Breaking News

Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In response to my article published by the Expose in December last year (Virology’s Voodoo Scientism Is Not Real Science) somebody posted an article by Frank Visser in response:

WHY VIRUSES ARE NOT EXOSOMES The Corona Conspiracy FRANK VISSER”

This article is a great example of the kind of sophistry deployed by intellectually dishonest “debunkers” in a pathetic attempt to “debunk” the truth. If I were given an opportunity to respond to it properly this is how I would respond…

Visser says:

“Real scientists publish their views in scientific journals, not through YouTube videos or obscure online radio shows.”

I say:

Many scientific journals have been captured by corporate interests and often will not publish papers that challenge or conflict with those corporate interests. Conversely, they will publish poor quality and fraudulent research that supports corporate interests. Visser then goes on to post YouTube videos of “real scientists” that he agrees with to prove his point. Apparently, YouTube videos are good enough for him but when used to express opinions he doesnt agree with they can’t be trusted.

Visser says:

“Searching in Google for any other relevant attempts to debunk Kaufman’s ideas about the SARS-CoV-2 virus…”

I say:

Google is known to be engaging in censorship of material that challenges the official COVID-19 narrative so does not provide a balanced view. If people are given opposing sides of an argument, then they can make their own minds up about an issue. Google doesn’t allow that. It’s better to use a search engine that doesn’t engage in censorship and doesn’t infantilise its users. I use DuckDuckGo NOT Google.

Visser says:

“Jan Lötvall is an expert on exosomes, as his Wikipedia page tells us”

Wikipedia has become a propaganda tool used to advance the corporate globalist agenda. It does not provide a balanced unbiased view as one of its co-founders recently made clear.

Frank Visser joins forces with Ken Witwer and Jan Lötvall to continue with the “debunking”…

They say:

“The coronavirus is in a very specific sense an “exosome”, but be careful, it has a very different biogenesis. Viruses and exosomes are both similar and different in various aspects (content, size, origin, behaviour, healthy/unhealthy). Coronaviruses are everywhere but some varieties unfortunately can cause significant mortality. The virion (virus particle) is produced under tightly controlled conditions of protein incorporation. Some viruses essentially are using the exosome pathway, and so it is with this coronavirus.”

I say:

Where are the experiments to prove that coronaviruses are different to exosomes? Conjecture about differences in size and content are not enough. Coronaviruses and exosomes are identical in size, structure and content. Virologists have been challenged to properly purify the coronavirus and show the existence of the entire genome they claim it contains. The genome has been pieced together from a multi-species fragment soup using guesswork and self-referential techniques. It is an in-silico genome which means it is a computer construct that has not been proven to exist in its entirety in the real world.

Where is the evidence for coronaviruses causing significant mortality? Monkeys infected with “SARS-CoV2” didn’t die or even become seriously ill in at least three separate studies. Most were asymptomatic. Some developed mild common cold symptoms that only lasted a few days. None developed a fever. The virus could not be detected in the bloodstream and didn’t spread to internal organs.

They say:

“Why somebody would believe [that the virus doesn’t exist or is harmless] in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is unclear.”

I say:

Where is the overwhelming scientific evidence?

They say:

“We don’t confirm the presence of viruses by looking at them through a microscope (but by qPCR), so it doesn’t matter how closely their appearance resembles exosomes.”

I say:

At best qPCR is a surrogate test for a whole “virus” particle because it only detects a small piece of genetic sequence. At worst (as is the case with the Drosten SARS-CoV-2 PCR)it generates artefactual false-positive results that have nothing to do with the presence of a whole “virus” or a whole “viral genome”. The gold standard test to detect the presence of a whole “virus” is cell culture. The WHO instructed diagnostic labs not to use cell culture but to use the completely inaccurate qPCR instead for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The primers used in this qPCR test interact with human and microbial genetic sequences that would be expected to be present in many if not all respiratory specimens and swabs from healthy and sick people alike.

Both diagnostic and research labs do take EM (Electron Microscopy) pictures to confirm the presence of “viruses”. The pictures of alleged SARS-CoV-2 vary widely in size and morphology and are most likely different types of extracellular vesicle (exosomes) rather than a virus which are supposed to be uniform in size and morphology.

They say:

“When viruses were discovered Koch’s postulates were revised to account for the [specific nature of the] virus.”

I say:

What “specific nature” of “viruses” requires that Koch’s postulates need to be revised? Where is the proof of disease causation according to Rivers postulates and Bradford Hills criteria if Koch’s postulates are not to your liking for unspecified reasons?

They say:

“Even though the corona virus is hijacking the exosome manufacturing process, it is still a fundamentally different beast.”

I say:

What experiments can be done to distinguish between these “fundamentally different beasts”? Why haven’t these experiments been done? There are large cash prizes available for virologists if they do these experiments properly. So far there have been no takers. That is highly telling.

