5 Filters

Off-Guardian and others vs Dr. Peter McCullough and others

Renegades vs NWO
#21

Great points @Dimac.

I watched about two hours of the DfCE webcast live last Friday, even RFKs interview which was very hard to follow for obvious reasons. Mike Yeadon was great, so was Meryl Nass, and Astrid Stuckelberger.

I saw no Covid “denial” whatsoever. Just lots of well reasoned arguments about the cackhanded, if not corrupt, response. The word fraud was very definitely used, more than a few times, but never to imply that there is no illness.

Peter McCullough is nobody’s shill for following broadly the same outline.

2 Likes
#22

As a P.S. to the above, this meme was recently shared to one of the UK Column Community forum threads. Origin unknown, but the line of attack is not so far away from Cattes tweet.

truth
truth1052×1304 214 KB

#23

Thanks to everybody who participated in this thread. I think it’s important for us to share our thoughts on this, given the fact that some of us are actually suffering because of this covid psy op, and I’m not talking about being sick!

I think it’s not coherent to consider the ‘off-guardian’ point of view (obviously they publish a spectrum of views, but I’m talking about the view that ‘maybe’ the ‘disease’ is just a function of a fraudulent PCR test) as being ‘not so different’ from Dr. McCullough’s point of view.

Here’s my line of thinking on this: Established clinical researchers such as Didier Raoult and Peter McCullough, and others actually established new treatment protocols to deal with Covid 19. We all know this. Why would they do this if the disease was familiar? If the disease had been familiar wouldn’t they, and other ‘courageous mavericks’, simply have responded with ‘familiar’ treatments? They obviously are in direct contact with hundreds of patients, and they obviously think ‘this is something new, different’. Who is more qualified than they are and can say, with medical authority, ‘oh no, it’s just a function of a fraudulent PCR test’. I have seen nobody who is actually treating patients say this.

So, based on this, my current view is that, yes ‘it’ exists, it is some kind of new viral pathogen, which causes similar symptoms to flu, but is recognizably different. This doesn’t mean the use of the PCR is not fraudulent, but it’s also possible that the PCR, when used correctly, can help diagnose the disease.

The vaxx is dangerous, and is profit oriented, from a corrupt establishment, with other goals such as full blown surveillance technocracy. But the disease exists. It’s different enough to inspire new treatment protocols. It’s not that dangerous for most people.

I’m not sure why Off-Guardian is steering people away from ‘treatments’ like ivermectin, cautioning us not to accept the basic assumption that a novel disease exists. On what basis, medical basis, can they do this?

So for now, I don’t agree with their representation of reality, I think the ‘new disease’ exists. But it’s not that dangerous and it’s being used as a mask to transform our society into elite controlled full on Technocracy.

5 Likes
#24

Just to burnish down this basic scientific reality as honestly as it should be:

Do viruses exist at all?

That question is in contention. The final, firmly-established answer is not known at his time. Evidence exists on both sides. Much useful - as well as much useless - work has been done assuming viruses exist; they being seen as dangerous disease-causing exterior alien attackers of the vulnerable. But this isn’t the first time in the history of science when eventually-discarded hypotheses have proven useful previously in advancing basic knowledge, when that knowledge was not yet exact and detailed enough to demonstrate the final failure of the previously-accepted hypothesis. Anomalies, finally uncovered and - feckin’ finally! - acknowledged, FFS!, are the great demolishers of inadequate explanatory hypotheses. (Consider the meticulously experimentally-demonstrated existence of psi, for example, which is STILL waiting to be acknowledged by the current crop of gocos, because they know that when it is, it will demolish their rabid commitment to philosophical-materialism.)

The only intellectually-honest answer to the question of the existence of viruses is: ‘In dispute. Final answer unknown. The hypothesis has proven useful previously’.

And, as E has concluded, that strictly-rational answer absolutely does not mean that there is no such thing as this nasty, somewhat original, novel flu. Whether viruses really exist or whether they don’t, the illness is still real, and serious for a few.

