The above video is 35 minutes. I happen to be painting a very large room and so have lots of idle brain space and time to listen to such things. I am bringing it here because I think it is very important.
Those who closely followed to alleged AIDS pandemic closely will know that there has never been a connection made in a scientific paper between HIV and AIDS. Nonetheless, the connection is asserted with certainty by supposed scientists. This makes sense, as since 1984, HIV has been the only avenue of research funded. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject:
“A small group of individuals continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS, the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods. These claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the scientific community. However, they have had a significant political impact, particularly in South Africa*, where the government’s official embrace of AIDS denialism (1999–2005) was responsible for its ineffective response to that country’s AIDS epidemic, and has been blamed for hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and HIV infections.”
There’s that word, “denialism,” straight from Propaganda 101, that in the face of honest disputation, one should assume a smug and arrogant posture. That is, frankly, what we are up against, massive scientific fraud supported by massive dollars and scientists either dishonest themselves or in the throes of groupthink. And who are also smug and arrogant. Has it always been this way? I suspect so.
I am told I must step aside, bow down in reverence to experts, but what if experts, like all people in our money-chase existence, lie? What if they are afraid to step out of line? What if they worry about losing their livelihood? What if they are just ordinary people of ordinary intellect in white coats, prone to making mistakes?
The decision to set one’s own brain aside and instead follow experts is really a decision to use someone else’s brain while your own is in hibernation. It also gives supposed experts the power to lie and be believed. Yet that is what our schools teach – how to not think.
If you, like me, suspect that there is no Covid-19 (I just received an article by one of our commenters on this subject, which will appear Sunday if all goes well), then there can be no proof of its existence in scientific papers.
The Kaufman video takes to task the four scientific papers that are said to have isolated the
Covid-19 2003 SARS virus, the predecessor to Covid 19. [My bad there, I was only 3/4 paying attention as I rolled the ceiling.] He finds two of them to be honest but inconclusive, and the other two fraudulent. He is well worth your time if you have time. Paint a room if you must. [Further note, on second listening and this time viewing, without a paint roller in my hand, I think Kaufman has gotten to the nut of the matter. Covid-19 was not a phenomenon, but rather a planned rollout. usual suspects.]
*AIDS is a syndrome wherein scores of opportunistic diseases take advantage of a weakened immune system. It is curable if not too far advanced by stopping its two primary causes: Malnutrition and self-abusive lifestyles. South Africa and much of the African continent have high rates of malnutrition. That, and not HIV, is the underlying problem. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation adds to these miseries by poisoning victims with anti-AIDS medications. This is, in my view, criminal behavior worthy of imprisonment, removing these dangerous people from public influence.
26 thoughts on “Covid-19 denialism”
The RKI, named after Koch, is the institution witch puts Germany under the spell today.
But people just don’t buy into it anymore. Getting really desperate, they chartered the single biggest plane of the planet, the An-225, to deliver face masks to strengthen censorship and deliver a great show for the “news” at the same time.
Koch’s postulates, I have learned, are kind of a dead letter, that is, no one can get past the first one, that the bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. In fact, most diseases are as varied in cause as people are varied. So we always have “asymptomatic carriers.” That blows the whole theory out of the water. If a pathogen is said to cause a disease, it must cause that disease in everyone it infects.
However, what Kaufman is doing (he’s no fool in this regard) his hoisting them by their own petard, holding them to the standards they claim for themselves. And they come up short.
I received the following email this morning. Interesting, it combines the Covid-19 and Climate Change dogmas. The Initiative also approves of biomass burning (forests) and chemically treated wood, and crop residue. Isn’t that combustion generating CO2? Anyway, it is annoying to see this waste of energy and lies upon lies simply to attract voters to the 2020 November election. Petition text: https://www.mtcares.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/I-187-final-petition-.pdf
Montana & the world need to transition to renewable energy. MT CARES, a group of concerned Montanans, have been gathering signatures on a petition to put a citizen initiative on the ballot which if passed would create many incentives to increase the amount of renewable energy in our mix of electricity sources.
