People are waking up to the fact that viruses and germ theory are fake.

[BADecker]

Personally, I'd say that, outside of illness due to medical and other toxin in the body, that the metaphysical-physical connection is what is making people sick. Just thinking wrong thoughts induces the body to make physical toxins that match those wrong thoughts.

Since the below is only VIRUS MANIA PART I, it will be interesting to see the other parts... which will be forthcoming. I'll try to present them here, as they come.


VIRUS MANIA PART I: The FRAUD of Louis Pasteur and the entirely CORRUPT history of virology

Most natural health enthusiasts know this, but the majority of Americans would find the following fact tough to digest: “The primary purpose of commercially-funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.” That is a quote from the foreword in an amazing, whistle-blowing book titled, Virus Mania: How Big Pharma, Media Invent Epidemics. This corrupt model of modern medicine is an epidemic based on fear, not viruses or bacteria.

The pandemic we are “experiencing” right now with COVID-19 is not rooted in science, but rather the populace’ fear of germs, thanks to propaganda and falsified research scripted and promoted by the medical industrial complex.

Virus mania is a social disease based on propaganda and fake science

If you want to defend yourself and family against Corona/COVID-19, measles, swine flu, cervical cancer, avian flu, SARS, BSE, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio and Spanish Flu, you will first need to conquer your fear of germs. Did you know that FEAR is the most contagious and deadly virus of all? The medical industrial complex is creating mass hysteria about a completely flawed “germ theory” that dates back over a century, and has been used to exploit fear ever since.

Under the guise of combating germs, the allopathic regime has created toxic pharmaceutical medications and disease-causing vaccines that the majority of Americans believe helps them ward off or lessen the impact of viruses, bacteria, germs, pathogens and parasites, but nothing is further from the truth.

In fact, the medical protocol, as described in the book Virus Mania, is to literally sicken and kill the patients, but the doctors believe that if they don’t promote and prescribe under this model, they will get legally blamed for sickness and death of their patients. In other words, the practice of prescribing pharmaceuticals and administering vaccinations is MALPRACTICE in and of itself.

Louis Pasteur, who “discovered” the principles of vaccination, based everything on a flawed model of “germ theory” that holds no water today

...

[suchmoon]

Just thinking wrong thoughts induces the body to make physical toxins that match those wrong thoughts.

So if you eat a pound of rotten meat but don't think wrong thoughts, you'll be fine? Have you tested this theory yourself?

[Kavelj22]

According to what I understood from the article, there is actually an exaggeration of viral diseases in terms of describing symptoms and complications, led by pharmaceutical companies and investors in the medical field. But it never cancels out the fact that these viruses exist and the risks that they can cause.

I totally agree with the idea that pharmaceutical companies have a great influence on public opinion, from the simple patient to the educated doctor.

Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives as long as these companies are the ones who fund scientific research and have influence over the decisions taken by the World Health Organization. Fortunately, there are honest research centers that can refute and review many theories so as not to be a game in the hands of pharmaceutical companies, but this is of course not enough.

Anyways, the scientific community agrees on the existence of these viruses and their dangers. The difference remains only about how to deal with it, which will remain in dispute as long as the research centers are subject to a central authority.

[BADecker]

Just thinking wrong thoughts induces the body to make physical toxins that match those wrong thoughts.

So if you eat a pound of rotten meat but don't think wrong thoughts, you'll be fine? Have you tested this theory yourself?

Eating the rotten meat has wrong thinking ahead of doing it, thinking that guides you to eat the rotten meat.

Adam and Eve ate the apple. But it was their thinking about it that was the sin, first. Their eating only backed up the thought sin.

I am considering this idea all the time. In fact, Jesus said, Matthew 7:7-12

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

So, why don't we get what we ask for, when we don't get it? Wrong thinking behind the asking.

[Cnut237]

Eating the rotten meat has wrong thinking ahead of doing it

As does ignoring the vast amounts of data, from innumerable independent sources all around the world, proving that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective.

