Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Hi Lloyd,

The quote I provided is from the Forum Rules here..
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... f=2&t=2#p2 (scroll down)
.. not from any particular post in this thread.

Just seems to me that a discussion on vaccinations, COVID, big pharma, doesn’t seem to fit within that rule.

No antagonism, just an opinion on placement of the thread.

255

JP, will you share here how you find the censored stuff? And how do you find the best scientific papers on a topic?
Alternative search engines are probably important. I use Ecosia.org and DuckDuckGo.com/. For papers on health PubMed is probably the major source with a lot of them being accessible directly for free. But it's hard to interpret most of those papers. And I suppose many of them are probably written on behalf of pharmaceutical corporations and the like. Do you know if that's the case? I mentioned that James Sloane is the best source I know of on health, as he seems to know how to interpret such papers properly. But he doesn't likely have time to answer everyone's specific questions. He has pointed out a lot of myths in the alternative health field, like alkaline water, alkaline diet, soy dangers, iodine remedies etc. To be clear he says alkaline water etc is bad, antacids are very bad, cooked or fermented soy is very good, iodine is very dangerous etc. He explains that in some detail. One of his old sites is medcapsules.com. His private Facebook group is his most recent source of info. He had an old Curezone.com forum too.

I look forward to more of your finds.

JP Michael wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:31 pm

Lloyd wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:43 pm JP, what's your experience in the health field? Seems like you have quite a bit.

Health specific, only the last 15 months researching COVID. But as a trained academic with past experiences in the sciences (cell biology, chemistry) I know my way around literature, especially how to find the censored stuff.

I started researching naturopathic medicine recently to help my wife get off all the toxic allopathic crap. Once you start down that rabbit hole there's no going back. The utter corruption of modern medicine and pharmacy is unbelieveable. Then you start connecting the dots with the likes of John D. Rockefeller, the Nazi T4 Project and MKUltra experiments on human subjects and it's very easy to understand that COVID has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'virus'.

I'll have some more papers on that shortly but I can't post hyperlinks easily on my phone.

Crawler said: "Overpopulation is hurting lifeforms. Pollution. Loss of habitat. Global warming. Extinctions.
Drastic actions needed.
Our best chance is for China to take over."

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Increasing CO2 has greatly increased the biosphere, esp. plant life. Randall Carlson had a video in which he explained that during the Ice Age, at least in some locations wherever CO2 levels were measured for that period, levels were so low, I think around 200 ppm, that all plant life was in danger of going extinct. I've read elsewhere that CO2 levels were much higher than at present during earlier times before the Ice Age. It appears that the Ice Age occurred after the Great Flood and only lasted less than a thousand years. Part of the myth of global warming is due to the belief that sedimentary rock strata were deposited over many millions of years, whereas we've found that they were mostly deposited in only about half a year. I've lately also referenced in my Creationism, Myths and Catastrophism thread Creationist articles that show that the Earth, the solar system and even the universe are very young. I haven't come to that conclusion yet, but the claims seem to have some good evidence that I want to pursue soon.

I'm concerned about pollution, habitat, extinction etc too, but China surely won't solve such problems. Their pollution is among the worst in the world and they're a dictatorship, which is only concerned about the ruling class and no one else. Overpopulation of the ruling class is the real threat IMO.

Lloyd wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:41 pm how you find the censored stuff?

I have found that one key is finding strong, independent journalists who do deep dives into a topic. These are old-style investigative journalists that aren't afraid to dig up skeletons and parade them around, even if it personally costs them a lot. These are your primary censored voices, people who will say what the mainstream desperately plugs their ears not to hear. They'll dig up gold, and since they fully reference their sources, it's easy to track down stuff you would have otherwise passed by.

Here are some names that have been of great benefit to me along the way:

Jon Rappoport
James Corbett
Ryan Cristián
Whitney Webb
Derrick Broze
Celia Farber
Kit Knightly
J.B. Handley (although his blog has had much deleted from it)
Torsten Engelbrecht
Rosemary Frei
Rob Sloane
William Engdahl
Spiro Skouras

There are plenty more, but these will really get you into the deep end. It was because of Rappoport's work, for example, that I became aware of HIV dissenters like Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis and the Perth Group. Through Engelbrecht I was introduced to Stefan Lanka's work dismantling the fundamentals of virus theory (read the English text articles). Whitney Webb deep dives the utter corruption of the medical/pharmaceutical industry and its ties to a murderous Defense establishment; Engdahl concentrates on the economic side of the worldwide finance mafia, including brilliant exposition of the "Great Reset."