Visser says:

“Edwin van der Pol, Assistant Professor Biomedical Engineering & Physics at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, wrote his PhD on “Detection of extracellular vesicles: size does matter” (University of Amsterdam, 2015) and is co-author of 41 publications on exosomes. He is interested in the detection of exosomes, microvesicles, and other extracellular vesicles as possible biomarkers for disease. He sent me the following information, which highlights the salient differences between viruses and exosomes, and which I reproduce below with his permission:”

“Since consensus has not yet emerged on specific markers of EV subtypes, such as endosome- origin “exosomes” and plasma membrane-derived “ectosomes” (microparticles/microvesicles) assigning an EV to a particular biogenesis pathway remains extraordinarily difficult unless e.g. the EV is caught in the act of release by live imaging techniques.”

I say:

The “experts” don’t seem to be very sure about what they are studying, can’t even agree amongst themselves, and find it all extraordinarily difficult!

Van Der Pol says:

“EVs including exosomes have a broad size distribution. As far as I know, most viruses have a narrow size distribution. We therefore sometimes even use viruses as a reference material.”

I say:

EVs have a broad size distribution and “viruses” do fall within this range so size alone can’t distinguish between the two. Using the term “as far as I know” doesnt instill confidence about his knowledge of viruses. SARS-CoV-2 has a wide size distribution according to the photographs published by the “experts”. Simply conceptualising viruses as different from exosomes and using them as a reference material proves nothing.

Van Der Pol says:

“I suppose most viruses do not suffer from the evaporation of water, as viruses are more dense in proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids.”

I say:

Again using the term “I suppose” with regards to viruses reveals a mindset that they are not his area of study. EVs do differ in protein, lipid and nucleic acid composition and it is entirely feasible that “viruses” are a specific type of EV.

Van Der Pol says:

“Once a virus transports itself in the blood circulation, it’s for the body and immune system “fully an exosome”.”

I say:

So how is it possible to distinguish between the two then?

Visser says:

“Exosomes are membrane enclosed structures that are released into the extra-cellular space of various cell types.”

I say:

Enveloped “viruses” also fit this description exactly.

Visser says:

“Once released from the cell circulating microvesicles can be detected in a variety of body fluids.”

I say:

These circulating microvesicles are indistinguishable from “viruses” according to the expert cited by Visser.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can transfer their content to other cells, in support of various biological processes.”

I say:

“Viruses” also transfer their content to other cells in support of various biological processes. The microbiomes of healthy people contain countless different types of “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can contain biomarkers to diagnose the presence of a disease.”

I say:

“Viruses” also contain protein and nucleic acid biomarkers used by diagnostic labs to diagnose the presence of a disease.

Visser says:

“Circulating microvesicles can contain cell material (RNA, proteins) from their cell of origin.”

I say:

So can “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Hopefully it has become clear that disinformation about these scientific topics can only be dispelled by allowing ourselves to be educated by real science.”

I say:

None of the “real science” presented by Visser et al has been able to disentangle extracellular vesicles, exosomes, and “viruses”.

Visser says:

“Self-appointed exosome specialists…who neglect to mention sophisticated disciplines such as bioinformatics and genomics, are irresponsible and should be refuted.”

I say:

Frank Visser is a psychologist and self-appointed exosome specialist himself. Why are “viral genomes” constructed from a complex soup of genetic material from numerous sources (human, bacterial, fungal) and not from purified virus particles? Bioinformatic computer programs and algorithms are self-referential and based on circular reasoning. Referring to previous artificially constructed in-silico genomes does not validate a newer artificially constructed in-silico genome.

I don’t neglect to mention bioinformatics and genomics and have first-hand experience of both. Just because they are “sophisticated” doesn’t mean that they are appropriately applied in an honest and truly scientific way. In the construction of “virus genomes,” these techniques are abused. To claim otherwise is irresponsible and should be refuted.

Share this page to Telegram
4.8 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
3 months ago

[…] Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist […]

Michael Setter
Michael Setter
3 months ago

Well presented Ms Harrity, although rather painful in the execution it might be imagined. Something akin to removing a boil in a surgical theater while being recorded?

Martillo
Martillo
3 months ago

Double bill vaxx shillers axxed. Karma is a bitch!
German news host collapses live on TV while promoting forced injections. The minions of Satan are being stricken and smitten
Double bill….. vaxx shillers axxed. Karma is a bitch!

Bitchute has banned the video in Urupp and Germanistan because anti covaid$ death squirt is now a hate crime akin to the hollowcost religion.

Enjoy  because Karma is so beautiful and the truth really does set you free

Here is the EweTueb link where it is still available for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNIB06D4fA
 
Double vaxxed blasphemous shill…. axxed   Do not blaspheme the shaker of universes…ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctPViK3LK-o

Pfizer macht frei….permanently!