If you are going to form an opinion on something, when why would you disregard the evidence?
The answer of course is that your opinion against the vaccines was already formed before any data were available. Which then leads you to desperately cherry-pick (and divest of context) anything that you can to prop up your preconceived opinion. This is wrong thinking. Right thinking, when confronted with data that challenge your opinion, is to investigate, not to bury your head in the sand.

[yazher]

I think the close truth is when they said there was a virus and it is contagious they were right but they went overboard by saying the virus is deadly and they create some scenario where everything they said makes sense but in reality, they are faking it just to cause some panics to the people and I really believe that was the case because the mainstream media is they're accomplished and they're doing the work for them to stir the panic of the people all around the world. also, the dead lists are not true and for some reason, I think doctors know the truth behind it and they remain silent because of the money involved and as soon as they talk, their life is in danger. If the virus was really that deadly the total population was already cut about 1/3 of the last 2 years.

[BADecker]

Eating the rotten meat has wrong thinking ahead of doing it

As does ignoring the vast amounts of data, from innumerable independent sources all around the world, proving that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective.

If you are going to form an opinion on something, when why would you disregard the evidence?
The answer of course is that your opinion against the vaccines was already formed before any data were available. Which then leads you to desperately cherry-pick (and divest of context) anything that you can to prop up your preconceived opinion. This is wrong thinking. Right thinking, when confronted with data that challenge your opinion, is to investigate, not to bury your head in the sand.

Vast amounts of data are the problem. Why? Because the data is or is based on ideas that have not been proven. Regarding viruses, the bottom-line of the data info is always wording that says things like "we think," "it looks like," "maybe," and a whole lot of wording that says that they don't really know... that they only assume.

Then there's the other side, the trick-the-electron-microscope side. They throw a whole bunch of junk together, including human cells, poisons and monkey kidney stuff, and feed it to starved, dying cell cultures. The result is some tiny particles they call viruses. You can see them in an electron microscope. But all they are is poisoned, dead pieces of nobody-really-knows-what.

I have been asking franky1 for ages for some real proof of virus isolation... where some researcher took some "gunk" out of a person, and actually "pulled" a virus out of the stuff. When researchers do this kind of isolation, they write the steps in their notebooks, along with explanations, so that other researchers can duplicate the process, to see if they can all get the same results. F-1 hasn't been able to show me a notebook with this being done. Dr. Kaufman hasn't been able to find it either, with his access to medical libraries that he has because he is a doctor.

The medical data you talk about has been built on a lie. And the more the lie is touted as truth, the more people like you believe it, and the less they go out and prove it to themselves.

Or do you have the actual notebook of the process of a virus being isolated like this, with written step-by-step procedures, so that somebody can use the same equipment that the researcher who wrote the notebook used, and isolate the same virus out of the same kind of "gunk" as the researcher did?

Actually, in this modern age, there should be loads of videos of an in-process virus isolation, the researcher recording the steps as he does them. I mean real isolation of a virus, not creation of a so-called virus by whatever crazy means.

[Cnut237]

I have been asking franky1 for ages for some real proof of virus isolation... where some researcher took some "gunk" out of a person, and actually "pulled" a virus out of the stuff. When researchers do this kind of isolation, they write the steps in their notebooks, along with explanations, so that other researchers can duplicate the process, to see if they can all get the same results. F-1 hasn't been able to show me a notebook with this being done.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated many times. You are correct that reproducibility of experimental results is important, and that everything is documented. There are innumerable papers on this.

Here's the original Chinese isolation of the virus: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

But you can pick other countires, too, if you prefer...
US: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html
Korea: https://ophrp.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.1.02
Germany: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x

etc., etc.

You can't claim lack of evidence.

Dr. Kaufman hasn't been able to find it either, with his access to medical libraries that he has because he is a doctor.

Didn't he get struck off for that scam research project he pulled where he gave himself huge quantities of Amazon vouchers? We were talking about this the other day.
Regardless, though, this is one individual. Compare with the huge number of independent sources from all around the world, a few of which I've listed above, who are saying the exact opposite.