I include Rob Sloane with the above, even though he does not write as often as the others, because his is one of a scant few distinctly Christian dissenting voices. Creationists like AIG and CMI have completely caved and are close to 100% 'mainstream' (although AIG at least admits the possibility that HCQ is a valid treatment option; in the CMI pro-vax article linked above, Sarfati fallaciously associates HCQ with Nazi German pharmaceutical manufacturing in order to discredit it as a viable treatment option. If Sarfati considers this argument valid, then he should consider the Nazi eugenics ties of at least one of the current crop of mRNA vaccine developers. Of course, Sarfati is just a biased shill and no manner of evidence will convince him that he's condoning a modern version of the T4 project [Watch first 10-15 mins - skip German translation sections]).

And never forget to critique what you read! Just because a solid journalist said it, doesn't mean they don't have their own interpretive biases. Join the fray, form your own opinion and defend it with reasons and evidence.

JP, what about scientific papers? Where do you find the best scientific info? Is there anything besides PubMed?

Miles Mathis mentions James Corbett in a couple of his papers and considers him controlled opposition.

kmcook,

After reviewing this thread I have to agree. It belongs on the NIAMI board.

Searching Databases

Lloyd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:13 pm JP, what about scientific papers? Where do you find the best scientific info? Is there anything besides PubMed?

Searching databases is an art in itself. I find it easier to find a voice on the topic of interest and trawl their footnotes and chase the rabbit trail from there. These days most digital science and medical papers are hotlinked to the DOI database, so commencing a rabbit trail is as simple as a single click. When you see the same names or papers keep coming up, those are the trails to start following. The issue is knowing what is useful for what you're trying to research, and what isn't.

For example, early on in the COVID hoax I was looking at Adeno-Associated Virus vector (AAV) technologies (this tech is used in AstraZeneca, Sputnik-V and J&J). I wanted to discern whether or not AAV could really permanently change the host DNA. Sure enough, one name kept coming up: R.J. Samulski. Turns out to be a father-son team who have been researching the tech for more than 50 years (Hastie & Samulski, 2015). They assert that the older AAV tech was specifically used to undertake targeted integration of viral DNA/RNA into human chromosome 19 (Samulski et al., 1991). A later paper demonstrated that newer tech did not have to integrate the AAV 'payload' into the host cell chromosomes; one could regulate various genomic expressions without chromosomal DNA integration (Li & Samulski, 2020). Thus, when the mainstream media says that these DNA/RNA vaccines do not (have to) alter human DNA sequences, it is technically correct. But the frightening thing is that the older tech, the stuff that's been around for at least 50 years, could. There's no reason to suppose that, if a DNA/RNA vaccine developer had an ulterior motive, they could introduce synthetic DNA/RNA to a human host and reprogram their chromosomal DNA via integration, turning that host into a fully GMO God-knows-what. And that is something you will never see in the media in discussion of these novel DNA/RNA vaccine technologies. It also shifts the debate from science (what can be done) to motive/morality (should it be done).

Critiquing Methodologies

What can be more difficult is discerning methodological problems. How someone answers a question can be just as important as the supposed answers themselves. For example, there is quite the public stir about how the SARS-CoV-2 virus has or has not been 'isolated'. This is a question of method: how do we answer the question, "Has the SARS-CoV-2 virus been isolated?" So the mainstream will assert, "Yes, it was isolated: this is how..." and cite the handful of publications demonstrating virus isolation (e.g. here). But there have been not a few criticisms of the method of 'isolation' used, namely, that it is actually the opposite of 'isolation' in the normal sense of the word (e.g. see here). To 'isolate' a virus, a sample is taken from the suspected diseased human host. The suspected viral sample is grown in a culture of green-monkey kidney cells (vero). Bovine calf serum must be added to this cellular culture or else the host vero cells will die. Antibiotics and antifungals must also be added to this culture, or else the host vero cells will die. Eventually all the cells 'die' and 'virus' abounds in the sample. This is then centrifuged by a process called pelletisation, and the resulting pellet(s) is/are the 'isolated' virus. An amalgam of 3 biologicals (human-monkey-bovine) and 2 chemicals + centrifuge = 'isolation' in modern virology.

