As I remember primary school (age 6-12) pupils formed groups with leaders. I could gossip about leaders, but I could not walk up to a leader and call him a liar. It didn't matter if my point was true or useful. Changes came about by new groups being formed or existing groups changing position.
As I remember primary school (age 6-12) pupils formed groups with leaders. I could gossip about leaders, but I could not walk up to a leader and call him a liar. It didn't matter if my point was true or useful. Changes came about by new groups being formed or existing groups changing position.
Allopathic medicine is a big and powerful group. A medical "true speaker", even if he doesn't care about his own status and finances, has friends and family who do. The step from contrarian to whistleblower is one you cannot cross.
I admire Lanka, Scoglio, Coppolino, Zeck and especially the Baileys. The Baileys linked to Proton Magic. The internet is an enlightening show.
Maybe listen to Coppolino's interview with Scoglio. I found it disturbing. Coppolino is also extremely arrogant when interacting with commenters/subscribers. I have absolutely no admiration for him at all anymore. The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff.
Thanks for the info. I admire some in the no-virus but not necessarily everything everybody says. I want to stay anonymous and unmonitized so I can be a free spirit writer, and avoid professional complications. Some of the no-virus do not want to commit to a stance on something they can not fully back up, and they do benefit from the community they have built up. For disclosure, I do have some email exchange with some of them and it is helpful to share info off line.
If they choose not to focus on certain issues, that's fine but Scoglio IS taking a stance on the nanotech stuff and it's all BS for him. Unfortunately Coppolino stifled any debate in the comments section and Scoglio didn't even bother to engage with commenters. Very disappointing.
You can always put the info in your own post and send it out. If you link it in my comments I will restack it or paste the link into a new post for you. You would get > 3,000 persons to see it without having to collect subscribers and get the debate going on your and/or my comment section. I'm assuming you are allowed to copy that interview I dont know. As long as I (and you) dont monetize myself and call this SS "For educational purposes" I am able to put anything on it as long as referenced.
He'd just done a long interview with Coppolino (who I think published his paper) so I assume he would be interested in the feed back. I noticed he engaged quite a bit with commenters on his Nov22 interview with Torsten Engelbrecht published by Off-Guardian. I asked Coppolino if he'd be commenting and he replied "he's free to" or something like that.
So if someone comments on 1 platform they're obligated to comment on all platforms, and are sketchy in your mind if they don't? Again, he doesn't even have a SS account that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Not obligated but as it must have been one of the first interviews he'd done since his paper was published in English, maybe even the first, that Coppolino had also published it on his site and that Scoglio's stated aim in giving the interview was to foster further discussion on the subject ("we need to have a discussion with those who are on our side who take GO for granted, believe it"), yes I would have expected him to comment. I can't remember if you need to open a SS account to comment but I imagine it's not hard to do.
And discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion?
I don't open accounts on every platform so that I can respond to comments under my interviews. Life's too short. And Stefano is a busy man, not someone who spends much time on social media that I can see.
Speaking as a fairly well-known no-virus person, part of the "they" you refer to: I don't focus on the quackcines at all anymore. Tons of people are doing that, while still relatively few address the fact that there's never been any "virus" shown to exist, ever in the history of virology, to get quackcinated against. It's got nothing to do with following any leader or "gospel", it's my own personal choice. It's quite offensive to read your false presumption.
The subject of the interview was whether or not there was GO in the shots. Scoglio claims there's not and that those who claim there is are frauds. That's pretty offensive too don't you think?
Statements about a substance should be based on data not a claim and "frauds" is a bit unnecessary rude term especially if he has no data to disprove graphene in the shots.
Well there is no onus to prove a negative, and he did what we do with virology - he reviewed the claims and pointed out flaws in the reasoning and evidence in his 20 page pdf on the topic as you know.
I just scanned this, I suppose he should say graphene hasn't been found as yet in the vials tested. If he did not prove it is not in the shots in all the batches then I dont understand why he says it "does not exist". Let me know if I am mistaken.