GOCOs, btw way, stands for ‘guardians of current orthodoxy’. A rabidly-scientismic, anti-science crew, usually. Dawkinsoids, in my personal vernacular…

1 Like
#25

McCullough just did a long interview with Joe Rogan, I’ve been able to watch bits and pieces on twitter, here is the link to the full interview, I haven’t listened to it yet. In the clips I saw he praised the Covid books by Peter Breggin and the one by RFK jr.

2 Likes
#26

I found a place where you can hear the Rogan podcast with McCullough, here:

#27

There’s lots to see. We quite like this:

#28

But the disease exists

‘The disease’? Any number of different traditional cold/flu symptoms, alone or in combination, or no symptoms at all along with a ‘positive’ result from a fraudulent ‘test’ that merely identifies random bits of genetic debris that could be found in all of us if the amplification cycles in the ‘test’ are turned up enough. The PCR procedure is absolutely not a diagnostic test, never was. Happily the inventor of the procedure himself is on record unequivocally emphasising this very point.

The identification of the ‘presence’ of ‘the virus’ in seriously ill/dying (usually old, frail, ailing) people is the lie at the heart of the whole shitshow. The ‘testing’ of healthy people is the truly novel phenomenon of our time. Props to the propagandists - they’re even getting you on board.

4 Likes
#29

Hi AlanG, a friend of mine was just ‘tested positive’ for Covid 19 via PCR. He had tested ‘positive’ with an ‘at home’ test. He had symptoms I looked at his ‘print out’ from the lab. The PCR was positive at 13 ct’s. So, the PCR test in this case was used to confirm a diagnosis. Kary Mullis, from the video clip I saw, said the PCR test, when run at a sufficiently high number of cycle thresholds, can find anything. But 13ct’s is not very high and indicates a certain ‘viral load’. So that is not a ‘diagnostic test’ really, but is confirming a diagnosis.

Perhaps as some have claimed the very foundation of the PCR test in determining this ‘virus’ is flawed. I cannot judge that.

But, to return to my point above, if clinical researchers who have proven themselves quite brave don’t question the use of the PCR, IF USED CORRECTLY (in the interview with Rogan Dr. McCullough clearly states the PCR can create false positives, so he’s not averse to criticising the PCR) what basis do we have for questioning the PCR, if it’s used correctly? And if the ‘disease’ doesn’t in fact exist as a novel form of something, why do these doctors feel the need to come up with new treatment protocols?

#30

We could have been treating standard-issue flus/colds with ‘novel’ protocols these many years, if anyone in power had cared enough. Plenty of genuine doctors have proven and published their prophylactics/cures at the clinical workface these many years, and have been just about universally ignored. ‘Doctoryourself.com’ documents in conclusive detail a set of such pioneers.

Most medical professionals simply don’t know this stuff at all!! And most just do knee-jerk, ignorance-enhanced scoffing when asked.

That’s what creates the current ridiculous situation: capture of medical doctrine and education by criminal BPh gics, at least within the Az empire, and in any region that listens too much to what it proclaims.

I’ve been doing for myself what the maverick, real-Hippocratic doctors pioneered and published, using simple, easily-researched protocols, for over 25 years, and never once have I been floored by a bout in all that time. The ways to off standard Winter respiratory ills have been around for decades. But there’s been no hysteria worked up about them, and the commercial injections for flu - useless and dangerous though they are - have been more profitable. So - obviously more important!

1 Like
#31

Same with cancer: Largely curable these many years using a whole selection of impressive approaches, but with the genuine treatments ruthlessly trashed and memory-holed. Nothing must be allowed to derail the gigantic cancer-‘management’ gravy train.

Western ‘medicine’ is simply not about promoting wellness as a standard cradle-to-grave experience for people, defending them from occasional ills, getting them well again when they are ill, and maintaining a healthy environment and healthy customary lifeways for entire populaces. It’s about making money through wilfully-maintained chronic illness.