The group had collected 42% of the needed signatures to put this initiative (I-187) on the ballot when the pandemic hit and ended the ability to collect signatures face-to-face. So the remaining signatures must be collected by having individuals download the petition page and a verification page, sign them, and send them to their county elections office. All these materials (and election office addresses) can be downloaded from the link at #1 in the LETTER BELOW.
If you have not already signed the I-187 petition, please consider signing the petition & verification page, and sending them to your county election office.
And please ENCOURAGE YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY to do the same.
More info on I-187 and what it would do to encourage clean energy development is available at MTCARES.ORG in the “Initiative I-187” tab.
Thanks for your help. Vicki Watson
ACT NOW TO ENSURE MORE MONTANA RENEWABLE ENERGY DOES NOT SLIP AWAY IN THE PANDEMIC
Once again: I-187 petition, verification form, county election office addresses may be obtained by clicking at Documents needed to place I-187 on the ballot
©2020 MTCARES, INC. | Paid for by MTcares, Inc., Mike Mosolf, Treasurer, 720 Kentucky Av, Dillon, MT 59725
My objections are simple. Clean energy, my ass.
From I-187 Petition.
(g) low-emission, nontoxic biomass based on dedicated energy crops, animal wastes, or solid organic fuels from wood, forest, or field residues, including wood pieces that have been treated with chemical preservatives, such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome arsenic, limited to small diameter timber, not to exceed eight inches, timber killed by bark beetles, or woody vegetation removed from river basins or watersheds in Montana; provided that these resources are from facilities certified by the department of natural resources to: (i) be of appropriate scale to have sustainable feedstock in the near vicinity; (ii) have zero life cycle carbon emissions; and (iii) meet scientifically determined restoration, sustainability and soil nutrient principles; a
Hate coal, but burning forests is okay. Cavemen. I’m so over Running, Watson and the whole phony “climate-science” crowd at U of M. Grumble, grumble.
That pretty much covers all wood in the state, including wood pieces that have been treated with chemical preservatives, such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome arsenic, but it’s highly unlikely any biomass burner will reach the temperatures necessary to destroy PCPs, since they’re in the category of “forever chemicals” that are extremely hard to destroy. U of M/School of Forestry covets a nice biomass burner they’ve been trying to get installed (to replace natural gas) for years right there on campus. Maybe the plan is to poison themselves with the emissions of non-destroyed PCPs. Idiots!
Funding and personnel behind the initiative is MTCares, Inc. Principles include Retired U of M’s Steve Running, IPCC, scientist, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his algorithms, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Running
Apologies for the 1st entry.
There are 24 pages of fine print in that Initiative that no one, not even those in the legislature, will read. Can you summarize it for us? Is this the New Green Deal for Montana?
Thanks, Mark, that was a real mess. I’ve edited it (above) down to a better length. Don’t know about a direct Green New Deal connection, but following the money behind it leads to investment bankers from Chicago.
I posted this deep into another thread where it may have been missed by many. It does relate to biomass and biofuels and makes a lot of sense.
Using a cold virus to hide the growing issues with toxins that in a sane world would get them sued out of every nickel.
While the article makes some good points, I am skeptical primarily because the researcher behind this argument (Stephanie Seneff) has shown a bit of “tunnel vision” by blaming glyphosate on just about everything. She has been making these claims for years. Cancer…glyphosate. Autism…glyphosate. Alzheimer’s…glyphosate. And now COVID.
Tunnel vision. Doesn’t mean she’s wrong, but it would be easier to digest if it came from someone else who hasn’t been blaming everything for the last 10 years on glyphosate.
Highly suspicious offering here, IB, in that its ultimate message is that Covid-19 is a real thing. She starts out by doing a hard-sell on her credentials, “trust me, I’m a Ph. D. and really brilliant too,” and then goes on to describe the cytokine storm, used as part of the larger hoax telling us that we have endured anything other than a mild cold and flu season.