GundelP
GundelP
3 months ago

Yawn to Visser, that train already left the station.
The problem with people inc. myself that when dogmas are taught we just believe them. After having a belief several decades long it is sinister, extremely uncomfortable not to have it anymore, to face with reality and the mocking of the masses if you dare to speak about it. But we should just use common sense.
The first time I questioned it was when I ‘met’ with rabies. Back then I worked in a milk laboratory. One day one of the vet came with a news that in one of their fields the cows got rabies. Terrible news, I was sick with fear, literally, I touched that samples, many in every day – it was just milk you know…so what?
She told me not to be worried, it couldn’t infect anyone via milk
(what? how?). We were taught that if we saw a dead fox close to the road, not to touch, not to try to have its fur, etc because the saliva is full with rabies’ viruses and extremely dangerous. In fact it was considered so dangerous that one of my colleagues (later in time, another work place) was suspected that he might contacted it together with his whole family because their dog was seen playing with a fox and later the dog ‘hanged itself’. They all got vaccinations against it. The man almost died to the vax, never recovered fully. 2 weeks between life and death and brain damage.
I begged for answer. His ruined life was so terrible – and it could happen with me, with you, etc.
If the dog was assumed to have rabies, why it was not examined to be sure before giving that deadly vax to a full family inc. children? If I can’t touch a dead fox because of the viruses in the saliva then why they didn’t examine the saliva to be sure? We all heard about rabies stories but I knew no one who would have seen a real case. None. Same with my vet friend (they saw cases when they suspected but never saw it proven because the animals were killed upon suspicion and the staff were vaccinated upon suspicion). We were forced to vax our pets in every x years (for dogs it was every year). That vax was extremely nasty by the way.
Much much later I found an article written by a doc who wrote it like 50 years ago, she went after ‘rabies’ decades long – and found nothing.
It turned out that its test (Negri) is unfit to test a thing, not reliable and for Negri they had to send the head of the animal for testing. (Why if the saliva is full with viruses?) It turned out that rabies is similar symptoms caused by different things, parasites maybe, extreme dehydration and a bunch of others, too. It never was real in that way they taught to us but we – year by year – let our pets injected because we accepted it, because the illness is so terrible that fear paralyzes us to think straight about it.
It’s not a long article and I would say: very interesting indeed.
whale. to/ vaccine/ rabies.html (remove the spaces from the link)

Fool me once and I never ever believe anything just because they say it. I want proof and quickly understood that with the present tech. we have they CAN’T SEE viruses, they can’t see the process itself. Eg. a vaccine against a viral illness, containing live viruses – how do they count the content, how many viruses are in it? How if they can’t see them , how do they know it is too much for the body or too little, etc.
They can see viruses only one way, under an electromicroscope but the process is harsh, nothing survives it as a whole living / working material.
The big question was that ok, but then what causes the symptoms we see as an infection, contagion? The golden rule is: different things cause similar symptoms put under one label. Most often poisons are to blame like the polio, which is pesticide poisoning in most of the cases. Pox types: look for photos, real photos and compare them, they ALL look pretty similar. (De-poisoning event.) According to people’ notes who lived back then, small pox never jumped from people to people, it came with bed bugs (parasite? who knows) but in the ocean of lies of the modern medicine it is highly time to look for the real causes but fake science they developed for money and control via fear.
Dr Tom Cowan’ book, The Contagion Myth, examined the different kind of ‘viral’ illnesses and their possible real causes.
Dr. Stefan Lanka repeated the ‘virus isolation experiment’ in the way exactly how the ‘science’ does it. With one little difference, at the beginning of the process he didn’t give any viral samples coming from any infected at all to the ‘breeding soil’ (genetic material from monkey, etc). And the result was exactly the same, the dying cells in the cell culture produced ‘viruses’.
Sequencing is another B S. Kaufman explained it (Red Pill Expo, hard to find the video, I don’t know why it was so buried…., or even Dr. Sam Bailey – just yesterday on Icke’s site in a video.) After watching the documentary Kaufman’ Terrain, it looks that those honest docs are about another theory – theory so far but makes much more sense – that water has an important role in what we see as ‘contagion’ or rather information we get – due to its unique property – memory. (Veda Austin’ work among others…)
Let’s see how the fearful avoid to contact with water.

veda.JPG
VickyMartin
VickyMartin
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

[JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. Last month I got cheek of nearly 10,000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go office, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
..
SITE….., http://workhere3.blogspot.com/

Last edited 3 months ago by VickyMartin
butterballs
butterballs
3 months ago

Interesting how concerned the vaccine safety government organisation MHRA is about adverse reactions and deaths following the experimental injections with graphene and glass shards inside them. MHRA Board Meeting held in public – January 2022 – YouTube

GeoffB
GeoffB
3 months ago

Oh dear.

Here we go again with a so-called “Top British Biomedical Scientist” who remains nameless.

It was me who referenced the Frank Visser articles.

Although Visser is a psychiatrist (not one like Kaufman who found it more profitable selling snake oil to the gullible) he has the ear of the scientific community and his articles are full of links to real named “Top Biomedical Scientists”.

This article by PATRICIA HARRITY is just full of nonsense which she probably made up herself.

Yes the whole Covid paradigm is a scam for the Global Elite to create more wealth for themselves, bring in draconian measures of control and possibly their goal of population reduction with the experimental jabs.

However, the science clearly shows that viruses exist and that SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus (although patents from some years ago would suggest it is not that new) and it causes COVID-19.

Viruses are NOT exosomes.

The vast majority of sceptical scientists agree that viruses exist. People like Mike Yeadon, Andrew Wakefield, Judy Mikovits etc. etc.

