Official Outer Limits/Debunking Thread
View Poll Results: How would you want to go if the world had to end?
Zombie apocalypse
20
18.02%
Meteor collides into the earth
30
27.03%
Alien invasion
58
52.25%
Nuclear disaster, either from war or accident
3
2.70%
05-27-2020
, 04:30 PM
05-31-2020
, 06:39 AM
05-31-2020
, 06:42 PM
07-23-2020
, 10:12 PM
Have posted pretty much this content in video form by the outstanding doctor and educator Andrew Kaufman but think it deserves a bit of breaking down and emphasising. Bearing in mind the following monumental turd has been used to justify the most insane epoch changing social, economic and security policies ever seen in the developed western world.
In February, New England Journal of Medicine published a report by the China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. They claim, in a group of patients linked to a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan suffering from pneumonia of unknown cause, “human airway epithelial cells were used to isolate a novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV”.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
“Isolate” has a specific meaning in Biology – “to obtain (a substance or microorganism) in an uncombined or pure state.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/isolate
Was a “novel coronavirus named 2019-nCoV” isolated?
“Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added.”
What is ‘virus transport medium’ and could it affect the procedure adversely?
From the CDC: “Using a sterile pipette, aseptically add 2mL of the Gentamicin/Amphotericin B mixture from the Antibiotic Preparation step to the bottle of HBSS”.
(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ort-Medium.pdf)
As described by Dr Andrew Kaufman, anti-biotics trigger exosome production by cells which influences the results of the electron microscopy. Confirmed here, “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA”
(https://www.exosome-rna.com/antibiot...ssociated-dna/).
It is unclear what is being imaged, exosomes or sars-cov2 viral particles?
Note the similarities in the characteristics of sars-cov2 and exosomes:
Diameter inside cell – both 500nm, Diameter outside cell – both 100nm, Receptor – both ACE-2, both contain RNA, both found in lung fluid.
Process used in the claimed “isolation”:
“Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris.” This process separates by density but in no way can it be claimed to purify – recall that “isolate” means “in pure state, uncombined.”
“The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells, which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by NGS”
The cell culture was then developed and analysed using electron microscopy. Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction- RT-PCR, (a manufacturing technique the Nobel Prize winning inventor of which Kary Mullis advised AGAINST using as a diagnostic tool yet moronic politicians insist on promoting more testing), is used to amplify the genetic sequences present in the culture. It would amplify potential viral RNA, but would also amplify whatever other junk RNA was present in the culture.
For more on this, and an expert debunk of the whole bit, see David Crowe https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
For a different perspective that accepts part of the sars narrative but rails against other aspects see Prof Beda Stadler – “So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]… It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/corona...-wrong/5718049
Finally the authors state “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak”. Implicating?
“Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease” (wiki)
Implicate: bear some of the responsibility for
synonyms: associate with (Oxford dictionaries)
Correlation: a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
synonyms: association
Is this study a causal, ie scientific relation, or a correlation?
David Crowe – “it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. There might be an association with elevated levels of this RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.”
This has major ramifications for policy, track and trace testing surveillance regimes for instance. Will politicians listen to “the science” as they claim, or will they continue to be willingly/unknowingly hoodwinked by snakes from the WHO and its subordinates?
In February, New England Journal of Medicine published a report by the China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. They claim, in a group of patients linked to a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan suffering from pneumonia of unknown cause, “human airway epithelial cells were used to isolate a novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV”.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
“Isolate” has a specific meaning in Biology – “to obtain (a substance or microorganism) in an uncombined or pure state.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/isolate
Was a “novel coronavirus named 2019-nCoV” isolated?
“Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added.”
What is ‘virus transport medium’ and could it affect the procedure adversely?
From the CDC: “Using a sterile pipette, aseptically add 2mL of the Gentamicin/Amphotericin B mixture from the Antibiotic Preparation step to the bottle of HBSS”.
(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ort-Medium.pdf)
As described by Dr Andrew Kaufman, anti-biotics trigger exosome production by cells which influences the results of the electron microscopy. Confirmed here, “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA”
(https://www.exosome-rna.com/antibiot...ssociated-dna/).
It is unclear what is being imaged, exosomes or sars-cov2 viral particles?
Note the similarities in the characteristics of sars-cov2 and exosomes:
Diameter inside cell – both 500nm, Diameter outside cell – both 100nm, Receptor – both ACE-2, both contain RNA, both found in lung fluid.
Process used in the claimed “isolation”:
“Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris.” This process separates by density but in no way can it be claimed to purify – recall that “isolate” means “in pure state, uncombined.”