Some researchers have called out this methodology of 'isolation' as seriously flawed (see link above for examples, and Andrew Kaufman). Firstly, River's Postulates (1937) require the 'virus' to be cultured on host cells (i.e. human, not monkey). Yet many cases of virus isolation since ~1951 has used animal cells, not human cells, for culturing; or if they do use human cells, they do not use cells obtained from the diseased host but various 'immortal' (cancerous) human cell lines. Secondly, under no circumstances was 'pure' virus ever extracted from a sample (this is all viruses, not just SARS-CoV-2). The centrifugation process could have been done by gradient-diffusion to actually separate and isolate particles by density, but instead they use pelletisation. The process of culturing itself was a series of additions of biologicals and chemicals; it is Stefan Lanka's particular contention that there is no control test demonstrating that this process itself did not result in 'cell death' and the production of 'virus'. In fact, when he ran such control tests for his 2016 measles court case [PDF], using sterilised, virus-free sample instead of a viral sample, the same outcome resulted - the cells died and produced 'virus', even though the sample had never been exposed to 'virus'. Thirdly, there are other methods available for the complete isolation of viral-sized particles (20-140 nm) from a biological sample that do not require culturing on vero cells, or additions of antibiotics or antifungals. Virology has availed itself of none of these techniques to isolate a 'virus' from a sample. Why not? Wouldn't it forever put to bed claims to the contrary, that SARS-CoV-2 (or viruses generally) cannot be isolated from an infected human? Hence the suspicion remains that virology's claims of viral 'isolation' do not accomplish what they say it does. There are serious methodological flaws with their isolation process that need redress, and no-one wants to touch this bomb because, if true, it potentially destroys the entire edifice of virology, epidemiology and modern anti-viral pharmacy. Do you really think Big Pharma is going to allow science to make them forfeit billions in profits for unnecessary anti-viral therapies if 'viruses' don't actually cause contagious illness in humans but are actually the result of other processes of cell death?

So, just because a paper claims to answer a question, it doesn't mean the manner of answering that question is valid. It takes discernment and methodological expertise to understand such issues, which requires exposure to the relevant fields, methodologies, and critiques thereof.

Controlled Opposition: Everyone?

Lloyd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:13 pm Miles Mathis mentions James Corbett in a couple of his papers and considers him controlled opposition.

And how do you know Miles Mathis isn't controlled opposition, a dispensary of fake news and misinformation? How do I know you or I are not controlled opposition of such a definition? This is lazy argument that can be slung at anyone one disagrees with. What criteria does Miles use to identify "controlled opposition," and does he himself qualify under those criteria?

While I do not doubt the concept of controlled opposition (CIA Handbook standard procedure), how does one discern that a certain person or group is one, and can those criteria be used against the proponent? An example is a recent article by ABC Australia: "Can a 'Psychological Vaccine' Protect against Fake News and COVID Disinformation?" This article identifies six core critera of 'disinformation':

ABC wrote:Polarisation — amplifying existing grievances and tensions between different groups
Invoking emotions — such as fear, anger, or empathy
Spreading conspiracy theories — creating or amplifying alternative explanations for news events which assume that these events are controlled by a small, usually malicious, secret elite group of people
Trolling people online —deliberately inciting a reaction from a target audience by using bait
Discrediting others — typically to deflect blame and accusations of bias
Impersonating more credible sources — such as setting up a fake Twitter account

If I were to judge a mainstream media source by these criteria (such as the ABC itself), what would I discover? Their articles exhibit polarisation (Antifa riots and 'white racism' wholeheartedly sponsored by MSM, etc), invoke emotions (do i need to cite examples? "Grandma will catch COVID, ACT LIKE YOU HAVE IT NOW!" "Save the NIH" etc), spread conspiracy theories (like the idea that 'science', a small and elite group of people, should control the COVID narrative; tech companies should ban all dissent), troll people online, discredit others ("Fact-check," banning/smearing dissenters) and impersonate credible sources (fake experts like front-man Fauci, or here in Aus, Norman Swan). In other words, they condemn themselves as the peddlers of fake news and disinformation. They are controlled opposition. ABC has slain itself by its own sword. I suspect if these criteria were used to judge Miles Mathis, he too would be found as a peddler of fake news and disinformation; he is controlled opposition. Pretty much anything anyone says would fall into one of these categories at some point (including this polarising generalisation), thus anyone can be labelled at any time with anything and we're no closer at the truth than we were when we started.

The solution, then, is a better definition and categorisation of "controlled opposition." Got any suggestions by which you do not implicate yourself?

