Seemorerocks

• Nothing like a SARS-COVID-2 virus has been isolated from a patient or sequenced.
• Viruses have not been proven to cause disease

Most of the time we take on information passively and we reach blanket conclusions with lots of assumptions.

I come across this a lot talking to people who come out with ill-thought out statements that are without evidence but relate to previously-held views. I see this lot in what I may call conspiracy theory circles. 

It behooves us to stop and to reassess and see if we can make sense of things. Sometimes the information is confusing and contradictory so that having one set explanation for things can preclude other information that may seem to contradict that.

I heard sage advice from Geert vanden Bossche who something like, it is all part of the whole puzzle; we can leave no stone unturned.  

I have been trying to do this in the past few days and have been influenced by two things. The first is a five part documentary that has come out recently called the Virus Delusion featuring virus sceptics like Andrew Kaufmann, Tom Cowan, Stefan Lanka and others that I am making my way through. 

The other was an excellent interview with Dr. Larry Pavlevsky who is one of my reliable sources.

I have been going through both videos and taking extensive notes, which for me is a way of getting beyond just passive listening and getting to a more direct relationship with the subject matter.

I found that they all fundamentally agreed with each other although Dr. Pavlevsky is more flexible in his approach, utilising what may be called the Socratic method, asking more questions than making assertions, and thinking critically around everything we are being told.

This approach suits me well and fits in with the advice of vanden Bossche to put everything on the table and to debate it intelligently.

So let’s look at the Virus Delusion video first.

I have taken just a small section of the first video, on the isolation of the SARS=COVID-2 virus and its sequencing. 

Basically, scientists came up with a new definition for the term isolation.

They say that isolation means something quite different from what we think and what it has meant in the past; it is not like the isolation, say, of a bacterium or a  fungus and the evaluation according to Koch’s postulates that are the cornerstone of microbiology. 

The virologists do not, apparently look at diseased tissue from the lungs; they say there is not enough viral material in a sick person.

What they mean by isolation is the nasal or throat swab has been isolated from the patient, not that the virus itself has been isolated from the nasal swab.

When a researcher, Christine Massey inquired with government agencies through FOIA requests she got over 150 confirmations, including from the CDC that there is no record that a virus called SARS COVID-2 was ever isolated directly from a patient.

These agencies point to papers that use three basic methods to identify a virus:

1, Cytopathic effect

2. Electron photographs

3. Genomics

Basically, the isolation is always done the same way.

They take sample of mucous secretion from the nose and they inoculate with it tissue culture, usually monkey kidney cells (called vero cells) and put it in the cell culture with toxic antibiotics and, to make their experiment work better, they starve the cell culture.

The antibiotics with the vero cells they use are Streptomycin, Gentamicin, Amphotericin B .

All are  toxic to the kidneys, all things that stress the cells.

They then starve the culture and add other ingredients.

Using this methodology they are able to demonstrate cytotoxic effects, damage to the cells, such as the cilia in cells stopping beating – things that can be due to all sorts of factors, and certainly the toxic effects of the antibiotics and other things they add to the culture.

They then point to this and call it the effects of the virus.

These are very uncontrolled experiments.

It has to be asked why they don’t put these things into a lung culture. The answer is, the experiment doesn’t work.

It has been demonstrated in experiments by dissident German microbiologist, Stefan Lanka where he demonstrated that he got the same results whether the culture with the monkey cells had the “viral material” or not – results that are highly suggestive.   

What Kaufmann, Cowan and others contend is that when cells die due to exposure to toxins they produce exosomes, that are called by the profession extracellular vesicles and exosomes, and these have all the characteristics of what they identify as a virus.

What transpires is that it has been admitted that it is not possible to distinguish these exosomes from viruses.

So they see this and call them viruses.

The natural question to ask is why would they not use a lung tissue culture?

The answer appears to be that no cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in the vero cells.

It worked better with vero cells than lung cells because the antibiotics they use to sterilise happens to be particularly toxic to kidney tissue as opposed to lung tissue, so no surprise it broke down better than lung tissue.

In no case did they ever take a culture from  sick cells and do normal isolation in the sense we understand it.

In addition to that we have this:

When it comes to electron photographs what we see in the media are artists’ representations.

When we see photos of what they call a virus they look identical to exosomes.

Photos of “sars-covid-2 have been released, showing the spike protein.

However, they could not get a photo showing the spike protein so they added a pancreatic, protein-digesting enzyme, trypsin, to get the effect.

“Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”

Usually, in a paper the title and summary will say they have ‘isolated’ the virus and it is only if you read the entire paper and the section on ‘methodology’ that you can see the truth – something that neither doctors, government health officials or media ever do.

SEQUENCING

We hear a lot about how the SARS COVID-2 virus has been “sequenced”.

What actually happens is very different to sequencing, say with the human genome, which uses the entire sequence.

They make a model, a dragnet for all this RNA to find the virus and use what is basically an unpurified mass, ending up with billions of pieces of genetic material (the cell culture).

They cannot see an entire genome so they chop it up into little bits of nucleotides organise it into a genome ‘in silico‘.