And that openvaers stuff you quote, too? Again, a lack of evidence, and again not a credible scientific institution, simply a site run by one person, Liz Willner, who is a web designer, not a medical professional.

[BADecker]

I have been asking franky1 for ages for some real proof of virus isolation... where some researcher took some "gunk" out of a person, and actually "pulled" a virus out of the stuff. When researchers do this kind of isolation, they write the steps in their notebooks, along with explanations, so that other researchers can duplicate the process, to see if they can all get the same results. F-1 hasn't been able to show me a notebook with this being done.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated many times. You are correct that reproducibility of experimental results is important, and that everything is documented. There are innumerable papers on this.

Here's the original Chinese isolation of the virus: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

But you can pick other countires, too, if you prefer...
US: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html
Korea: https://ophrp.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.1.02
Germany: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x

etc., etc.

You can't claim lack of evidence.

Dr. Kaufman hasn't been able to find it either, with his access to medical libraries that he has because he is a doctor.

Didn't he get struck off for that scam research project he pulled where he gave himself huge quantities of Amazon vouchers? We were talking about this the other day.
Regardless, though, this is one individual. Compare with the huge number of independent sources from all around the world, a few of which I've listed above, who are saying the exact opposite.

And that openvaers stuff you quote, too? Again, a lack of evidence, and again not a credible scientific institution, simply a site run by one person, Liz Willner, who is a web designer, not a medical professional.

So now show us the lab notebook that the researcher filled out as he was doing the process... where he explains every step of the way what he is doing to isolate any virus. And regarding Covid, show us the video that went along with it.

Pick any one of those links you gave us, and pull out the part where the the process is being described while it is being done. We want the info about the machines used, filter paper kinds, centrifuge, and an explanation of what is being done as it is done.

We don't want some generic process that somebody did with something, who knows what.

And if they actually did get a virus out of it (rather than create one) show us the people who they tested it on to see if they actually had a dangerous virus.

Don't want to go to all that trouble? Great! I don't blame you. Nobody has done such, so why should you attempt to find something that isn't there?

Anybody can write a report that essentially says, "I isolated this virus... ." Children can write a report like that. Lets get to the details so that we can know what was actually done... all the details.

[Cnut237]

So now show us the lab notebook that the researcher filled out as he was doing the process... where he explains every step of the way what he is doing to isolate any virus. And regarding Covid, show us the video that went along with it.

Firstly, when I supply proof that any reasonable person would accept, you just push the requirement out further. I'm well aware that if I was able to supply images of someone's personal notebook, you'd just say "anyone can fake a photo of a notebook, you need the real thing". If I get hold of an actual physical notebook and mail it to you, you'd just say "anyone could have written this, how do I know it's by a scientist?". If I get the scientist to visit your home, you'd say "how do I know you are who you say you are?" etc. This is clearly absurd. Any why on earth would someone video what they're doing, or publish scribbles and jottings from notepads, when they could just present it all in a clean, easy to follow scientific paper?

Secondly, it's a bit rich for someone who insists that god exists to rely on a burden of proof argument anyway.

 

Pick any one of those links you gave us, and pull out the part where the the process is being described while it is being done. We want the info about the machines used, filter paper kinds, centrifuge, and an explanation of what is being done as it is done.

We don't want some generic process that somebody did with something, who knows what.

I've no idea how much you want me to copy and paste from the links I provided*, but here's a brief excerpt from the first paper:

Virus isolation, cell infection, electron microscopy and neutralization assay

The following cell lines were used for virus isolation in this study: Vero E6 and Huh7 cells, which were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FBS. All cell lines were tested and free of mycoplasma contamination, submitted for species identification and authenticated by morphological evaluation by microscopy. None of the cell lines was on the list of commonly misidentified cell lines (by ICLAC).

Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, the inoculum was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium containing antibiotics (see below) and 16 μg ml−1 trypsin. The cells were incubated at 37 °C and observed daily for cytopathogenic effects. The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT–PCR methods developed in this study, and cells were examined by immunofluorescence microscopy using the anti-SARSr-CoV Rp3 N antibody that was generated in-house (1:1,000). Penicillin (100 units ml−1) and streptomycin (15 μg ml−1) were included in all tissue culture media.

Vero E6 cells were infected with the new virus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.5 and collected 48 h after infection. Cells were fixed with 2.5% (w/v) glutaraldehyde and 1% osmium tetroxide, dehydrated through a graded series of ethanol concentrations (from 30 to 100%) and embedded with epoxy resin. Ultrathin sections (80 nm) of embedded cells were prepared, deposited onto Formvar-coated copper grids (200 mesh), stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and analysed using a 200-kV Tecnai G2 electron microscope.

The virus neutralization test was carried out in a 96-well plate. The patient serum samples were heat-inactivated by incubation at 56 °C for 1 h before use. The serum samples were diluted to 1:10, 1:20, 1:40 or 1:80, and then an equal volume of virus stock was added and incubated at 37 °C for 60 min in a 5% CO2 incubator. Diluted horse anti-SARS-CoV serum or serum samples from healthy individuals were used as control. After incubation, 100 μl mixtures were inoculated onto a monolayer of Vero E6 cells in a 96-well plate for 1 h. Each serum was assessed in triplicate. After removing the supernatant, the plate was washed twice with DMEM medium. Cells were incubated with DMEM supplemented with 2% FBS for 3 days. Subsequently, the cells were checked for cytopathogenic effects.

* Of course, I do know. You're not interested in any of it, in any inconvenient evidence that shakes your predetermined faith-based narrative.

[SaltySpitoon]

So now show us the lab notebook that the researcher filled out as he was doing the process... where he explains every step of the way what he is doing to isolate any virus. And regarding Covid, show us the video that went along with it.

I don't really have anything to say about the OP, but perhaps this will make sense. These documents are available, just not to the public. You have to pay $X per year and have proof of qualifications before you get access to databases for studies and peer reviewed content. Its not to keep the information away from the common man, any college adjunct professor could distribute the material to the public. Its not a secret, its just that it wouldn't do the public any good. The jargon and how information is presented is likely less helpful to you than if it was a foreign language.

English is not precise enough of a language. In technical writeups there can be zero room for misunderstanding because a question of whether you meant wind the air currents or wind like storing potential energy in a clock can cost the scientific community millions of hours, so instead they write the same word for wind as a dry two sentence passage using a specialized language that makes zero sense if you try to use a dictionary or thesaurus to piece it together. In short, its very technical industry specific jargon, its not English.  When I get a scan for a sprained ankle, I have zero understanding of what the radiologist's notes means because its in medical jargon that I'm not trained to read as a language. I've got a decade of formal training in reading and writing these journals and I'd be flat out lying to you if I told you I could comprehend anything outside of my field, or even complex topics in my field. I've got a grasp of researcher speak equivalent to a ten year old's grasp on English. It'll be another ten years before I have an adult's reading comprehension when it comes to journal writing.

So why does it matter, why not just be transparent and release it to the public and let them realize for themselves that it doesn't make sense to them? Well, because some words will make sense but not in the way the writer anticipated and thats frankly how you get 95% of weird pseudoscience. If you saw on the morning news, "Researchers say the status of the nuclear reactor is critical" people would panic. They'd be afraid for their lives, worried, fleeing the area. That statement means that the reactor is functioning regularly because in physics, critical in the context of a nuclear reactor means its operating normally and able to sustain itself.

I'm in no way related to the medical field.

[theCommittalist]

The dinosaurs never existed either, it's all papier mache. The reason people need 'faith' in God who is the abstract infinite truth of all things which in an ontological framework may also stand in as the knowledge of all things is that the world of experience is under a veil of illusions.