410

VIRUSES

JP, sounds like you've learned a lot about virology and you think viruses are decay products of living cells. Is that what you think? James Sloane is the smartest person I know on health matters and he says viruses are real, including the Covid virus, and he thinks the virus was likely genetically engineered. He says most cancers are caused by specific viruses. He says HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but the government changed the definition of AIDS so they could say that HIV does cause it, so Gallo could make lots of money selling useless HIV detection kits. He says AZT causes AIDS and that it was not allowed to be used for chemotherapy, because it destroys bone marrow where blood cells are made, so the AZT makers sold it as an AIDS treatment. The guy who invented the PCR method found that out too, i.e. that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. There's a different virus that causes it. I'm familiar with the claim that viruses are not independent organisms, but I don't know enough to make a confident judgment.

CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

Controlled opposition means intelligence agencies form and heavily finance opposition groups themselves so they can prevent potential opponents from gaining popularity and support. They control what their own opposition groups say so they sound like real opposition, but never get anywhere.

IMO,the idea that covid has been engineered by someone, not necessarily the chinese, is quite plausible. Manipulation of viral material is widespread and is the basis for many vaccines. Here is a description of pseudoviruses which discusses some of the virus modification techniques and their applications.

When SARS-CoV-2 first began spreading across the globe, not every lab was equipped to study it directly. ... researchers turned to models of the pathogen such as pseudoviruses and chimeric viruses that can be studied safely in labs ...Pseudoviruses don’t replicate, rendering them harmless, but by replacing their surface envelope proteins with those of SARS-CoV-2, researchers can glean insights into the ways the pathogen infects cells. A chimeric virus is made by inserting the genetic material of one virus into the genome of another, safe surrogate, and these introduced sequences are passed on when the virus replicates.  In addition to their safety, pseudoviruses are “extremely versatile in that you can . . . introduce different envelope proteins and you can introduce mutations, which is making it extremely useful for us to screen a lot of different variants,” says Carol Weiss, a virologist who heads the laboratory of immunoregulation at the US Food and Drug Administration. “If you want to introduce mutations in real viruses, it’s a whole lot more work."

”Pseudoviruses were first developed in the 1960s, after scientists began studying a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) isolated from cattle. In addition to replicating well in culture, they later learned that its surface protein, VSV-G, facilitates entry into all eukaryotic cells, making the virus a useful vector not only as a pseudovirus but as a ferry to deliver DNA into cells for therapeutic purposes.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... ov-2-68457

And speaking of pseudoviruses, they feature in this report about how antidepressants suppress covid type organisms.

Clinically available antidepressants inhibit infection by pseudoviruses without significant impact on cell viabilitySeveral clinically prescribed antidepressants, including citalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, and reboxetine, as well as antipsychotic compounds such as flupenthixol, chlorpromazine, and pimozide, were found to be capable of inhibiting infection by pseudoviruses with minimal impact on cell viability. The antiviral activity of many of these drugs was tested in Calu-1 cells against the B.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage. ...These results show the potential of these widely used antidepressants and antipsychotics against infection by SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants. Thermal shift assays and X-ray diffraction studies revealed specific interaction sites for drugs including clomipramine, imipramine, thioridazine, sertraline, and paroxetine, on EBOV glycoprotein.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... ants).aspx

Does this suggest that depressive illnesses have some type of viral/retroviral origin?

And finally, another story about viral manipulation,

... retroviruses have been tamed for use in gene therapy, so it is possible to take out all of the genes that allow the retrovirus to replicate itself and replace that with a gene that the particular cell that you're interested in is missing.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Retrovirus

Not sure I'd want this technology falling into the wrong hands.

IMO,the idea that covid has been engineered by someone, not necessarily the chinese, is quite plausible.

It's the Vatican!!

Lloyd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:07 pm JP, sounds like you've learned a lot about virology and you think viruses are decay products of living cells. Is that what you think?

This is half the story. I believe that what medical science has identified as 'virus,' and actually known about and first identified by Bechamp in the 19th century, is a critical component of a complex intracellular communications network. Healthy and unhealthy cells produce 'virus', as well as other intracellular organelles like villi or exosomes. They're not pathogenic (although defective encapsulated RNA/DNA in the organelle can result in non-contagious genetic disease). Our cells produce these all the time; your body and your external environment (e.g. any body of water) is full of quadrillions of them and they do not make you sick. It is thus not just a function of dying or dead cells but also living ones. Dying cells produce more of them, however; experiments have proven that anitbiotics, for example, result in the copious cellular production of 'virus-like' particles (e.g. here and here). And guess what virology 'isolation' adds to cell cultures to 'prove' viruses caused cell death?