Basically, it is computer modelling and is technological rather than scientific, and what they did was assembling, rather than sequencing, in the words of microbiologist, Dr.David Rasnick

These sequences are stored on a computer and shared, allowing people to do what they like with them.

DR.LARRY PAVLEVSKY

Now we come to Dr. Larry Pavlevsky.

What he says is very similar to what is described above but far more open and less dogmatic. 

COVID-19 IS NOT A VIRUS BUT A POISON

He says that this is not a virus but a poison affecting the blood. He gave the example of the doctors from New York who, early in the pandemic, were the first to say this was a blood problem, similar to high altitude sickness.

Dr. Pavlevsky always insists on differential diagnosis and critical thinking. Here, for example, he explains that a breathing problem can either be a lung problem or a blood problem. 

These patients were able to breathe or to talk but could not keep their oxygen levels up; they did not need ventilation, as would have been the case had it been a problem with the lungs, as in a respiratory condition as Covid-19 in supposed to be.

If you have low oxygen and normal CO2, clinical analysis would indicate it is more likely to be a blood problem.

When this came out, you started to hear from doctors in NY and around the world that this was a blood problem, not an acute respiratory syndrome – similar to high altitude sickness. These patients did not need ventilation. They were able to breathe or to talk, but could not keep their oxygen levels up.

If a patient had difficulty breathing there were two ways to look at it:

• problem with their lungs, or
• Problem with their blood

If you have low oxygen and normal CO2 it is likely to be a blood problem.

The doctors who said that were censored.

It was not an acute respiratory syndrome, and as 2020 went along, articles starting coming out saying that Covid was a blood condition.

Moreover, it was a blood problem – a clotting problem.

Doctors were ascribing strange symptoms to a respiratory condition. It was a poisoning causing the oxygen and the blood not to bind and causing multi organ inflammatory syndrome.

Patients, having been given an incorrect diagnosis, were give an incorrect, and frequently fatal treatment which usually involved sedative drugs, intubation and being put on respirator which mostly killed the patients. 

When he raised this with a colleague and explained the whole physiology the response was that they know but were following protocol and that this was “too complicated for doctors to understand”! 

THE DEATH OF CRITICAL THINKING AND DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

So, Dr. Pavlevsky wonders, what has happened to clinical medicine? 

Where are the critically thinking doctors?

Suddenly everything was COVID and no one had to practise clinical medicine any more but just follow protocols handed down by the health bureaucrats.

This has happened in the past.

Every time there was a situation which could be explained in multiple ways the authorities always said it was a virus, whether it was polio, measles, ebola, Covid-2. 

He says we need to look at a multitude of other factors such as dietary irregularities, drugs and environmental toxins including electro-magnetic radiation. So long as we ignore these factors and fail to ask the right questions we are left with the virus narrative.

Basically, Larry Pavlevsky (who appears in the documentary the Virus Deception) parallels Kaufmann and others in saying that we have no understanding of what viruses are and how they work in the body, and that  no one has ever watched a virus infect a cell.

The director of the NIH, Anthony Fauci,  gave a speech at Georgetown University in 2017 saying that there WILL be an outbreak, and then we find out he had been involved in gain-of-function research on a coronavirus, and that the Gates Foundation, along with Johns Hopkins University, had performed a simulated response to a viral outbreak in Oct 2019 (Event 201) which also involved a coronavirus.

Our suspicions should go up, because something doesn’t smell right here, says Dr Pavlevsky.

What all this this tells us is that we have a virus that cannot kill us, that cannot create severe illness. So we are going to do something to weaponise it, so it becomes more virulent, more toxic, more deadly.

They are also going to convince us this is a natural virus, even though the body carries 400 trillion viruses embedded in our cells, our organelles and the microorganisms that live within us. 

THE SPIKE PROTEIN  

We are told that the part of the virus that causes disease is a spike protein, that the spike protein is the part of the coronavirus that is causing the symptoms of covid-19.

However, the spike protein not a naturally occurring element.

It is not part of the virus, it is part of the bioweapon, the mRNA they produced.

Assuming the shot is what they are telling us it is,  the shot is an mRNA, synthetic genetic structure of the spike protein.

They have done gain of function which produced the spike protein, which they are telling us is part of the virus.

Even the Salk Institute did a study saying you don’t need a virus in the presence of the spike protein to give you the symptoms of covid-19.

There has never been a spike protein with a virus that is naturally-occuring.

People line up to get the “vaccine” that is able to produce the spike protein that causes so many problems.

If you know it is the spike protein, why would you allow yourself to be injected with the mRNA that allows the body to produce endless amounts of spike protein?

We are assured that the mRNA does not go on to produce endless amounts of spike protein.

However, do we have a study to demonstrate this?

No, we don’t.

So how can we say that this mRNA stays at the point of injection and that the production of synthetic spike protein is going to stop?

The idea is the body will produce an antibody to the spike protein that will get rid of the “virus”, and if you are going to produce a synthetic spike protein, and if you are going to produce an antibody that is supposed to attack it, you had better make sure the structure of that spike protein is not similar to, or the same as, the structure of the body’s tissues.