“Somehow?” Could the brilliant MIT Ph. D. be a little more specific In telling us how this “new” corona virus does its magic? After all, this mythology of a new and dangerous virus is the basis by which they have shut down economies, herded people into mass insanity (face masks and six feet), and sent us into isolation. These are crimes against humanity, and people like Jennifer Seneff Ph? D., are among the quacks and carnival barkers justifying it.
Please be a little more careful in what you bring to us. This was garbage,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Point taken. Unfortunately with such an abundance of lies and misdirection everywhere, I’ve taken for granted that one has to read between the lines of any academic paper. Seneff has generally been opposed to vaccines and glyphosate (which is a major problem).
While I don’t believe Covid 19 is anything more than cold and flu and do know that viruses aren’t causal agents, at least as portrayed by the Faucists, I’m not sure the whole thing is 100% fabrication.
The cykotine storm/severe lung issues may be more than typical pneumonia. I don’t think they are caused by the corona cold, but are being linked together to create the scary picture presented to justify the lockdown. The videos of doctors talking about the incorrect use of the ventilators seems to indicate there is something they aren’t used to seeing. Maybe it’s all fabricated, but I don’t think so.
I think 5G and EMF is part of the equation. Toxins like glyphosate as well. GMOs. Vaping, as mentioned in the article. At some point we’re going to see nasty “diseases” resulting from this toxic stew. Would be a lot more profitable to blame that on a “virus” than tell the truth, opening up trillions of $ of lawsuits.
In my original comment I noted the irony of the climate change angle. I wish Seneff and others would just come out and say it outright, but I did see this article as undermining the false narrative.
I am at a point where I do not believe in the integrity of any number or news story, that it is all planned in advance and pay as you play, calling an audible here and there. They wanted to play up this virus, which I do not believe even exists, and so introduced cytokine storm. They also claimed it is bigger than other corona viruses, one article I read, a Doctor or something like that at Reddit, claiming authoritatively that it is .005 ml, which is 4,167 times as big as the biggest corona virus. It is just like climate change, lies and lying liars allowed to say anything in public without anyone fact checking them except critics, who are censored.
Jennifer McCarthy at one time was the leading vocal anti-vaccine voice, and I spotted her instantly as controlled opposition, a woman who has spent more time naked than clothed in public. She then gets a prominent perch on The View. Seneff, given her high perch, could be controlled opposition too.
What’s up Mark ? Got one more silver Dollar, Not gonna let them catch the “Midnight Rider”….Keep on riding “em Brother.
I work at a grocery store right now. Someone came through my line the other day and said she just got over the virus. I said “Oh, were you tested?” She said yes, but that it was because she was sick. She said she was told by doctors that if others in her household got sick, then “assume” it’s the virus. I suppose that’s why there are some who claim to actually have this thing. It’s hard to refute it with those who are told by “trusted” medical professionals to “assume” they have the virus.
Sarcastic square quotes aside … why would that not be a reasonable assumption?
Let’s separate out the question of the very existence of COVID-19, exercise some anger management, and reflect dispassionately on the issue.
Is it not entirely within the realm of common experience that diseases pass through families? If one child is diagnosed with chicken pox, and then the next one starts getting spots, don’t we first consider it another case of the same? Or must the doctor run through the checklist of ALL the skin-erupting diseases before making his initial diagnosis?
If so, what need would there be to “refute” anything in this woman’s account of her doctor’s advice?
This is pure anecdote too, and keep in mind that I have assumed from the beginning that this entire matter is a giant hoax done with ulterior motives related to finance, and of course fascism. I look around and see 90% of the population wearing face masks and marvel at the power of TV news to induce mass psychosis. TV news, from the beginning, has been the only virus going around. Shame on people. Shame, shame, shame.