He's saying that "graphene" has never been shown to exist, period, and that the concept is ridiculous. And he reviews evidence for the alleged "graphene" in jabs and shows its flaws.
Obviously no one can show that "graphene" is not in all the batches and there's no onus to prove a negative. Regardless, the whole "graphene" issue is moot until someone can show that "graphene" even exists.
Honestly, I have to admit I dont have the background to make educated statements on material science and its tests unless I did a deep dive. "Never been shown to exist" is a statement I like, I have no ability to decide if that is "ridiculous" or not but, I would prefer a professor to use the term, "no supporting data". Bozo the clown is ridiculous, virology has no supporting data.
He did not use the word "ridiculous" at all in his pdf, that was me paraphrasing. He might have said it in his interview, I don't know. He's called virology "bullshit" several times, and backs his position up with facts and logic, which is A-OK with me. I call virology ridiculous all the time, because it is.
The interview was about whether or not there was "graphene" in the vials, not about whether virology is BS which I assume vast majority of subscribers here agree with. What Scoglio did was call those who claim there IS "graphene" in the vials fraudsters and the microscopist group of using CGI to fear monger and deceive.
Are you suggesting that because Stefano said something that you find offensive that justifies you saying something that is offensive towards myself and other no-virus people?
Have you taken into account the things that Stefano pointed out about "graphene", i.e. that it is said to be the same thing as graphite but in sheets only 1 atom thick (or up to 9 atoms depending on who you listen to) and that having such extraordinary thinness magically imparts the new property of being the strongest substance on Earth? It's even described as "2 dimensional" by some sources https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1742706121004293.
That sounds pretty ludicrous to me, and I'm not sure how anyone could verify the existence of something said to be only 1 atom thick. Are you?
Personally I wasn't offended but if I'd been Campra who he called a fraud I would've been. Ditto for microscopists who he claims are creating animation videos, "like the virus [cartoons]... with CGI". People like Dr Nixon, Matt Taylor, Shimon Yanowitz & numerous others have put as much work and effort into showing us what's in the vials/blood/other products as you have showing us sars2 is a scam. I've said nothing offensive here about you or no-virus group. I'm totally in no virus camp. Following the leader is just part of group dynamics and we're all susceptible to it to some extent. On the specifics of graphene/graphene oxide & use in biosensing, thank you, very useful paper. There's more to this than meets the eye, literally. But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show.
No one likes being called a fraud, but if/when someone puts themselves forward as a scientist and promotes fear around a hypothetical substance with remarkable and scary properties being injected into the bodies of millions and millions of people, and persists even after the flaws in their story are pointed out, it's only natural that someone might call them a fraud.
Ditto for people peddling "virus" cartoons, no matter how much effort they might put into "showing" what's in vials and blood. (Especially if they also promote the "spike protein" narrative.)
There is zero reason for debates around "graphene" to be restricted to Eric's show, what a strange suggestion.
Stefano has helped expose that:
1) there's no science showing a "virus" and the entire "pandemic" narrative is garbage,
2) the jabs have not been shown to cause the body to produce "spike protein",
3) the "spike protein" studies are based on lab-created proteins not found in people, and indirect non-specific tests,
4) that the existence of "graphene" is an unproven assertion.
Can you point to any falsehoods that he has promoted?
"The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff."
That's offensive and inaccurate in more than 1 level. No-virus people do not agree on everything, in fact some vehemently disagree on some things. There is even some disagreement over "the spike protein" (although all agree that the jabs have not been shown to create it). We are independent thinkers and take different approaches to our no-virus work. Most have spent relatively little time on the quackcines because until people realize that the core scam of "germ theory" is a misdirect they'll continue being harmed in myriad ways, jabs and otherwise, fake-covid and otherwise. Quite different from peddling fear porn over imaginary "viruses", bodies full of "spike protein" and 1 atom thick "graphene".