#32

Hi @AlanG , thanks for reminding us of Stefan Lanka’s work - we looked at this, thanks to @PatB, in these posts and quite a few interesting areas were covered:
https://forum.5filters.info/search?expanded=true&q=Lanka

as you say Lanka’s work is very convincing certainly in shattering the link between virus and disease, I had a feeling that he hadn’t yet proved that viruses don’t exist just that they didn’t cause diseases or infections ( he may have done but I just missed it !)

I have been thinking along slightly different lines:

  • several experts have pointed to the peculiar content of the flu vaccines of 2019, were these products of GOF research?

  • and recently a couple have mentioned that these flu jabs contained corona viruses due to the source of some of the material found in them - dogs, well-known for having corona viruses

  • many have pointed to Northern Italy disasters in early 2020 where loads of the elderly had had these flu jabs.

  • at the same time one of the key problems identified early on was the cytokine storm reaction of the body, was this to the virus or could this have been ADE or pathogenic priming following the flu jabs?

  • this could also combine with the features mentioned by Zach Bush resulting in a vicious cocktail of stuff.

  • interesting research mentioned by Sucharit Bhakdi in the recent Doctors for Covid Ethics symposium hosted by UK column - that all injections into the muscle enable material injected to by-pass 50% of the body’s immune system and so is bound not to be effective in teaching the immune system to deal with new infections.

  • sorry about the rambling, I am still very confused about this stuff.

cheers

1 Like
#33

Hi Everyman
Surely the whole point of the official use of the PCR procedure was/is to make false ‘diagnoses’ on which the ‘case numbers’ can be magnified/diminished at will to serve the propaganda objectives of terrifying the people, justifying tyranny and ‘proving’ that their ‘solutions’ are ‘working’ - or not. That’s why the NHS, as far as I’m aware, was/is using 45ct as standard. The fact that the requisite genetic debris was so prevalent in your friend’s sample merely proves that the requisite genetic debris was prevalent. He was(is) ill. While wishing him a speedy recovery I’m inclined to say ‘so what?’ to the ‘test’ result. As has been mentioned a time or two, correlation does not equate to causation. The PCR procedure could have been used with a 20ct standard from the start and would have been just as mendacious but not half so useful to the scumbags. What on Earth constitutes ‘correct use’ of this thing anyway?

Thanks for correcting my misapprehension about McCullough’s attitude to the PCR. (Have to admit we’ve still to watch the Rogan interview though we’ve heard M before.)

We reckon the various illnesses had to be branded as ‘novel’ precisely to enable the rejection of previously known treatments and protocols for the symptoms in order for EUAs to be handed to the (actually novel!) injections. The supposed identification of a ‘novel coronavirus’ was thus an essential building block for the scam. If its a brand new disease we must have brand new treatments eh?

Blimey Everyman, you’ve started a monster thread. Is this your Christmas present to us?

1 Like
#34

Hi @AlanG , on PCR testing Zach Bush has suggested ( possibly naively ) that it has been used wrongly as a qualitative test , positive you’ve got it, negative you don’t. He thought that it could have been used as a diagnostic tool by looking at quantative findings. ( 1hr 35 mins into the What happened last year webinar) He didn’t explain how this could be done and how you would change the PCR test process but he said there are ways to use it to determine the level of infectious material found which would help to determine whether you are in one of 3 conditions:

  • low infection which would be easily treated with natural supportive therapies
  • higher infection which could kick off the cytokine storm and would need stronger protocols
  • highest levels of infection that would lead to histotoxic hypoxia and require urgent treatment as if for cyanide poisoning.

Incidentally ZB points to findings that with flu jabs there was a 4 to 6 fold increase in the risk of catching covid which I forgot to mention in my ramblings above.

cheers

1 Like
#35

Hi AlanG, I think the reason the fraudulent use of the PCR has been so successful is precisely because it’s such an incredible tool. Thus, they knew how to MISUSE IT to suit their needs. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether it can be used to justify a diagnosis based on symptoms. If my child complains of being sick and I feel my child’s forehead and they seem ‘hot’ and then I use a thermometer to confirm the diagnosis and the thermometer says 100°F then are we justified saying ‘so what’ to the ‘test results’ from the thermometer?