The handful of people with a medical or scientific background that say viruses do not exist are totally discredited, some of whom have been struck off or are under investigation. They all have books, pills, lotion and potions to sell to the gullible as they can’t make a living out of main stream medicine or science. People like Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan and Bailey.

We can all agree that Covid is a scam but let’s not lose sight of the “real” science.

We are not going to persuade the public that Covid is a scam with all this nonsense that “viruses do not exist”, “it hasn’t been isolated”, “viruses are exosomes”.

Terrain Theory is a 19th century belief and that is where it belongs.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Can you show the evidence for your statement: ” However, the science clearly shows that viruses exist and that SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus (although patents from some years ago would suggest it is not that new) and it causes COVID-19.” Just because terrain theory dates back to the 19th century that doesnt mean that its wrong. Modern microbiome research (including the virome) strongly siggests that its right. The germ theory also dates back to the 19th century but you dont seem to be dismissing that.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  Sam
3 months ago

I can. 🙂
He is / they are all so rich they don’t care to give proof of existence of ANY Corona virus despite that 1.5million Eur was offered as price. Still not too late, can’t wait for the guy to win it, fingers crossed, keep us updated pls.

https://samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

It was easily proved in the measles court case against Lanka who then refused to pay the bet because it was proved on “six” papers and not the “one” he asked for.

No doubt these people would also weasel out of paying.

PaulaWilson
PaulaWilson
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months E ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>> http://Www.SmartPay1.com

Last edited 3 months ago by PaulaWilson
GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
3 months ago

Viruses are a quirk of nature and there is scientific debate on whether they are living organisms or not. It has always been know that it is impossible to “isolate” a virus in the dictionary sense. (A similar concept to the quirk of nature in Quantum Mechanics whereby light can be a particle or a waveform).

Viruses have been proved to exist by modern virology through experiments with a living isolated single human cell infected with a virus and shown to infect a different living healthy human cell without the virus. (Modern Virologists have always known that viruses cannot be “isolated” or “purified” in the dictionary sense of the word as viruses are only evident when attached to a living cell). Mock controls are done in almost every case using the same known liquid suspension or substrate. The experiment is written up in a scientific paper for peer review. Just search the internet for “virus cell culture paper” for thousands of these papers. No paper has had to be retracted.

Viruses have been proved to exist via modern electron microscopy and photographed showing the virus which is similar but different to an exosome. Just search the internet for “virus cell culture paper”, Images. Again no paper has been retracted.
Viruses have been proved to exist via modern whole gene sequencing (which is the preferred method of identification) of all of the base pairs. SARS-CoV-2 and it’s variants have 29,903 base pairs which have been laboriously whole gene sequenced (it takes 4 to 5 days and NOT computer generated) and uploaded to the GISAID Initiative over 7 million times. Again no paper has been retracted.

Viruses have been proved to exist via PCR tests which are highly specific and accurate in detecting a unique long gene sequence fragment of the virus you want to detect (if done properly). It is not so good at diagnosing infection as the virus detected maybe dead fragments and not viable which can only be done by cell culture in a wet lab. However, the CT rate if low is an indication of infectability. (Although PCR tests are incredibly accurate it all depends on the Quality Control measures in the labs. The Lighthouse labs for mass testing in the UK have poor Quality Control and produce many “false positives”). Again no paper has been retracted.

Viruses have been proved to exist in the German courts in the infamous Lanka v Bardens case where all the judges and experts agreed that the measles virus was real. (Lanka weaseled himself out of paying the 100,000euro bet by persuading the court that it was proved by “six” scientific papers and not “one” that he had asked for).

There has been no scientific paper, even a pre-print or one not peer reviewed, that has ever suggested that viruses do not exist.

Unlike thousands of sceptical climate scientists questioning man made global warming there has been no retired virologist or otherwise with nothing to lose in coming forward with any doubts about “viruses existing”. There have been no death bed confessions from modern virologists. There have been no scientific papers suggesting viruses do not exist. This indicates that viruses are real and do exist as has been proved by the methods already stated.

The US has over 200 bioweapons labs around the world, there are many others. They are all working on viruses. If there is a biological accident or attack your semi-religious belief that “viruses do not exist” will not save you from sickness and/or death.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

single human cell infected with a virus”

How they got that virus in the first place? How they manage to isolate and to add only that and fully that to the cell? Wow. It’s like your lying about the sequencing when they in fact compare the sequenced little piece to the data but what was the exact base of the database when they never ever could fully sequenced anything? How do you sequence a virus when you can’t remove it from its environment (aka other biological material).
The claimed so called Covid’ virus sequence can be found in more then 100 bacteria and in the human chromosome 8, too.

Viruses have been proved to exist in the German courts

BLATANT LIE. You really have no shame. You tried this before and I found the article and corrected it, I wish I would remember to the title of the article to avoid digging after the info again as of course google and related falsified / hide it just like they always do. There were two rounds the second was at their High court or supreme court and Lanka et al did win. The court said that there was no proof that the measles virus exists at all and Lanka did the whole procedure to prevent the poisonous childhood vaxxes to carry on – to save children. Shame on you!

Viruses have been proved to exist via PCR tests which are highly specific…
Another lie. PCR is not suitable to decide about an infection according even to its inventor and an image won’t tell a thing about an infection. Period.