"No one likes being called a fraud, but if/when someone puts themselves forward as a scientist and promotes fear around a hypothetical substance with remarkable and scary properties being injected into the bodies of millions and millions of people, and persists even after the flaws in their story are pointed out, it's only natural that someone might call them a fraud. Ditto for people peddling "virus" cartoons, no matter how much effort they might put into "showing" what's in vials and blood. (Especially if they also promote the "spike protein" narrative.)"
Scoglio was not referring to some would-be scientist stirring up fear over a hypothetical substance via scary cartoon images, but to ALL those presenting their microscopic findings which seem to show nanoparticles assembling in vials/blood/other products, particularly when subjected to emf radiation. He claims they are ALL using CGI. He needs to be more specific, name those who are doing this and precisely how they're doing it. Until he does that, he has not demonstrated any flaws at all. Even the virus-pushing doctors/scientists have not gone that far. Most, like pathologist Ryan Cole, say they are simply confusing them with crystals - salt, sucrose, cholesterol, other lipids. Regarding those who "peddle virus cartoons", most of them probably genuinely believe in what they're presenting. It's a question of mis- vs. disinformation. A couple are trying to shut down the nanotech discussion as well. We've all seen viral vid of Ryan Cole interrupting Astrid Stueckelberger's presentation at a conference in Sweden last year where she tried to broach the GO topic (with Latypova and Rose nodding along contemptuously in the backgtround). Latypova is interesting. She was always open-minded on both no-virus & GO, then did a complete U-turn after listening to JJ Couey clone theory then interview with the joyful scatologist Sabine Hazan and now allows herself to copiously insult anyone who brings up either issue. You know about that because she made some pretty nasty comments to you under Hazan vid which you later did SS article on. She went on to smear nanotech/GO pushers, dismissing them all as nutjobs. I defended both the nanotech and no virus "nutjobs", yourself in particular and promptly got myself banned from commenting "for a 100 years" with no refund of my subscription fee. At least Coppolino only banned me for a month! I also unsubscribed from Kirsch where I'd been a paid subscriber for maybe a year, after complaining about Kevin McCairn's disgusting comment to you. I don't recall any of the top dogs condescending to defend you. If so, "pls provide proof" as you would say. One word from Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey would have shut Kirsch up once and for all. I can't imagine McCairn daring to insult Bailey's wife like that without hubby & all the top dogs stepping in to defend her? Too busy or too important to make a SS comment to defend you? I don't think so. You are wasting your precious time supporting them to focus on debating with a no-one like me over a Scoglio paper or Coppolino's shenanigans. No need to worry about the alpha dogs. They're all doing just fine. Look into dog pack dynamics. As for Eric, he's at best a toutou, at worst a Schweinhund or maybe just a dog-eat-dog person?
"There is zero reason for debates around "graphene" to be restricted to Eric's show, what a strange suggestion."
Agree, very strange suggestion. Please let me know where I said that.
"Stefano has helped expose that: 1) there's no science showing a "virus" and the entire "pandemic" narrative is garbage; 2) the jabs have not been shown to cause the body to produce "spike protein"; 3) the "spike protein" studies are based on lab-created proteins not found in people, and indirect non-specific tests."
Agree with 1) and 2). I would rephrase 3) as follows: "Alleged proof of spike protein presence in blood/tissues of vaccine-injured or deceased is based on presence of non-specific antibodies untested against other potential toxic substances" (aka PEG, GO etc.) I would also suggest Scoglio is unclear re. mRNA. He has said that it is extremely toxic yet is found excreted unmetabolized from the body, i.e. it goes in and comes out in same form, so remains at extra-cellular level until we flush it out. Others have claimed to have found either no mRNA or very little in the shots.
"Can you point to any falsehoods that [Scoglio] has promoted?"
No. Scoglio first needs to clarify the what/who/how, as noted in separate post.
"The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff....That's offensive and inaccurate in more than 1 level. No-virus people do not agree on everything, in fact some vehemently disagree on some things. There is even some disagreement over "the spike protein" (although all agree that the jabs have not been shown to create it). We are independent thinkers and take different approaches to our no-virus work. Most have spent relatively little time on the quackcines because until people realize that the core scam of "germ theory" is a misdirect they'll continue being harmed in myriad ways, jabs and otherwise, fake-covid and otherwise. Quite different from peddling fear porn over imaginary "viruses", bodies full of "spike protein" and 1 atom thick "graphene"."