I find the fact that both Didier Raoult and Peter McCullough independently came up with novel treatment protocols based on a pragmatic desire to heal patients, overwhelmingly to me indicates the existence of a new disease. Why would they do that if it was just the same old flu or cold? They were faced with real seriously ill people and they were both very experienced doctors and world class level researchers. I admit it’s an ‘argument from authority’, and maybe they were ‘mistaken’, but right I find their response the key evidence for me that covid 19 really exists, I think it’s a weird lab oriented creation also.

2 Likes
#36

There is some possibility that the “novel” virus is as much as 10 years old, that the Chinese authorities ‘declined to notice’ a lab-escaped version gone endemic for two or even three flu seasons, and that the 2019 World Military Games really was the superspreader event that sent this well-entrenched, and by then fairly well-understood, bug out into the world. The lockdown in Wuhan, those mad video clips, the lorries spraying disinfectant, etc etc etc… all set dressing…

This is a VERY lengthy and complex read…

#37

Hi @KarenEliot , this is just very annoying writing, as you say very long and complex. If anyone has to write like this then they can’t expect many to read it.

  • if this comes with a nutshell version I might be able to follow it without looking up words in every sentence! :frowning_face:

cheers

PS I did a word search on Fauci , one reference to his team and this was to excuse them.

1 Like
#38

Important to stress too, CJ, that Zach B underlines that the covid symptoms should be treated more as cyanide poisoning than as respiratory infection. This lines up with the effect of worldwide poisonous pollution events being the actual real cause of the ‘spike’ places last year, such as Lombardia and NYC - and stinking-filthy-aired Wuhan, of course.

1 Like
#39

I’m not even sure my precis version was especially accurate tbh. There is some next level spookery going on out there, this Skeptic with a k is probably correct about that.

He - and it can only be a he - definitely fancies himself as smartest man in the room, by a long long margin, and certainly has no respect at all for his readership. Even so, it was an info-puke I figured was worth sharing.

None of it is likely to ever be proven. The whole blog is essentially about avoiding “belief”. That is sensible advice, I think.

I cannot say that truth is stranger than fiction, because I have never had acquaintance with either.
― Charles Fort, Wild Talents

1 Like
#40

‘They’ didn’t ‘know’ how to ‘misuse’ anything. But everybody knew to obey the instruction to use the PCR procedure as specially engineered by Christian Drosten in January 2020 to identify a disease that was not necessarily there.

Mind you, I could kick myself for not noticing the resemblance between this PCR ‘test’ and a thermometer before. Of course you could not possibly know your child had a temperature unless you used a properly calibrated thermometer! Why would you believe the uncorroborated evidence of your own senses and the accumulated wisdom enshrined in the legacy of thousands of years of parenting? Here’s to the technocracy!

Here’s another comparison: the rigged fruit machine that gives you 3 lemons every few times you pull the lever (though, unlike the obvious utility of the PCR scam I’m not sure why anyone would want to rig the fruit machine). The PCR looks to identify 3 primers, particular strands of genetic material, to enable eg. ‘Covid-19’ to be written on a death certificate within 28 days whatever the cause of death. The ability to construct casedemics depends entirely on this fraud - the more often you pull the lever the more often you get 3 lemons (just like the thermometer!).

Here’s the novel twist. A new ‘variant’ has appeared and it is massively more transmissible than the original. How do we know this and distinguish it from the 3 lemons original? Why, we only need 2 of the 3 lemons. That’s right, 2 lemons and a banana, bingo! its the Omicron. An orange and 2 lemons, eureka! its the Omicron. Lemon, pineapple, lemon, jackpot! etc. (exactly like a thermometer)

One feature of this here ‘Covid-19’ is the much-vaunted ‘asymptomatic spread’. This is possible to prove conclusively with the magic 3 (now 2 of course) lemons test. Similarly, your well-calibrated thermometer can prove we all have temperatures of whatever you like. In fact you can trust the PCR ‘test’ just like your thermometer, oh yes. Silly me, fancy not realising before!. Gosh, how naive I’ve been!

2 Likes