Viruses have been proved to exist via modern electron microscopy and photographed showing the virus which is similar but different to an exosome
How exactly different? Tell us please. They share the same size, same characteristic, etc. Besides the image of the electron microscope is 2D and can’t tell anything about what is happening in the real world or body, anything about the process.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

You do talk a load of rubbish and have no understanding of modern virology.

I have been through every word of the Lanka court case and you also don’t understand legal proceedings.

The courts analysis of Lanka losing is too large for The Daily Expose so I will post it in 2 sections.

Lanka lost the court case but appealed on a legal semantics technicality. The judges and the experts all agreed that the measles virus exists.

I have been through the court document in detail so you don’t have to and these were the court’s findings …….
Lanka offered 100,000euros for someone to prove that the measles virus exists and it’s diameter.

The court papers state Lankas parameters as ……

3. “The prize money is paid out when a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, its diameter is determined.

4. The prize money will not be paid out if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus only involves models or drawings such as … … ”
Lanka lost his case in the German courts and was ordered to pay out the money to the student doctor who claimed the prize.
Lanka appealed to a German higher court who decided that he didn’t have to pay due to the following legal technicalities ……

47 “Insofar as the defendant’s (Lanka) appeal is admissible, it is also justified, since the amount awarded could only have been earned if the circumstances to be proven had all been demonstrated in a self-contained work.” (In other words although the 6 scientific papers submitted by the student doctor proved to the court and the experts that the measles virus existed and it’s diameter known, Lanka had asked for “a scientific publication” [a] meaning just one and NOT six).

81 “After the clear and unambiguous wording, a publication is to be submitted in which the evidence is to be fulfilled in accordance with these requirements.”

87 “Although it may meet the need of the plaintiff and the person providing evidence to set the hurdles for the evidence, this is ultimately a matter for the claimant, who alone determines what he is willing to pay a reward for. In this sense, it can also be seen by the third party that the sponsor does not want to make it easier for the possible applicants for the prize money to provide the proof that a measles virus exists, which they do not want anyway.” (In other words the court is accusing Lanka of deliberately asking for one scientific paper knowing that the proof of viruses existing is in a different scientific paper to the diameter of the virus. The court accused him of semantics to deliberately make it difficult for anyone to claim the prize).

88 “The fact that the defendant (Lanka) did not raise the objection immediately after the publications were presented that six publications were presented and not just one does not contradict this. The defendant (Lanka) immediately objected that none of the submitted work was suitable to provide evidence. Only when the expert had shown his result that the evidence could be regarded as having been obtained when all publications were viewed together did it become necessary to object that in any case the evidence had not been produced by a single piece of work.” (In other words the expert agreed that it had been proved that the measles virus existed).

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Viruses are not living according to the MERRING definition of life. It is absolutely possible to isolate a virus using filtration and density gradient centrifugation. Bacteriophage biologists isolate their viruses routinely. Why dont virologists working with supposed human pathogenic viruses do the same?

Plenty of fraudulent papers are still in print and have not been retracted. The fraudulent Drosten-PCR paper has still not been retracted by Eurosurveillance. There are many other examples of this. Many journals are simply corrupt. Pharma has a lot of money for those that are “on message”.

The SARS-CoV-2 genome is contructed from fragments using shotgun sequencing,de-novo sequencing platforms and alignments. Anything in high copiy number is assumed to be viral without any proof at all. It is an in silico hypothetical contruct. Show me the paper where the genome has been sequenced in its entirety using purified virus.

The Drosten PCR is neither specific nor accurate. An external peer review identified at least 10 fatal errors with it. The primers bind to human, bacterial and fungal sequences.

Lanka won his case when it went to the supreme German court who agreed that the measles virus has not been proven to exist following the correct scientific method.

There are many peer reviewed papers that admit that it is impossible to differentiate between extracellular vesicles and viruses.

Toxins and toxigenic bacteria make successful bioweapons eg ricin and anthrax. Cant think of a single successful “virus” bioweapon can you?

Your message has been copied and pasted from our previous conversation. Its tiresome to keep repeating the same refutations to the exact points you have made before.

I asked for proof not waffle. If you have proof then post it.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
3 months ago

The original Corman-Drosten et al PCR test paper had been criticized by some people. “A consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.”

On February 4, 2021, Eurosurveillance (who first published the paper) published its long-awaited response to the Corman-Drosten Review Report, after a two-month period of review by five external experts.

Within one week of the receipt of the Report, and after a discussion with the editorial board members, it was decided that scientific misconduct or conflicts of interest were a non-issue.

They were also happy with the peer review.
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041

The Review Report and the Addendum on the Borger-Kämmerer team against the Corman-Drosten et al paper was criticised by people like Prof. Andreas Beyer who states ….