I think I've already explained my follow-the-leader comment in separate post(s). On spike protein, I heard Mark Bailey say it has been defined in med lit (independently from sars2) so it exists in some form or another, that its function/origin are unclear but given sars2 has not been proven to exist, same goes for sars2 spike protein, so if no virus logically no spike either. I've heard Cowan toing & froing over exosomes vs. spike and parroting Scoglio on mythical nanoparticles. I would say there's more disagreement over shedding which Kaufman has dismissed as probably anecdotal and possibly psychosomatic. Well he would know I suppose, being an ex-psychiatrist and no doubt having force- injected 1000s of schizos with "safe & effective" poison until covid somehow woke him up. Not to forget he invented a device to detect moment when schizo is about to do away with himself after years of being told the voices that plague him are mere anecdotes and due to chemical imbalance in his brain. Maybe ask him about it. Does it work with biosensors and if how, is it wearable, implantable? On independent thinkers, not so sure, but definitely some are in a bit of a bubble. Fine not to focus on "quacksines". Fine too for others to focus on their contents without being labelled as fraudsters. Of course, exposing virology as fraudulent pseudoscience is crucial. That's why I began this thread (another one?) promoting your essential work and suggesting how to move the cause forward. I also understand immense obstacles in the way and accept general consensus expressed here that my suggestions were unrealistic. So for time being, my focus is on contents of shots and how my daughter & granddaughter in particular, can detoxify themselves.
I've explained several times that my comment was not directed at you personally. Take it or leave it. Too easy to ignore the rest of my comment which I took some time to make in response to all the comments/ questions you've been bombarding me with over past few days. I could have ignored you too. Believe you me, I have enough stress in my life already without taking on your tantrums. We're all entitled to express our opinions, however misguided they may be/you think they are. Keep playing thought police and you will alienate even your most ardent supporters and ultimately impede the cause we all support.
As I remember primary school (age 6-12) pupils formed groups with leaders. I could gossip about leaders, but I could not walk up to a leader and call him a liar. It didn't matter if my point was true or useful. Changes came about by new groups being formed or existing groups changing position.
Allopathic medicine is a big and powerful group. A medical "true speaker", even if he doesn't care about his own status and finances, has friends and family who do. The step from contrarian to whistleblower is one you cannot cross.
I admire Lanka, Scoglio, Coppolino, Zeck and especially the Baileys. The Baileys linked to Proton Magic. The internet is an enlightening show.
Maybe listen to Coppolino's interview with Scoglio. I found it disturbing. Coppolino is also extremely arrogant when interacting with commenters/subscribers. I have absolutely no admiration for him at all anymore. The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff.
Thanks for the info. I admire some in the no-virus but not necessarily everything everybody says. I want to stay anonymous and unmonitized so I can be a free spirit writer, and avoid professional complications. Some of the no-virus do not want to commit to a stance on something they can not fully back up, and they do benefit from the community they have built up. For disclosure, I do have some email exchange with some of them and it is helpful to share info off line.
If they choose not to focus on certain issues, that's fine but Scoglio IS taking a stance on the nanotech stuff and it's all BS for him. Unfortunately Coppolino stifled any debate in the comments section and Scoglio didn't even bother to engage with commenters. Very disappointing.
You can always put the info in your own post and send it out. If you link it in my comments I will restack it or paste the link into a new post for you. You would get > 3,000 persons to see it without having to collect subscribers and get the debate going on your and/or my comment section. I'm assuming you are allowed to copy that interview I dont know. As long as I (and you) dont monetize myself and call this SS "For educational purposes" I am able to put anything on it as long as referenced.
Sounds strange and I would just ignore what the Scog says then.
Is Stefano even on Substack? If he is, it's news to me.
I think it's Eric's interview someplace I may have seen it, I do not recall Stefano on SS as poster or commenter.
