Follow up discussion with Mike Rock
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=183491417247579&id=100067601666920
Facebook - Mike Rock is with Mike Stone.
J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
“SARS-COV-1” was claimed the casual agent of “SARS” based on cell-cultured evidence from only two patients. Of 30 cloned RT-PCR samples from one of the patients, only one 646 bp fragment of unknown origin showing weak homology to “Coronaviruses” was found and this was subsequently used to create RT-PCR assays for diagnosis. Only 22 out of 50 "SARS" patients tested positive for this 646 bp fragment. Five patients had no virological evidence of “SARS” whatsoever yet were still considered “SARS” cases. Other pathogens were found in some of the patients but these were relegated to possible secondary invaders.
In other words, the evidence for the existence of "SARS-COV-1" does not exist.
J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/14/j-s-m-peiris-sars-cov-1-paper-2003/
===============================
Steven Avery
Very interesting, and like how your site is moving along.
Any emphasis on the wacky theory of these dead/inactive viruses supposedly hijacking cell replication functions?
btw, I loved the page where the website discusses exosomes and mentions as virus confusions
"coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, golgi and costomer-coated vesicles, etc."
Mike Rock
Steven Avery thanks for the kind words!
I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking my thoughts on that theory or what the claimed evidence is? Or do you mean something else entirely?
Steven Avery
Mike Rock - there is mostly vague evidences, look at this pic, these papers says so.
Yet this would have been a major “breakthrough” - these scientists discovered this in 1965, it was proven by this, and peer-reviewed by that.
Never happened. There is no scientific paper trail.
When I ask for their evidence and proof they go bonkers.
Steven Avery
back to hijacking cell replication, the virus propaganda people start with the Tobacco mosaic "virus", but there was no claim of hijacking cell replication functions there, afaik, so it is not even in the league.
then they fast forward to bacteriophages, and that is exactly where Stefan Lanka first smelled out the fakery
Then they go to people "viruses", and it is all dogma by osmosis and circularity
Mike Rock
Steven Avery yep, they can't even pinpoint a clear moment in time where it was ever determined that "viruses" need a host cell to survive. This evidence does not exist. It is just plain absurd to even believe this because if that were truly the case, how would "viruses" survive in order to infect other humans?
Virologists have fairy tales and nothing more.
Steven Avery
Mike Rock - I agree. I just find a lot of emphasis on the secondary issues, like the inability to prove virus isolation and purification, or the tertiary issues like masks, jabs, etc. And except for the small crew including yourself, not so much on the primary issues, the fairy tale science with huge holes and gaps. Even most of the people in tune with Stefan Lanka, Jon Rappoport, David Crowe, Andrew Kaufman, etc. have a hard time understanding that we are really just trying to unravel a Grim Fairy Tale.
Of course, many who emphasize the secondary and tertiary issues are either virus simpatico (Denis Rancourt perhaps and Jeremy Hammond as examples), or try to take an agnostic apporach (e.g. Christine Massey on virus purification.)
===============================