My anecdote, my cousin who lives in Phoenix, started popping out babies when I was still in grade school, and had, I don’t know, seven, nine, or twelves kids. I was never involved with them. They all started having babies, and now my cousin is a great grandmother, possibly even GG. I have wondered if she might be responsible all on her own for a significant percentage of the population of Phoenix.
She wrote to me (4/19) to tell me she had moved, and said in passing that “so far no one is sick” in her family. It is not a random sample, but a large enough sample to be statistically significant. There is no pandemic, no epidemic, no virus. There are only lies and the lying liars who tell them, able to dominate the media, and lie with impunity while at the same time censoring dissenting voices. While guarding our front doors from fascists, they long ago came in the back, took up residency, and now crowd every room of our homes. This is and always has been a whackadoo planet. If Hicks/Jones had not used the catch phrase first, I would call it a prison planet.
Calling Stephanie’s story an anecdote is a logical red herring. The point is that—given her narration of the event—why does she respond to the customer’s tale about COVID-19 differently from how she would respond to a story, say, about a family with itchy scalps and a known case of head lice? If you find nits in one child’s hair, would you not reasonably start from the assumption that the other head-scratching kids have the same problem? Any sane person would.
You say: “… I assumed from the beginning …” This is exactly the point. Your point-of-view begins with an assumption, an unproven axiom, and you resist any and all evidence that might point in another direction. Your argumentation has devolved into mere name-calling and vituperation and bald contradiction, à la the Monty Python “Argument Clinic.”
Your belittling snark aside, I am well-versed in public hoaxes, and spotted this to be that from the beginning. I saw it as such because it was being wildly hyped on the news media even as Dr. Drew loudly told them to shut up, that what was passing was a common cold. I have since seen no evidence of a pandemic that is any different from the global pandemics we have every year called “cold and flu season.” I do not know why we have an annual cold and flu season, neither does WHO or CDC. Evidence since that time has merely buffered the hoax notion.
Suggested reading, not that I’ve ever, throughout this affair, sensed that you have ever followed a link or done any reading (you’ve been more just a persistent troll, never introducing anything new and constantly trying to undermine anything put up here without referencing any source other than your own words), is a well-written and well-linked paper by an anonymous source at the Mathis site.
Click to access covid.pdf
In it he covers all bases and notes that countries that have not engaged in lock down are faring better than those that have, if statistics have any meaning in this affair. They have, after all, cooked the books from the beginning.
I trust you’ll avoid it.
Thank you Mark! I have no interest in arguing with anyone about my personal thoughts. Your replies succinctly summed up what my intent was when I posted the comment.
That exchange, Stephanie, was between Maarten and me … nothing in it directed at you. I seem to have become a reclamation case for him.
Am I being blocked for some reason? just wanted to chime in and say, Keep at it, You’re right on “THE MARK”…
PS: Why do you assume that skin-erupting diseases have a common cause, even in families? Skin symptoms could be from a huge number of sources. Seeing two in the same household automatically produces the assumption that they must be of the same nature, but it is far from guaranteed. One could be from feces, the other from allergic response to rutabagas, for all you know.
Why would a reasonable person assume that similar effects have similar causes? Because this is what logical, rational people do, and in every aspect of life.
You are asking us to suspend our normal habits of analysis and explanation. You ask us to stop believing in the usual chain of cause-and-effect.
Sure, skin eruptions might be chicken pox in one child and rutabaga allergy in his brother. But let’s just be honest for a moment: we all know that our common experience teaches us to look for the unified explanation first. If that fails, then we resort to other hypotheses.
This is the way sane people operate. It is SOP for rational people. You cannot contest it without sounding … well, … unhinged a little bit.
I am simply saying that the phenomenon we call “chicken pox” is really the phenomenon called “skin eruptions.” The assumption that “reasonable” people make is that it is viral, and in later stages reappears as shingles. I do not find that reasonable, and further posit that if chicken pox is remedied by a vaccine, the vaccine should be effective as well against shingles, which it is not. But of course if two children in teh same household get it at the same time, we can posit that both are allergic to rutabagas too. I think that is your point, but am not sure.