Power brokers use specialist knowledge to keep their competition, everyone else, cast adrift in this sea of appearances. This is why there is a manufactured 'crisis' every other day or some man-made 'disaster' or massacre or whatever somewhere, & the terminology & frames of reference seem in constant flux. It is to stop people striving for a connection with their God, who is truth.

The Egyptians might have said it was Kore being seduced by Set the lord of darkness & chaos, or the Greeks could have said that Persephone was being stolen away by Hades, king of the underworld. In both cases the former figure is feminine, standing in for the wandering soul of the world & the people. And the latter is the crafty old devil, outwitting everyone eventually including himself, wisest beast in the field.

This is why the Buddhists Taoists & Hindus & what have you of the Eastern wisdom promise fame like to point out that all form & phenomena are illusory. That way seekers may swiftly come to an understanding that what they are really looking for is a state or process or relationship, rather than a specific object or event or experience.

All that being said, I do find it a bit suspect the idea that a man in the late eighteenth century was able to administer a 'small amount' of some viral material to give some child slave's immune system a chance to work things out. And that while the vaccine industry can come up with some new drug to pump into the bodies of the world's infants every week 'we' apparently need to do more research into the effects of cannabis, which as everyone in real life knows has never caused a serious case of addiction or overdose yet still magically possesses powerful medicinal properties.

If you do look at the bible though, say the King James' version if you're an English speaker & like some sense of history, like a historical document or a literary or ambitiously journalistic enterprise, rather than a set of somehow 'spiritual' instructions, then I think an intelligent reader may still find some useful things therein, vis-a-viz the current paradigmatic predicament & its centres & sources.

[BADecker]

So now show us the lab notebook that the researcher filled out as he was doing the process... where he explains every step of the way what he is doing to isolate any virus. And regarding Covid, show us the video that went along with it.

Firstly, when I supply proof that any reasonable person would accept, you just push the requirement out further. I'm well aware that if I was able to supply images of someone's personal notebook, you'd just say "anyone can fake a photo of a notebook, you need the real thing". If I get hold of an actual physical notebook and mail it to you, you'd just say "anyone could have written this, how do I know it's by a scientist?". If I get the scientist to visit your home, you'd say "how do I know you are who you say you are?" etc. This is clearly absurd. Any why on earth would someone video what they're doing, or publish scribbles and jottings from notepads, when they could just present it all in a clean, easy to follow scientific paper?

Secondly, it's a bit rich for someone who insists that god exists to rely on a burden of proof argument anyway.

Lab notebooks are not personal things in cases of importance. Notebooks have 2 basic reasons for existing:
1. So that the researcher can follow his process to duplicate what he did the first time;
2. So that other researchers can follow the process so that they can duplicate the results of the first guy.

Anybody can glance at a writing and say that it was all fake. That's why we need the notebook... so that we can follow the process to get the results. If we can't determine the whole process, the whole operation, because the process is as unclear as your example below, there is no way to know if we are duplicating it properly. And there is no way to know if the process works or not as the report says.

In addition, the notebooks are signed or initialed by the researcher on every page, and the pages are all numbered in order in a bound book-style of notebook, to prove that it was written by the researcher. His name and address are included, so that we know where to contact him for details we don't understand.

You kinda have it backwards. We want proof, not some vague, generalized idea about something.

 

Pick any one of those links you gave us, and pull out the part where the the process is being described while it is being done. We want the info about the machines used, filter paper kinds, centrifuge, and an explanation of what is being done as it is done.

We don't want some generic process that somebody did with something, who knows what.

I've no idea how much you want me to copy and paste from the links I provided*, but here's a brief excerpt from the first paper:

Virus isolation, cell infection, electron microscopy and neutralization assay

The following cell lines were used for virus isolation in this study: Vero E6 and Huh7 cells, which were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FBS. All cell lines were tested and free of mycoplasma contamination, submitted for species identification and authenticated by morphological evaluation by microscopy. None of the cell lines was on the list of commonly misidentified cell lines (by ICLAC).

Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, the inoculum was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium containing antibiotics (see below) and 16 μg ml−1 trypsin. The cells were incubated at 37 °C and observed daily for cytopathogenic effects. The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT–PCR methods developed in this study, and cells were examined by immunofluorescence microscopy using the anti-SARSr-CoV Rp3 N antibody that was generated in-house (1:1,000). Penicillin (100 units ml−1) and streptomycin (15 μg ml−1) were included in all tissue culture media.

Vero E6 cells were infected with the new virus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.5 and collected 48 h after infection. Cells were fixed with 2.5% (w/v) glutaraldehyde and 1% osmium tetroxide, dehydrated through a graded series of ethanol concentrations (from 30 to 100%) and embedded with epoxy resin. Ultrathin sections (80 nm) of embedded cells were prepared, deposited onto Formvar-coated copper grids (200 mesh), stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and analysed using a 200-kV Tecnai G2 electron microscope.

The virus neutralization test was carried out in a 96-well plate. The patient serum samples were heat-inactivated by incubation at 56 °C for 1 h before use. The serum samples were diluted to 1:10, 1:20, 1:40 or 1:80, and then an equal volume of virus stock was added and incubated at 37 °C for 60 min in a 5% CO2 incubator. Diluted horse anti-SARS-CoV serum or serum samples from healthy individuals were used as control. After incubation, 100 μl mixtures were inoculated onto a monolayer of Vero E6 cells in a 96-well plate for 1 h. Each serum was assessed in triplicate. After removing the supernatant, the plate was washed twice with DMEM medium. Cells were incubated with DMEM supplemented with 2% FBS for 3 days. Subsequently, the cells were checked for cytopathogenic effects.

* Of course, I do know. You're not interested in any of it, in any inconvenient evidence that shakes your predetermined faith-based narrative.

Thanks for all your hard work copying that piece that you copied. It's a start for you... even though it is vague in several areas. All you have to do is read each sentence of the report, and determine a bunch of things that are not there so you could not duplicate it. It's all full of assumptions, where the notebook would say the step-by-little-step process.

But the most interesting part is in more of the report, itself. Look where the research say that their whole report is meaningless regarding proving anything:

The study provides a detailed report on 2019-nCoV, the likely aetiological agent responsible for the ongoing epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome in China and other countries. [In other words, they know that they aren't providing proof for much of anything.] Virus-specific nucleotide-positive and viral-protein seroconversion was observed in all patients tested and provides evidence of an association between the disease and the presence of this virus. However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts. It appears that the virus is becoming more transmissible between humans. We should closely monitor whether the virus continues to evolve to become more virulent. Owing to a shortage of specific treatments and considering the relatedness of 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV, some drugs and pre-clinical vaccines against SARS-CoV could probably be used to treat this virus. Finally, considering the wide spread of SARSr-CoV in their natural reservoirs, future research should be focused on active surveillance of these viruses for broader geographical regions. In the long term, broad-spectrum antiviral drugs and vaccines should be prepared for emerging infectious diseases that are caused by this cluster of viruses in the future. Most importantly, strict regulations against the domestication and consumption of wildlife should be implemented. [Not as a fact that any of this will lessen the disease, but as a precaution that doesn't have any valid backing. Doing the opposite might be the thing that helps.]

Note added in proof: Since this paper was accepted, the ICTV has designated the virus as SARS-CoV-215; in addition, the WHO has released the official name of the disease caused by this virus, which is COVID-1916.

And here is the really fun part. The report was accepted by some medical organization, and that is the proof, even though the report itself says that nothing in the report really proved anything.

The report might be useful in giving some future researchers some direction for their research. But it also says it is not proof. The medical simply accepted it as proof. What kind of BS guesswork is being handed to us? And you are falling for it.

Since this report was accepted by the medical as proof without any proof, why should we accept anything that the medical says?

