demonstrate the nature of the hoax:
Wow! Just poublished, in Nature no less: Asymptomatic spread is not a thing. Our lockdowns of the healthy were largely for nothing, except to destroy societal health. The Chinese KNOW, and now WE do too So 2019 WHO guidelines were correct: no asymptomatic quarentine recommended🤨 pic.twitter.com/pb6ouJyMPm
On the face of it an utterly ridiculous question. The gut response (and mine also) is…of course it is, real people are getting sick (and dying) and it is contagious. Can’t get more real than that. However, I know for a fact that they are also conducting a psychological operation and using the media to ramp up fear and there are elements about the virus that are highly suspicious.
I thought it was time to examine the question again and draw all the threads together into a coherent narrative. That is how you conduct proper science. You constantly evaluate and re-evaluate as new evidence becomes available. What led to this was a comment I posted about the virus never being isolated using Koch’s postulate after which I was sent links to about ten different scientific articles showing how it had been isolated and how it had been injected into monkeys, mice and hamsters etc and made them sick with similar symptoms…so there (lol).
Now these scientific articles are difficult to read – they are not in plain English and I think this is often deliberate obfuscation. Moreover, unless you work in that particular field it can be difficult to evaluate the methodology. Now, I did do microbiology many moons ago and worked as a junior scientist at a lab researching plant pathogens. Although I have done work with bacteria and used the ELISA technique (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is a plate-based assay technique designed for detecting and quantifying soluble substances such as peptides, proteins, antibodies, and hormones) I am not familiar with virology or the newer DNA sequencing techniques etc. However, science is about critical thinking and evaluating not just about technique. Anybody (scientist or not) can evaluate a methodology.
The whole argument is about Koch’s Postulate which is about how you establish the cause of a disease. This is not as easy as you might think. First you have to find a bug. You need to isolate the germ from a sick human or animal (say from their saliva). Then you need to purify the bug and isolate it from the spit and snot or blood etc. Then you need to inject the purified bug into a healthy animal or human to see if they get the same illness. Then you need to isolate the bug again from the person or animal that you made sick and check that it is indeed the same bug. It is a sort of “double check” . It is the gold standard for identifying the cause of diseases.
In theory, if the methodology established by Koch is not exactly followed you cannot speak of a particular “germ” being the cause of a disease. Let us say you always find the presence of X-particle in a person that is sick — that does not mean that X-particle is causing the disease. It could be that X-particle is simply part of an immune response against an environmental onslaught. It could be that your own body produces X-particle as a response to a particular attack from outside. It might not be the cause of the disease but a symptom.
The only way to establish it for sure is to use Koch’s principles and here is where I fell down the rabbit hole because although Koch’s postulate works fine for bacteria it does not work for viruses. Apparently when you isolate a virus in vitro (in glass eg test tube etc) it looses its pathogenicity. It can no longer make you sick. Ruh, Roh.
I found a paper discussing a problem with a different virus. The paper is from 2010 and is about a different virus but the problem back then is the same as now:
De´ja ` Vu All Over Again: Koch’s Postulates and Virology in the 21st Century
John V. Williams
Departments of Pediatrics and Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee
This article describes prolonged shedding of the recently identified human bocavirus (HBoV) by children and detection of HBoV in the absence of respiratory symptoms.
So, I have done something naughty and taken the relevant passages from his article (which is very good) and changed the HBoV into Covid etc to reflect the current situation:
Another feature used to assign disease causality [to Covid] is the absence of the virus in healthy individuals. However asymptomatic subjects do have the "disease"
The work also nicely illustrates a common problem facing modern virologists: how to assign disease [Covid] causality to a microorganism that is not amenable to Koch’s postulates.
HBoV [Covid] has been detected in serum samples [13, 16] and stool specimens [14, 28–30] by PCR, but the biological significance of this is not clear.
So the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test detects something…but how relevant is it? And the amplification is non-linear. Depending on the sensitivity you can more or less influence the outcome (positive or negative). You can get what you want.