“The Borger-Kämmerer text is pseudoscience, it is full of misconceptions, errors and flaws. Therefore it is ignored by experts for good reason. The impact it had in public consciousness, however, is fatal. Borger reported on Twitter more than 30 Million views of his “Report” (March 2021) [now 50 million]. Hence I ask all colleagues please to spread this essay for at least a little bit of counterbalance.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351286220_Borger_Kammerer_Corona_qPCR_Pseudoscience_Conspiracy_Theory_Revisited_-_an_Analytical_Essay_-
Nothing has been heard from these so-called “life scientists” since November 2020 after their complaints were totally discredited.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

The Eurosurveillance response to the very legitimate problems identified by the external reviewers is another great example of sophistry in action. In summary (without the waffle) they investigated themselves and have concluded they did nothing wrong. The paper should never have been published and should be retracted. That PCR protocol should not have been used by any lab anywhere. They used it to create a fake pandemic and to shut down the world.

I have alot of RT-PCR design experience myself. The errors identified by the external peer reviewers are valid. Software is used to design the primer and probe combinations to ensure they meet certain specifications and work properly. In addition BLAST searches have identified multiple hits for human and microbial genomes. The test is not fit for purpose. If your aim is to invent a test to generate false positive results whenever needed they did an excellent job of that.

How many PCR tests have you designed?

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Sam
3 months ago

Independent experts with more experience than you with PCR tests rejected all the criticisms.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Judy Mikovits was unable to defend her point of view on viruses when she was challenged by Kaufman. At the end she used her credentials but real arguments.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/special-event-roundtable-with-dr-judy-mikovits-discussing-the-magic-virus-and-mrna-vaccines_FRBqYXtWgTzkR67.html

What real science?!
EXPLAIN THIS!
https://davidicke.com/2021/11/23/right-now-gareth-icke-talks-to-dr-tom-cowan-about-the-invisible-virus-the-covid-cult/

Oh yes, you need to keep the virus legend alive, no matter what. YEADON? Are you joking? Pfizer had several lawsuits in past, he is an ex Pfizer. What he could tell? ‘Sorry folks I didn’t check the science and helped to give your kids vaxxes which then caused them brain damage or else but I did it for the ‘greater good’?
Or Mikovits with the HIV ‘virus isolation’? The HIV was a huge scam, they all knew it but they were so afraid, they didn’t dare to speak. All are a kind of documented on nomorefakenews (Jon Rappoport).

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

Dr????? Tom Cowan?????

The Medical Board of California complained about Cowan for giving an unlicensed drug to a cancer patient without seeing them or reading their notes in 2017 and told Cowan to either surrender his license as there was a disciplinary action against him or be put on probation for 5 years with extra training and banning him from treating cancer patients.

In other words he was “struck off” and is no longer a doctor.
https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2021/02/cowan_license_surrender_2021.pdf

“”Doctor” Thomas Cowan, who claimed that 5G caused the coronavirus, isn’t surrendering his medical license because he’s learned his lesson. Instead, he’s watched how other quacks have become millionaires and plans to follow in their footsteps.”
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/02/10/how-quacks-become-millionaires-5g-covid-doctor-will-sell-supplements-15336

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

I am bored with you troll. Because you are a troll. We have this arguing before, here in The Expose, I dug and linked the proof every time.

But for your information, that 5G has a an effect and can cause flu like / covid like symptoms now had a peer reviewed study, it was also here in the Expose. Dig for it if you think, I won’t again.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

Here it is, hope it is scientific enough LIAR.

‘Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G’https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

I also believe 5G is harmful but the reference I gave was in quotes and was someone else’s opinion but the article is very good at exposing Tom Cowan as a fraud and a charlatan.

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

I didn’t ask your opinion on him but proof. He made an interview where he stated they had given scientific proof, a control experiment, that virus isolation is a fraud, he did it with details, I gave the link.
https://davidicke.com/2021/11/23/right-now-gareth-icke-talks-to-dr-tom-cowan-about-the-invisible-virus-the-covid-cult/

You can’t argue so you attack the person. You lied about the Lanka case, Lanka is still a virologist who WON NOBEL FOR VIRUS ISOLATION (not pathogenic but a giant sea virus). And you are…?
So far you attacked Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Dr Lanka. You forgot to attack Dr Sam Bailey who keeps saying the same. Christine Massey who said the same after sending 170+ FOI request on virus isolation but no one has it, not only the Covid’s but any!

https://davidicke.com/2022/02/04/right-now-canadian-activist-christine-massey-talks-truckers-trudeau-virus-isolation/

Jon Rappoport who said the same. Eckert et al who said the same ‘risking’ 1.500.000 Eur, the German Supreme court which said the same.

The difference between the two groups of scientists (yours and mine) that ‘my group’ do not have a carrier dependent on lying about viruses and selling poisonous vaxxes.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  GundelP
3 months ago

Sam Bailey?

I have seen her videos and read extracts from her book and she is talking absolute rubbish just to sell her book (always on display in her videos) to the gullible.

Many of her claims are not supported by evidence and have been totally debunked by real scientists who have shown real evidence to debunk her claims.

She used to be a TV doctor from New Zealand who appears to have little understanding of modern virology.

Recently she has been under investigation by the medical authorities of New Zealand.

Her wild claims have been debunked on this science website ……
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2021/04/sam-bailey-on-isolating-viruses-and-why-she-is-wrong/

GundelP
GundelP
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Here is the proof you are lying! The controlled media reported only about the first trial but not the supreme court’s.

