The Coronavirus thread

Quote: rxwine

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/australian-researchers-make-crazy-interesting-discovery-on-blocking-covid-infection/ar-AA17jRbO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4a5c088bcf9f4788b7acaaad8b667407

Good articles. I like the one on prehistoric tools.

Quote: SOOPOO

I was sorely mistaken.

Like Dr. Frazier Crane.

Wow
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article272327133.html
About 16% of North Carolinians — one of the highest rates in the country — have experienced long COVID, according to a recent CDC survey.

The questions progress (see below).

I am showing the first question.

The debate began when Tom Cowan wrote a book called "Contagion Myth" in 2020.

It can be downloaded for free in pdf.

Of course, it was against what the "Ministry of Truth" called truth.

A debunking link is at the very bottom of this post but I am sure there are many.

The reason to post this is not to side with either view, the Ministry of Truth nor Tom Cowan.

The purpose is to weigh each side for truth so we can make up our own mind.

It's obvious to me the Ministry of Truth is going about convincing me the wrong way.

-------------------------------------------------------

Five Simple Questions For Virologists

October 13, 2022
.
.
.
Question One: When attempting to prove the existence of any "thing," we follow certain procedures. First, we define the thing we are looking for, then we go to the natural habitat of that thing and attempt to find it. If we find it and we isolate it (meaning, separate it from its environment so we have it in pure form), this step allows us to find out what the thing is composed of and what it does. It works very well with trees, frogs, bacteria and even nanoparticles.

Can you give us a reference in which this step has been done for any pathogenic virus, and, if this reference doesn't exist, explain why not?
.
.
.
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/five-simple-questions-for-virologists

-----------------------------------------------------

Some Comments on The Contagion Myth

https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth

-----------------------------------------------------

Someone sent Tom an interesting paper relating to "the existence of SARS-CoV-2".

I am only showing "the final nail in the coffin" argument.

The actual paper can be viewed with the link at the very bottom.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Smoking Gun? Study Shows "Virus" Is Identical to Normal Cell "Structures"

June 10, 2021
.
.
.
Thanks to the diligent efforts of one of my listeners, I received a paper yesterday that puts another nail in the coffin for the existence of SARS-CoV-2. The paper is titled “Appearances Can be Deceiving – Viral-like Inclusions in Covid-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy.” The authors are Clarrisa A. Cassol, et al., and the citation is Kidney360 1:824-828, 2020. This is a peer-reviewed journal affiliated with the American Society of Nephrology; in other words, this paper comes squarely from what is called acceptable, mainstream science.
.
.
.
But the final nail comes in this quote:

“The potential for confusion of coronavirus particles with normal cellular components was in fact highlighted in a detailed ultrastructural study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of SARS-CoV responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak.”[1]

In other words, the CDC in 2004 knew that researchers couldn’t reliably know these particles were coronavirus particles. Not a word has been heard about this since. All virologists use these pictures as proof of the existence of this virus. It is a fraud, based on junk science, like everything else connected with “Covid 19.”
.
.
.
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/the-smoking-gun

---------------------------------------------------------------

Appearances Can Be Deceiving - Viral-like Inclusions in COVID-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy

https://medicine.uams.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-negative-renal-biopsies-by-EM.pdf

Quote: DoubleGold

.
.
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/five-simple-questions-for-virologists

I would say he's kind of questionable himself.

Quote:

A San Francisco doctor infamous for spreading misinformation linking COVID-19 to 5G communications networks can no longer practice medicine after surrendering his license to California’s medical board.

Until last July, Thomas Cowan ran an alternative medicine practice that didn’t accept insurance, sold nutritional supplements and offered $375 consultations. Cowan has published several fringe medicine books — including one questioning whether viruses cause disease — that rank highly on searches for vaccine books on Amazon and bookseller Barnes and Noble.

https://calmatters.org/health/2021/02/conspiracy-theory-doctor-surrenders-medical-license/

His censorship does the opposite for me.

It makes me gravitate to the info, not away from it.

King Charles banned coffee houses temporarily because there were opinions discussed in coffee houses he didn't agree with.

Here, we just lock entire businesses down, unless you need a hair styling and are a politician, etc.

History is full of censorship.

It doesn't imply an opposing belief is false.

Those are independent.

Quote: DoubleGold

His censorship does the opposite for me.

It makes me gravitate to the info, not away from it.

King Charles banned coffee houses temporarily because there were opinions discussed in coffee houses he didn't agree with.

Here, we just lock entire businesses down, unless you need a hair styling and are a politician, etc.

History is full of censorship.

It doesn't imply an opposing belief is false.

Those are independent.

There's still a difference between a King censoring something he doesn't like, vs a professional peer group. If there is evidence that the censure was warranted, then proof needs to be offered otherwise: for example here's this evidence this treatment worked for breast cancer patients, not just they are trying to block the "truth" as so often offered

Quote: rxwine

There's still a difference between a King censoring something he doesn't like, vs a professional peer group. If there is evidence that the censure was warranted, then proof needs to be offered otherwise: for example here's this evidence this treatment worked for breast cancer patients, not just they are trying to block the "truth" as so often offered

The paper I just showed didn't come from someone censored or else you wouldn't be aware of it.

The censored person is how I found out about the paper.

So the censoring of a person is how you received a link, provided by me on this board.

The king censored. Censure is a different word. "express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement.
"a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct" The medical board did something more along the lines of censure by removing his license He can still offer opinions, but not with a license from California behind it.

Granted, I don't think censure is really the word I was looking for either.