Did they do that?

No, they didn’t.

In Jan 2021 a European scientist came out and said the structure of the spike protein is similar to the structure of some proteins embedded in the placenta, and experts stated that the similarity is so tiny between the tissues in the placenta and the structure of the synthetic spike protein that it wouldn’t make a difference in your health. 

That is how the theory was debunked.

There is plenty of reason for concern because whatever synthetic RNA something is being produced, it has similar structures to human tissue because autoimmune diseases are also increasing exponentially.

With no science available we were told it’s not going to make a difference. Meanwhile, you look around the other side of it, how many women have had miscarriages and stillbirths from taking the shot or being exposed to someone who has taken the shot?

It is over 300% increase in miscarriages and stillbirths since the onset of the shot. Plus, the infertility rates have skyrocketed in men and women who have got the shot and who either can’t get pregnant or are undergoing IVF and their eggs and sperm are barely viable.

THE AGENDA

Then you read the WEF, Klaus Schwab and you see the intention to reduce the population, to create a one world government, NWO, one world economy. “Ultimately you will own nothing”.

Is that sci fi?

There are videos of him saying it. There are books that confirm this but we are still told this is all a conspiracy theory.  We can see that there is a plan involving the WEF, the WHO and the Gates Foundation for a Pandemic Treaty that will give the WHO and other organisations power over sovereign nations to develop their own policies.

CEDING AUTHORITY TO OTHERS

There is, for some reason, enough fear in society that people have stopped using any other part of their brain other than that which responds to fear. They have allowed the authority outside of them to tell them what’s true without any self-evaluation of what they are hearing, to check in to see if what they are hearing is true. 

Pavlevsky says that in many respects this is similar to an abused child who has experienced abuse and is put back into the home of the abuser. They will often go back with the hope and desire and fantasy that the authority above them will never hurt them again.

All of a sudden that abused child looks up at their parent and says, there is no way you could be hurting me this time because you said you wouldn’t.

We are dealing with that blind loop, the idolisation of these false gods who would never do anything to hurt us again. 

However, history shows us governments and leaders have over and over again have stolen from their people.

The manufacturers of these injections have paid out billions of dollars in fines for corruption around their products. Governments around the world have slaughtered millions of their own people for religion, for money, for power.

“It would never happen here”, we live. In the US, in …blind hope you will never hurt us, all we need to do is listen to you.

What happens there is the loss of function of the mid brain and the forebrain, and all that’s left is hindbrain or reptilian brain dominance, the part of the brain that says: “I’m afraid and I need saving. My authority, my doctor, the government is going to do it for me.”

There has been constant propaganda to create this reptilian brain. This is a question that I shall return to in a seperate article.

CONCLUSION

I now return to what Geert vanden Bossche said: it is all part of the whole puzzle; we can leave no stone unturned.

I have learned from watching Dr.Kaufmann et. al and getting more details of what they have been saying.

I am no longer wanting to ignore it because it comes with quite a lot of common sense and evidence.

I am left with the same concern that the way in which they express it may lead one to dismiss information that is important to take into consideration.

“There’s no such thing as a virus so it cannot be true”.

My training was in Traditional Chinese Medicine and this, I believe, gives me some ability to grasp all this as a whole, and not in parts that contradict each other.

Chinese medicine is terrrain medicine par excellence.

Everything about it is aimed at strengthening the body through acupuncture, herbs, lifestyle and diet and in particular strengthening Wei Qi, which corresponds to the immune system.

It does, however, have a concept of hot and cold pathogens, which broadly corresponds with the idea of a pathogen, such as a virus or bacteria, invading the body if the Wei Qi is weak.

In some ways, it combines a kind of germ theory with terrain theory which, as I see it, although expressed in pre-modern terms, corresponds with reality. It also has a very developed form of differential diagnosis that is really its cornerstone, far more than western medicine.

So, in summary, we need to maintain our critical thinking, to be flexible and willing to modify our views according to the development of our understanding.

We are a long way from where we were in February 2020, but there are still people stuck back there because of their fixed views.

A POSTSCRIPT

The people in the documentary use the term “fraud” to describe the whole affair, which implies some element of malign intention. I am sure that the researchers actually believe implicitly in what they are doing; it is in line with what was drummed into their heads during their training and is the ruling dogma which they never question.

Just as an afterthought I have been wondering how Consciousness may come into play – literally, that they SEE what they want to see and can’t see another possibility, even if it is staring at them in the face.

I thought of two things.

The first is a diagram associated with Gestalt therapy.

Look at the following and say whether you see two people en face or a vase.

It depends on the perception of the observer.

Who is wrong?

 

The second is a controversy going back to the 1980’s.

A French immunologist, Jacques Benveniste discovered through experiment that water has memory  – a discovery which served to bolster the claims of homeopathy.

When he tried to have his work published in Nature the editor engaged in a witch hunt to destroy his reputation by bringing a team to his laboratory which, unbelievably, included a magician, James Randi.

When Benveniste ran the experiment in the presence of the sceptics, it failed and his reputation was shattered.

Watch this segment:

Watch the entire documentary HERE