[theCommittalist]

For further reading on how the modern medical profession is thoroughly bound up with the way the colonizer state disadvantages & thus maintains control over its slaves, subjects, victims etc., I recommend the following

Madness & Civilization - Michel Foucault

Madness, Cannabis & Colonialism - James H Mills

Containment for public benefit, indoctrination of inoculation of children, stigmatising & discrediting opponents, reforming dissidents & those that resist authority ... it's all been going on for a very long time. And the keen eye will spot a few familiar faces peopling the plot like Pennywise the Clown

[Cnut237]

Lab notebooks are not personal things in cases of importance. Notebooks have 2 basic reasons for existing:
1. So that the researcher can follow his process to duplicate what he did the first time;
2. So that other researchers can follow the process so that they can duplicate the results of the first guy.

Anybody can glance at a writing and say that it was all fake. That's why we need the notebook... so that we can follow the process to get the results. If we can't determine the whole process, the whole operation, because the process is as unclear as your example below, there is no way to know if we are duplicating it properly. And there is no way to know if the process works or not as the report says.

In addition, the notebooks are signed or initialed by the researcher on every page, and the pages are all numbered in order in a bound book-style of notebook, to prove that it was written by the researcher. His name and address are included, so that we know where to contact him for details we don't understand.

You kinda have it backwards. We want proof, not some vague, generalized idea about something.

This "argument" doesn't make any sense at all... unless, perhaps, you simply don't understand what a published scientific paper is?

provides evidence of [...] It appears that

What kind of BS guesswork is being handed to us? And you are falling for it.

Since this report was accepted by the medical as proof without any proof, why should we accept anything that the medical says?

Okay, you may not understand what a scientific paper is, but you definitely don't understand the language of science. Please could you read Salty Spitoon's post above? That should cover it for you.

"It appears that" doesn't mean "Hey, I've had a random unsupported idea: x! Let's go with that!", instead it means something more like "based on everything we've detailed here, the logical conclusion is x".
And I don't know how to respond to your objection to the phrase "provides evidence of"... that goes beyond the language of science, and suggests that you don't understand English.

[BADecker]

Lab notebooks are not personal things in cases of importance. Notebooks have 2 basic reasons for existing:
1. So that the researcher can follow his process to duplicate what he did the first time;
2. So that other researchers can follow the process so that they can duplicate the results of the first guy.

Anybody can glance at a writing and say that it was all fake. That's why we need the notebook... so that we can follow the process to get the results. If we can't determine the whole process, the whole operation, because the process is as unclear as your example below, there is no way to know if we are duplicating it properly. And there is no way to know if the process works or not as the report says.

In addition, the notebooks are signed or initialed by the researcher on every page, and the pages are all numbered in order in a bound book-style of notebook, to prove that it was written by the researcher. His name and address are included, so that we know where to contact him for details we don't understand.

You kinda have it backwards. We want proof, not some vague, generalized idea about something.

This "argument" doesn't make any sense at all... unless, perhaps, you simply don't understand what a published scientific paper is?

provides evidence of [...] It appears that

What kind of BS guesswork is being handed to us? And you are falling for it.

Since this report was accepted by the medical as proof without any proof, why should we accept anything that the medical says?

Okay, you may not understand what a scientific paper is, but you definitely don't understand the language of science. Please could you read Salty Spitoon's post above? That should cover it for you.

"It appears that" doesn't mean "Hey, I've had a random unsupported idea: x! Let's go with that!", instead it means something more like "based on everything we've detailed here, the logical conclusion is x".
And I don't know how to respond to your objection to the phrase "provides evidence of"... that goes beyond the language of science, and suggests that you don't understand English.

I completely understand. You are copying the medical, here. You are attempting to turn practical science, and proof, into semantics, just like the medical does.

When the health of a person is on the line, he doesn't want semantics. He wants truth, and semantics isn't truth. Rather, it's a covering up of truth, often with complete lies.

If the truth is "1," all the talk in the world doesn't make the truth to be "2." You can't change the truth just by talking. And in the case of the medical and research reports regarding viruses, all there is, is talk... semantics. It has nothing to do with understanding the medical or scientific languages and their reality in the real world.