OK, we got hung up on your denial of viral disease. Switch to my example with head lice. The point I am trying to make is independent of questions of viruses or pandemics. It is a point about normal, rational epistemology. I ask you to answer it on that basis.
If you have one child with an itchy scalp, and examination reveals lice: Would it not be reasonable—as a starting hypothesis—to assume that your other children, when their scalps start itching, should also be examined for the same?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Head lice are an observable phenomenon. They spread like crazy.
Assume you have two kids in different schools, one near a busy airport, the other near a pig farm. They both break out in skin pustules. The answer that it is a virus and that the name of the disease is chicken pox eliminates the need to look for other causes.
So the answer to your question is yes, Maarten, think harder, look deeper. Things should be made as simple as possible, but not more so.
Back to the Seneff article… A friend of mine had forwarded that same article to me, and this was my reply:
Oh boy. I don’t even know where to begin with this. I WAS a HUGE fan of Seneff – until she wrote this. Her pioneering work on glyphosate is incredible. However, this is appalling to me in so many ways. I would like to think that Seneff is just trapped within her own paradigm and therefore, connecting dots where they don’t exist (as there is no virus). But she took this a bit further – into another territory, which leads me to believe she is controlled opposition. It makes me very sad, as I was trusting of her work.
I looked into the anecdotal stories of the individuals she referenced. It seems apparent they are “in on this” and planted intentionally within the greater narrative. They all have connections in VERY high places! I am happy to provide that supporting info if you’re interested.
If you remove the virus narrative from her analysis, it could make sense that individuals are ill simply from glyphosate toxicity – without even adding the virus into the mix. That actually makes sense to me. It could even account for the clusters in specific areas with greater quantities of glyphosate. And if she had gone in that direction, I would completely have supported that; no need to even attribute any illness to a virus – or a combined effect of virus+glyphosate. The same goes for 5G, or wifi or any other electro smog. If geographic areas that are bathed in electro smog have clusters of illness, then I could attribute illness in those areas POTENTIALLY to that. As always, correlation is not causation, but it should always be on the table.
(end of my reply)
I’ll leave this quote from Seneff as well (from an interview with Jeffrey Smith) – it should be highly revealing to the readers here: ““I believe that glyphosate may be a contributor to all the – this epidemic that we have in school shootings and the thing that just happened in Boston (the Boston Bombing).”
Seneff does work for MITs AI Laboratory, so that should have been a red flag for me all these years. I recall a while back seeing this and wondering about that, but I set it aside. However, it has now come to the forefront, and I can no longer dismiss this connection particularly in regard to my research on this plandemic. I will leave this link here that I just found because I think it is most telling, and it has now changed my entire perspective on her work. Essentially, Seneff reveals here that all of her actual research (including research on glyphosate!) has been doing in an AI lab – NOT a biology lab.
“My approach is a systems-level biology approach using simple computer science techniques to help organize the facts. The underlying theme is collecting data from people who are experiencing problems and who live in a particular environment. You examine the data using our computer science techniques, and then you can link specific environments with specific problems. When you go back to the research literature, you can examine what certain materials like glyphosate do to human biology,” says Seneff. “You can then build a hypothesis by studying the research literature and the web-based documentation of symptoms.”
To sum up from an interview she once did (link below):
Do you have a biology lab?
SS: No. It’s all computer science. It’s all synthesis. So basically what I do is I read papers and I process them with the computer to help me understand them and interpret them and generalize and build a story.
Endnote: Oh boy! How I was fooled by Dr. Seneff all these years! I listened to so many of her interviews. With that said, I will continue to eat organic, non-GMO foods. Just a hunch it’s still better for me, regardless!!!
Talking of a whackadoo planet, here’s some whackadoodles —
LikeLiked by 1 person