So when the pharmaceutical industry comes along and says, "We need to destroy these 'viruses' in the human body with a vaccine," I hear, "We need to totally and completely cripple the human intracellular communications system."

I believe we are on the cusp of the greatest tragedy imaginable: billions are going to die because after they take these 'vaccines' their own immune systems will be crippled (temporarily or permanently). They can then fall victim to just about any regular pathogen, be it common bacterium, fungi, amoebas or some specifically bioengineered weapon released on a widely immunocompromised public.

Lloyd wrote:He says most cancers are caused by specific viruses.

Nonsense. Many cancers are caused by incessant exposure to multiple artificial toxins. This includes, but is not limited to, pesticides (e.g. glyphosate, imazalil), heavy metals in water, food and air (aluminium, strontium, barium), plastics (e.g. cooking on TEFLON), and toxic body/self-care products (shampoos, skin creams). And this is easily proven by assessing cultures whose lifestyles do not include exposure to such - they have basically no cancer, even if other kinds of disease are more prevalent. There can be no 'cure for cancer' until its known causes, human-made carcinogenic toxins, are addressed. Given the amount of politics and money involved not just Big Pharma, but also Big Agriculture, the cancer cash cow isn't going away anytime soon. It's up to individuals and communities to reduce their toxin exposures and start growing their own food and break the reliance on toxic Big Ag.

I supplied a link above to the Perth Group who have conclusively proven that the HIV virus does not exist. Peter Duesberg was chief proponent of this view, whom I respect, and whose book Inventing the AIDS Virus is definitely worth a read. AIDS is primarily, although not exclusively, caused by exposure to a large variety of toxins, especially recreational drugs. Those persons diagnosed with AIDS who cleaned up their habits and stopped poisoning themselves with toxic chemical substances saw the elimination of their AIDS condition. No virus (or toxic antiviral drugs) required.

by Lloyd » Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:07 pm

"VIRUSES - JP, sounds like you've learned a lot about virology and you think viruses are decay products of living cells. Is that what you think? James Sloane is the smartest person I know on health matters and he says viruses are real, including the Cl9 virus, and he thinks the virus was likely genetically engineered. He says most cancers are caused by specific viruses."

Lloyd, that is really interesting, thank you so much for that lead! I have been working in that direction myself. There are many important indicators that cancer is caused by various viruses and if you get a chance, it would make a really good topic for discussion on the Human Question.

Lloyd says, "Controlled opposition means intelligence agencies form and heavily finance opposition groups themselves so they can prevent potential opponents from gaining popularity and support. They control what their own opposition groups say so they sound like real opposition, but never get anywhere."

Well said. The media and nearly the entire political class are all assets. Many famous "thought leaders" are also.

JP, it appears we have been down the same rabbit hole. I was going to post some of what you did but it looks like you beat me to it. Have you read any of Broxmeyer? He posits that tuberculosis is the underlying cause of several diseases thought to be caused by viruses. https://www.academia.edu/12969247/SARS_ ... al_acronym

I'm happy to see you recommend Whitney Webb. I highly recommend her work as well. She's an actual journalist.

Most of us here believe that astrophysics has gone down the wrong path for over the last 100+ years, many other science fields have done the same, especially the medical field.

dren wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:59 pm Have you read any of Broxmeyer? He posits that tuberculosis is the underlying cause of several diseases thought to be caused by viruses. https://www.academia.edu/12969247/SARS_ ... al_acronym

Cheers mate. I was not aware of this in this level of detail (although I was already aware that the 1918-20 Flu pandemic was caused by an experimental bacterial vaccine (secondary version here).

One other decent name I omitted out of forgetfulness is C.J. Hopkins over at the Consent Factory, who satire and parody would be wonderful comic relief if it were not so darn close to the truth.

658

From the other thread, I came up with these ideas for further research.
1. WHERE OR HOW CAN WE GET ACCURATE DATA ON COVID DEATHS?
2. WHAT ARE THE DATA ON HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR COVID?
3. LET'S GATHER A LIST OF ALL THE GAMES THE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN PLAYING WITH THIS PANDEMIC.
4. IS EMOTIONALISM APPROPRIATE IN SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION? HOW SHOULD IT BE HANDLED SCIENTIFICALLY?

I just found a letter from my chiropractor from March 6 in which he warned against taking the Covid vaccines.