“The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells, which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by NGS”
The cell culture was then developed and analysed using electron microscopy. Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction- RT-PCR, (a manufacturing technique the Nobel Prize winning inventor of which Kary Mullis advised AGAINST using as a diagnostic tool yet moronic politicians insist on promoting more testing), is used to amplify the genetic sequences present in the culture. It would amplify potential viral RNA, but would also amplify whatever other junk RNA was present in the culture.
For more on this, and an expert debunk of the whole bit, see David Crowe https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
For a different perspective that accepts part of the sars narrative but rails against other aspects see Prof Beda Stadler – “So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]… It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/corona...-wrong/5718049
Finally the authors state “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak”. Implicating?
“Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease” (wiki)
Implicate: bear some of the responsibility for
synonyms: associate with (Oxford dictionaries)
Correlation: a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
synonyms: association
Is this study a causal, ie scientific relation, or a correlation?
David Crowe – “it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. There might be an association with elevated levels of this RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.”
This has major ramifications for policy, track and trace testing surveillance regimes for instance. Will politicians listen to “the science” as they claim, or will they continue to be willingly/unknowingly hoodwinked by snakes from the WHO and its subordinates?
08-02-2020
, 08:12 PM
"Let he who make the claim have the burden of proof."
Part 1 of a 7 part series debunking ‘live science - 7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)’
https://www.livescience.com/60544-wa...-is-round.html
Let us see.
Here is the boat ‘before’ going ‘over the horizon:
The first distortive effects of refraction are seen – but the hull and mast are both still clear:
Note the proportions of hull and mast – nothing can be said to be concealed by earth curve at this point -
All present and correct -
This is the key shot – note the white mark that has appeared sitting on top of the water line. This is a reflection of the mast:
The reflection is becoming more apparent – note the background as well as the mast is being reflected. So where is the hull? Is it now behind earth curve? No, it is simply obscured by the mirage:
You can now see a clear mirror line developing. Note what is being asserted here – the mast is in full view yet the hull is behind the earth bulge. But this is clearly not an image of the mast in full, the bottom quarter is a reflection of that which is above it:
You cannot now unsee the mirror line which conceals everything that is near the water surface. To then argue this is a clear view of the whole mast while the hull is behind earth curve is a nonsense that is exposed by this sequence of slides which shows the development of the mirage:
Still denying the reflection?
Really?
Obvious reflection:
“Refractive distortion” yes, but he fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room taking a dump all over his video – the reflection created by the mirage effect has concealed not just the hull but is apparent for the background objects also:
Therefore we are not seeing the boat disappear hull first, this is a myth.
Part 1 of a 7 part series debunking ‘live science - 7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)’
https://www.livescience.com/60544-wa...-is-round.html
Quote:
Go to the Harbour
When a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Instead, the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon.
The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident that 1881's "Zetetic Astronomy," the first modern flat-Earth text, devotes a chapter to "debunking" it. The explanation relies on assuming that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by perspective. This debunking does not make much sense, however, as there's nothing about perspective (which just says that things are smaller over longer distances) that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.
When a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Instead, the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon.
The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident that 1881's "Zetetic Astronomy," the first modern flat-Earth text, devotes a chapter to "debunking" it. The explanation relies on assuming that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by perspective. This debunking does not make much sense, however, as there's nothing about perspective (which just says that things are smaller over longer distances) that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.
Here is the boat ‘before’ going ‘over the horizon:
The first distortive effects of refraction are seen – but the hull and mast are both still clear:
Note the proportions of hull and mast – nothing can be said to be concealed by earth curve at this point -
All present and correct -
This is the key shot – note the white mark that has appeared sitting on top of the water line. This is a reflection of the mast:
The reflection is becoming more apparent – note the background as well as the mast is being reflected. So where is the hull? Is it now behind earth curve? No, it is simply obscured by the mirage:
You can now see a clear mirror line developing. Note what is being asserted here – the mast is in full view yet the hull is behind the earth bulge. But this is clearly not an image of the mast in full, the bottom quarter is a reflection of that which is above it:
You cannot now unsee the mirror line which conceals everything that is near the water surface. To then argue this is a clear view of the whole mast while the hull is behind earth curve is a nonsense that is exposed by this sequence of slides which shows the development of the mirage:
Still denying the reflection?
Really?
Obvious reflection:
“Refractive distortion” yes, but he fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room taking a dump all over his video – the reflection created by the mirage effect has concealed not just the hull but is apparent for the background objects also:
Therefore we are not seeing the boat disappear hull first, this is a myth.
08-04-2020
, 05:02 PM