Right, so there's no surprise Stefano didn't engage in the comments if/when he's not even on ss.
He'd just done a long interview with Coppolino (who I think published his paper) so I assume he would be interested in the feed back. I noticed he engaged quite a bit with commenters on his Nov22 interview with Torsten Engelbrecht published by Off-Guardian. I asked Coppolino if he'd be commenting and he replied "he's free to" or something like that.
So if someone comments on 1 platform they're obligated to comment on all platforms, and are sketchy in your mind if they don't? Again, he doesn't even have a SS account that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Not obligated but as it must have been one of the first interviews he'd done since his paper was published in English, maybe even the first, that Coppolino had also published it on his site and that Scoglio's stated aim in giving the interview was to foster further discussion on the subject ("we need to have a discussion with those who are on our side who take GO for granted, believe it"), yes I would have expected him to comment. I can't remember if you need to open a SS account to comment but I imagine it's not hard to do.
And discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion?
I don't open accounts on every platform so that I can respond to comments under my interviews. Life's too short. And Stefano is a busy man, not someone who spends much time on social media that I can see.
Have you watched the Ian F Akyildiz video on Nonvaxer420 on rumble.
He’s one of jab inventors. It’s from 2020 & he explains the SCIENCE down to molecular level 😐. That’s where I got it
Speaking as a fairly well-known no-virus person, part of the "they" you refer to: I don't focus on the quackcines at all anymore. Tons of people are doing that, while still relatively few address the fact that there's never been any "virus" shown to exist, ever in the history of virology, to get quackcinated against. It's got nothing to do with following any leader or "gospel", it's my own personal choice. It's quite offensive to read your false presumption.
The subject of the interview was whether or not there was GO in the shots. Scoglio claims there's not and that those who claim there is are frauds. That's pretty offensive too don't you think?
Statements about a substance should be based on data not a claim and "frauds" is a bit unnecessary rude term especially if he has no data to disprove graphene in the shots.
Well there is no onus to prove a negative, and he did what we do with virology - he reviewed the claims and pointed out flaws in the reasoning and evidence in his 20 page pdf on the topic as you know.
Graphene Does Not Exist
Stefano Scoglio, Ph.D
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/graphene-full-scoglio.pdf
I just scanned this, I suppose he should say graphene hasn't been found as yet in the vials tested. If he did not prove it is not in the shots in all the batches then I dont understand why he says it "does not exist". Let me know if I am mistaken.
He's saying that "graphene" has never been shown to exist, period, and that the concept is ridiculous. And he reviews evidence for the alleged "graphene" in jabs and shows its flaws.
Obviously no one can show that "graphene" is not in all the batches and there's no onus to prove a negative. Regardless, the whole "graphene" issue is moot until someone can show that "graphene" even exists.
Honestly, I have to admit I dont have the background to make educated statements on material science and its tests unless I did a deep dive. "Never been shown to exist" is a statement I like, I have no ability to decide if that is "ridiculous" or not but, I would prefer a professor to use the term, "no supporting data". Bozo the clown is ridiculous, virology has no supporting data.
He did not use the word "ridiculous" at all in his pdf, that was me paraphrasing. He might have said it in his interview, I don't know. He's called virology "bullshit" several times, and backs his position up with facts and logic, which is A-OK with me. I call virology ridiculous all the time, because it is.
p.s. Stefano is a scientist, but not a professor that I know of.
The interview was about whether or not there was "graphene" in the vials, not about whether virology is BS which I assume vast majority of subscribers here agree with. What Scoglio did was call those who claim there IS "graphene" in the vials fraudsters and the microscopist group of using CGI to fear monger and deceive.
Are you suggesting that because Stefano said something that you find offensive that justifies you saying something that is offensive towards myself and other no-virus people?
Have you taken into account the things that Stefano pointed out about "graphene", i.e. that it is said to be the same thing as graphite but in sheets only 1 atom thick (or up to 9 atoms depending on who you listen to) and that having such extraordinary thinness magically imparts the new property of being the strongest substance on Earth? It's even described as "2 dimensional" by some sources https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1742706121004293.