“The OLG court in Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 overturned the judgment of the Ravensburg court and dismissed the action. The plaintiff (Dr David Bardens) filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court (BGH). The basis of his appeal was his subjective and false perception of the trial at the OLG in Stuttgart,and his assertion that what Dr Lanka factually stated about the ‘measles virus’ posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by theSupreme Court (BGH); Thus it confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which Dr Stefan Lanka had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the plaintiff – Dr David Bardens – who was also ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts were involved in the case. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart have stated that none of the six publications contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
Arguments against the belief in the existence of the measles virus
Dr Stefan Lanka has four compelling arguments against the current belief in the existence of the measles virus (and by extension all other alleged pathogenic viruses). These arguments were made as part of his measles virus legal case.
1) Dr Lanka hired two independent laboratories to investigate the alleged measles virus. They both confirmed that the typical gene sequence of quite normal healthy cells has been wrongly interpreted as central component parts of the ‘measles virus’.
Short genetic sequences (from normal healthy cells) have been arbitrarily assembled together in order to make up a model of the “measles virus”, and this is stated to be the genetic model (genome sequence) of the measles virus.
I would like to point out that is what was done in the two papers on the novel corona virus and the influenza A virus,which were submitted to me by the Assistant Director of the NVRL Dr JoanneO’Gorman.
2) Professor Dr Andreas Podbielski testified at the measles virus trial along with four other technical experts. These five technical experts all confirmed that the entire area of measles virology is extremely unscientific because no control experiments are carried out.
3) The five technical experts also agreed that the current definition of a pathogenic virus is in flux and is being questioned by the scientific community. It is clearly logical that if the definition of a virus is agreed to be in flux, there cannot be any clear unambiguous statements about pathogenic viruses and they ought not to presented as a fact or as existing but rather as a hypothesis or belief that is currently held by most biologists worldwide including the NVRL.
4) The current belief in the existence of the measles virus can be traced back to the influential paper published by Enders &Peeble in 1954. However, this paper does not prove the existence of the measles virus. Enders & Peeble observed the death of cells in the test tube and believed that this was caused by the phantom measles virus. However as per argument 2 they did not carry out any control experiments. If they had carried them out they would have determined that their preparation of the test-tube caused the death of the cells and that the observed death of cells had nothing to do with any alleged measles virus.”

https://greganthonysjournal.wordpress.com/2020/03/21/virus-fraud-exposed-on-a-grand-scale/

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Patricia Harrity
3 months ago

Articles like yours discredits The Daily Expose as a credible source.

It’s akin to The Daily Star saying Elvis is alive and living in a double decker bus on the moon.

We’re all trying to fight against this medical/scientific tyranny but many articles on here are just plain rubbish and harms the sceptics cause.

If your so-called “scientist” is afraid to disclose themselves then they either don’t exist or they don’t have the courage of their convictions.

Either way the article is so flawed that if they do exist they are in the wrong profession.

SuethSayer
SuethSayer
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Well said – therapists and psychologists are not ‘biomedical experts’! If viruses don’t exist, what was it that $billions spent on adding Gain of Function to at Wuhan???

trackback
3 months ago

[…] – Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist […]

Paul Prichard
Paul Prichard
3 months ago

People shouldn’t be mislabelling anti-authoritarians as anti-vaxxers.
Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2022-02-16. Canadian trucker protest, with bouncy castles for the children, is not seriously endangering anything (blog, gab, tweet).

Duke Nukem
Duke Nukem
3 months ago

Here we go again, a “Top British Biomedical Scientist”; don’t Top British Biomedical Scientists have names? At least, can’t these nameless Top British Biomedical Scientists show us references? Maybe we can get lucky and the references will have names?

Peter Carroll
Peter Carroll
3 months ago

Brilliant expose by Patricia Harrity of Visser and cronies who continue the 100 year+ fiction about the separate existence of viruses, in support of discredited germ theory. When will we be freed from these medical traumas, making us sick? When such clear reason and scientific credibility is delivered to people in such (relatively) simple ways as this – and when people throw off the black cloud of fear and embrace it.

trackback
3 months ago

[…] 16. Februar 2022 The Expose: Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist […]

GeoffB
GeoffB
3 months ago

It’s always worth listing these other articles by Frank Visser debunking the “viruses do not exist” mob.

Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus
Part 1: Corona, Oxygen, 5G: The Paranoid Worldview of David Icke, April 2020
Part 2: Debunking Andrew Kaufman’s Virus Equals Exosome Hypothesis, May 2020
Part 3: We Need to Talk about Exosomes, May 2020
Part 4: Why Viruses Are Not Exosomes, June 2020
Part 5: The Alternative Facts of Virus Denialism, June 2020
Part 6: The Subtle Science of Whole Genome Sequencing, June 2020
Part 7: Stefan Lanka’s Vanishing Virus Act, July 2020
Part 8: Coping with Corona: The Cautious vs. The Reckless, July 2020
Part 9: Andrew Kaufman’s Take on the Pandemic That Wasn’t, July 2020
Part 10: Between Alarmism and Denialism, August 2020
Part 11: David Icke and the Method in the Madness, August 2020
Part 12: How the Coronavirus Conquered the World, August 2020
Part 13: To Test or Not to Test, That’s the Question, August 2020
Part 14: Pandemic, Infodemic, Scamdemic, Plandemic?, August 2020
Part 15: The Chromosome 8 Bombshell Evidence Canard, August 2020
Part 16: What’s Up With These Koch’s Postulates?, September 2020
Part 17: Was the SARS-CoV-2 virus created in a lab?, September 2020
Part 18: QAnon, When Conspirituality Meets Politics, September 2020
Part 19: Thomas Cowan and “The Myth of Contagion”, October 2020
Part 20: PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish, December 2020
Part 21: David Icke: ‘QAnon is a Psy-Op, a Scam!’, January 2021
Part 22: The Million-Dollar Question About COVID-19, January 2021
Part 23: ‘The SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Has Never Been Isolated’, February 2020
Part 24: PCR-Gate 2: When Lockdown Skeptics Pose as Expert Scientists, February 2021
Part 25: The Unholy Alliance of Corona Conspiracy Theorists, March 2021
Part 26: Twitter Review of the “COVID-19 Myths” Webinar, May 2021
Part 27: David Icke Shouts Out: ‘There Is No Bloody Virus!’, June 2021
Part 28: Stefan Lanka’s Counterfeit “Control Experiments”, June 2021
Part 29: Where Are All These PCR ‘False Positives’ Anyways?, June 2021
Part 30: Is SARS-CoV-2 the Phantom of the COVID-19 Opera?, June 2021
Part 31: Andrew Kaufman and the “Fake Delta Variant”, July 2021
Part 32: Where’s the Control Experiment Protocol, Stefan?, September 2021
Part 33: PCR-Gate 3: The Debate About PCR That Never Really Happened, October 2021
Part 34: Thomas Cowan and the Spell of Corona, November 2021
Part 35: Samantha Bailey and ‘The COVID-19 Fraud’, December 2021
Appendix 1: Fifteen Facets of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus, June 2021
Appendix 2: Who’s Who in Corona Conspiracy Country, June 2021
Appendix 3: My Corona Conspiracy Twitter Contacts, July 2021
https://www.integralworld.net/

GeoffB
GeoffB
3 months ago

The court papers showing Lanka lost the court cases and the judges and experts all agreed that viruses exist.
https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic/post/lanka-loses-2-court-cases-in-germany-as-the-judges-and-experts-all-confirm-the-existence-of-viruses

Freeman2
Freeman2
Reply to  GeoffB
3 months ago

Since “the experts” belong to the group of believers in virus-theory, they argue accordingly, and that is then reflected in the decision made by the Court, which is based on their “expertise”. In any case, the existence of viruses (or the “validity” of any other scientific theory) cannot be decided by a Court of law!

This particular case was about the prize offered by Lanka for anyone proving the measles viruses exist. The Court decided the required proof was not presented, so Lanka didn’t have to pay the prize, which means at least he didn’t lose the case. (The personal opinion about the existence of viruses of the people involved is irrelevant!)

So this statement is false: “The court papers showing Lanka lost the court cases…”

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Freeman2
2 months ago

“The Court decided the required proof was not presented”.

Is total rubbish.
The court papers for the Appeal decision clearly show that they all agreed viruses exist BUT Lanka asked for ONE paper and Bardens supplied SIX papers so due to semantics and this technicality the Court decided he didn’t have to pay the bet.

https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic/post/lanka-loses-2-court-cases-in-germany-as-the-judges-and-experts-all-confirm-the-existence-of-viruses

Freeman2
Freeman2
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

“The Court decided the required proof was not presented”.

THIS IS FACT! and the reason why the prize was not to be paid!

“Bardens supplied SIX papers so due to semantics and this technicality the Court decided he didn’t have to pay the bet.”

This is FALSE! and the problem was that NONE of those papers, alone, proved the existence of the measles virus!!! They admitted that!

It was claimed by the “experts” that however, _when_taken_together_, the 6 papers did prove the existence…

And all those who “agreed” are just like you, believers in the virus-theory, and that was just their opinion on that. Not a proof that measles viruses exist!

There can be no proof for the existence of any kind of “virus” without proper _isolation_ of such particle in the first place. And that hasn’t been done yet!

Freeman2
Freeman2
Reply to  GeoffB
2 months ago

Unlike you, I did read the entire decision of the German Court (in original).

Regarding your link, the comment @88: “(In other words the expert agreed that it had been proved that the measles virus existed).” is misleading! Just read the entire 88…

The expert actually claimed that, when_taken_together, the papers provided the required evidence (”…the expert had shown his result that the evidence could be regarded as having been obtained when all publications were viewed together…”)

FACT IS: “NONE of those papers, alone, proved the existence of the measles virus”. They admitted that!

How could you expect the Court to decide in favour of Lanka, and overturn the first Court’s decision, simply based on “semantics” as you claimed?!

trackback
26 days ago

[…] Debunking the “Corona Conspiracy Debunkers”. By a Top British Biomedical Scientist – The Expos… […]