Does HBoV [Covid]contribute to the pathogenesis of a specific clinical syndrome in either a primary or helper fashion? Is there a contribution of host immune response to HBoV [Covid]reactivation and detection during intercurrent infection? The many unanswered questions about this newly discovered virus return us to basic approaches for establishing causation and pathogenesis regarding any virus. Koch espoused his core principles regarding the proof of an etiologic role for a potential pathogen in 1884. These postulates were revised by the eminent virologist Thomas Rivers in 1937 to reflect the biology of viruses, which, as obligate intracellular parasites, cannot be isolated in pure culture . Huebner  further modified these principles in 1957, during the heyday of virus discovery that followed the development of tissue and cell culture. Fredricks and Relman  eloquently applied these guidelines to sequence-based microbe discovery. There are numerouschallenges in proving viruses as the etiologic causes of specific syndromes: pro-longed viral shedding after acute illness (eg, enteroviruses); latent infection and asymptomatic shedding (eg, herpesviruses); clinical disease in a minority of infected individuals (eg, poliovirus); and re-current asymptomatic infection of immune adults (eg, respiratory syncytial virus) are but a few of these challenges. Huebner proposed a “Bill of Rights for Prevalent Viruses” that comprised a “guarantee against the imputation of guilt by simple association” [38, pp. 434–437] consisting of 8 conditions: (1) isolation of a virus in culture; (2) repeated recovery of the virus from human specimens; (3)antibody response to the virus; (4) characterization and comparison with known pathogenic viruses; (5) constant association of the virus with specific illness; (6)reproduction of clinical illness in volunteer challenge studies; (7) epidemiologic studies (with controlled longitudinal studies offering the greatest value); and (8)prevention of disease by vaccination. The difficulty in meeting several of these conditions for HBoV,[Covid]or for any other new virus, is immediately obvious.
This article was written 10 years ago about a different virus. It asks valid questions that have still not been answered. So, this is not just a bunch of “tin foil hat” people who have recently jumped on a bandwagon. The science shows that the question is far more nuanced and the results far more uncertain than some like to make out.
From the horses mouth
This is what the scientist involved with the first testing and identification of the virus say in their scientific articles.
In all of these papers they admit that they have not purified the virus. So, then what are you looking at under the Electron Microscope? You cannot say for sure that it is a virus because you have not purified it. So, you are not using Koch’s postulates as even the Zhu paper admits.
Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.
I am sorry Zhu Manchu but if it does not fulfill Koch’s postulates it does not provide evidence of anything. My backside does not fulfill Koch’s postulates either, nor does it provide evidence of WuFlu.
A number of people have offered challenges and even rewards to scientists to prove that the virus does exists. This doctor offers you 5000 bucks if you can prove the existence and a European doctor offers 100000. So far no takers.
The answer put forward is that the tests are picking up on exosomes. These are pieces of RNA “solvents” that the body excretes when it is under immunological stress and needs to get rid of toxins. Like viruses, exosomoes are “dead” and need “living tissue”…..do you see where this is going?
Could the cause of “viruses” be environmental or terrain factors?
The fact is that both Wuhan and Northern Italy were the first hit and the worst hit. They both had very high pollution including particulate matter and also high cyanide (from Industry and traffic) and both rolled out 5G at about the time that the virus struck. Now we all know that causation is not correlation but the anecdotal evidence is getting stronger. They have trillions invested in this new technology and 5G has many overlapping symptoms with Covid. Something is going on. Look at recent data from the USA:
— @Stupidosaur here. Main locked by Jack since Jan31 (@Stupido_Bot1) June 12, 2020
Koch’s postulates have not be fulfilled. No point denying it as the scientists themselves admit it. On that basis alone we would be justified in saying that the virus was not real. However, we are not so hasty although it does raise a giant red flag as does the introduction of 5G. In part 2 we will delve further into the whole scamdemic and try and establish what is really going on – is the Wu Flu a Flu Manchu or is it a Flu Manju…?