Dynamite! A must see!
Hi @Rich, I noted early on DM stated that corona virus was isolated in , think he said,1965 - are there any links that identify this study, this is directly disputed by the no pathogenic virus school of thought - the UKās common cold unit was closed after decades because no-one could find anything - see Sam Bailey here :
she points to a 1965 BMJ paper that claims to have found the virus - but then debunks the claim by revealing its bogus methodology.
Clearly if there is no coronavirus much of DMās analysis is going down the wrong track.
If you have had a chance to watch āthe End of Covidā - one interview with a Spanish PHD Bioengineer, Ana Maria Oliva under the title Mrna Shots part 3 here :
https://theendofcovid.com/eoclms/the-mrna-shots-part-3/
was particularly fascinating. She speaks with a strong Spanish accent so I found it difficult to follow at times but she puts forward her own hypothesis of the ācovid shotsā - she is a member of the no-virus school of thought and points to a combination of specifically engineered substances that have led to the deaths and side effects we see following the jab including the use of graphene nanotubes in the construction of a drug delivery system. Interestingly, she points out that the use of graphene nanoparticles has been part of many vaccine programmes - particularly the latest flu vaccines in 2019! I think there is a link here that can be made with 5G but I donāt think she getās there. Iāll have to watch it for the 3rd time!!
cheers
Hi @CJ1 It seems to me he is referring to the āisolationā using the term as used by virologists, meaning computer modelling and guess work to paraphrase the Andrew Kaufman Tom Cowan work.
@ Thanks for posting. Iāve seen it before but definitely needs some wide exposure.
1 Like
I looked again at the Oliva video and she does in fact mention the connectivity of the delivery system to emfsā¦ around 41 minutes in.
cheers
Yes, I agree. Itās interesting that he says every publication from 1990 to 2018 concluded that: āCoronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective.ā Or is it because viruses donāt exist? He says that all independent studies show that vaccines do not work on Coronavirus. He says: āAnd thatās the science and that science has never been disputedā. But on the other hand if there are no viruses then what is it that has been patented? At 11mins 30secs he talks about 2002 being an important date because that was when the university of N. Carolina Chapel Hill patented an āinfectious replication defective clone of Coronavirusā (He says the research was funded by Fauci and the NAIAD and created Sars1). He then goes on to say what that phrase means: āIt means a weapon, it means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individualsā¦ā Well what the hell is that then? Surely a virus does give collateral damage to other individuals? I thought that was the whole point of a virus especially a man made one! So it isnāt a virus even if viruses exist so what is it? How is it transmitted to an individual? What is this weapon and was it used on people to create the illusion of a deadly virus?
In an interview with Reiner Fuellmich some time ago Martin claimed, IIRC, that there were 4,000 (?) patents that were created long before COV19 came along. He said to RF that he had lists of all of the patent numbers and the names of the patent holders and that he would send these documents to him. In the video above he says that two attempts to patent COV19 were rejected by the US patent office and the third attempt only succeeded in 2007 after the CDC bribed the patent office. Apparently, due to the delay, the Covid āvaccineā was patented before the so called virus was. How can all these patents be granted for things donāt exist, i.e. viruses, and vaccines that donāt work and arenāt even vaccines!
And then thereās the origin of the so called deadly virus and the debate as to whether Covid 19 is a natural virus from bats or a Chinese wet market or man made in a lab in Wuhan and whether it was accidentally or deliberately released. And possibly created with US$ transferred from the US to China i.e. the alleged and well known Fauci & Daszac scam. Is this misdirection to obscure the involvement of N. Carolina University more bullshit and just another part of the ruse designed to make a non-existent virus appear real? Or what?
Ta a bunch for the Sam Bailey and Ana Maria Oliva vids. Both a breath of fresh air! Iāll see if I can find the time to watch the Ana Maria Oliva one again.
Hereās Sam Bailey taking McCullough to pieces. Shame really, I used to think he was ok.
1 Like
Hi CJ, Iām beginning to think David Martin is full of shit - see below from my last post:
At 11mins 30secs he talks about 2002 being an important date because that was when the university of N. Carolina Chapel Hill patented an āinfectious replication defective clone of Coronavirusā
He then goes on to say what that phrase means: *āIt means a weapon, it means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individualsā¦
And then thereās the origin of the so called deadly virus and the debate as to whether Covid 19 is a natural virus from bats or a Chinese wet market or man made in a lab in Wuhan and whether it was accidentally or deliberately released. And possibly created with US$ transferred from the US to China i.e. the alleged and well known Fauci & Daszac scam. Is this misdirection to obscure the involvement of N. Carolina University more bullshit and just another part of the ruse designed to make a non-existent virus appear real? Or what?
Amazing! Sam Bailey in answer to at least some of my points:
Gain Of Function Garbage
18th January 2022
1 Like
Hi Pat,
At 11mins 30secs he talks about 2002 being an important date because that was when the university of N. Carolina Chapel Hill patented an āinfectious replication defective clone of Coronavirusā
If that had really been achieved wouldnāt it mean that the Coronavirus would have had to have been physically isolated?
Hi CJ,
A duckduckgo search of ācoronavirus isolated in 1965ā brings up a bunch of links mostly from April 2020 including a PDF from the BMJ here:
https://www.bmj.com āŗ content āŗ bmj āŗ 369 āŗ bmj.m1547.full.pdf
1 Like
- basically saying because it ( the pathogenic particle) could not be found because it was too small, voila it must be a virus!!!
The 19th century snake oil salesmen would have had a field day with āexperimental dataā like that to push!
cheers
It seems to me the point here is being missed. Some subscribe to the view germs and viruses cause disease, which to be fair is the mainstream belief. Virologists believe that some of the particles they see under electron microscopy are the disease causing viruses. Virologists also believe that āisolationā means take some gunk (letās say snot for example), mix it with monkey kidney cells and other gunk, let it ferment in a lab and then identify the āvirusā particles that caused that snot. Those particles are then identified by their genes, except some of the gene sequence is done via computer modelling and guess work. That is to say (as Iāve said before) to paraphrase Tom Cowan & Andrew Kaufman and probably Sam Bailey as well, they found something they called an āisolateā of a Corona virus. The word isolate to you and I, means on itās own, separated, nothing else, nada! And as for the gene sequence, most A level biology students would probably do as well at guessing the actual sequence.
As this is a mainstream belief (as ridiculous as it might seem), David Martin identifying patents related to these āvirusesā does not make him a charlatan.