That sounds pretty ludicrous to me, and I'm not sure how anyone could verify the existence of something said to be only 1 atom thick. Are you?
Personally I wasn't offended but if I'd been Campra who he called a fraud I would've been. Ditto for microscopists who he claims are creating animation videos, "like the virus [cartoons]... with CGI". People like Dr Nixon, Matt Taylor, Shimon Yanowitz & numerous others have put as much work and effort into showing us what's in the vials/blood/other products as you have showing us sars2 is a scam. I've said nothing offensive here about you or no-virus group. I'm totally in no virus camp. Following the leader is just part of group dynamics and we're all susceptible to it to some extent. On the specifics of graphene/graphene oxide & use in biosensing, thank you, very useful paper. There's more to this than meets the eye, literally. But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show.
No one likes being called a fraud, but if/when someone puts themselves forward as a scientist and promotes fear around a hypothetical substance with remarkable and scary properties being injected into the bodies of millions and millions of people, and persists even after the flaws in their story are pointed out, it's only natural that someone might call them a fraud.
Ditto for people peddling "virus" cartoons, no matter how much effort they might put into "showing" what's in vials and blood. (Especially if they also promote the "spike protein" narrative.)
There is zero reason for debates around "graphene" to be restricted to Eric's show, what a strange suggestion.
Stefano has helped expose that:
1) there's no science showing a "virus" and the entire "pandemic" narrative is garbage,
2) the jabs have not been shown to cause the body to produce "spike protein",
3) the "spike protein" studies are based on lab-created proteins not found in people, and indirect non-specific tests,
4) that the existence of "graphene" is an unproven assertion.
Can you point to any falsehoods that he has promoted?
"The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff."
That's offensive and inaccurate in more than 1 level. No-virus people do not agree on everything, in fact some vehemently disagree on some things. There is even some disagreement over "the spike protein" (although all agree that the jabs have not been shown to create it). We are independent thinkers and take different approaches to our no-virus work. Most have spent relatively little time on the quackcines because until people realize that the core scam of "germ theory" is a misdirect they'll continue being harmed in myriad ways, jabs and otherwise, fake-covid and otherwise. Quite different from peddling fear porn over imaginary "viruses", bodies full of "spike protein" and 1 atom thick "graphene".
"No one likes being called a fraud, but if/when someone puts themselves forward as a scientist and promotes fear around a hypothetical substance with remarkable and scary properties being injected into the bodies of millions and millions of people, and persists even after the flaws in their story are pointed out, it's only natural that someone might call them a fraud. Ditto for people peddling "virus" cartoons, no matter how much effort they might put into "showing" what's in vials and blood. (Especially if they also promote the "spike protein" narrative.)"
Scoglio was not referring to some would-be scientist stirring up fear over a hypothetical substance via scary cartoon images, but to ALL those presenting their microscopic findings which seem to show nanoparticles assembling in vials/blood/other products, particularly when subjected to emf radiation. He claims they are ALL using CGI. He needs to be more specific, name those who are doing this and precisely how they're doing it. Until he does that, he has not demonstrated any flaws at all. Even the virus-pushing doctors/scientists have not gone that far. Most, like pathologist Ryan Cole, say they are simply confusing them with crystals - salt, sucrose, cholesterol, other lipids. Regarding those who "peddle virus cartoons", most of them probably genuinely believe in what they're presenting. It's a question of mis- vs. disinformation. A couple are trying to shut down the nanotech discussion as well. We've all seen viral vid of Ryan Cole interrupting Astrid Stueckelberger's presentation at a conference in Sweden last year where she tried to broach the GO topic (with Latypova and Rose nodding along contemptuously in the backgtround). Latypova is interesting. She was always open-minded on both no-virus & GO, then did a complete U-turn after listening to JJ Couey clone theory then interview with the joyful scatologist Sabine Hazan and now allows herself to copiously insult anyone who brings up either issue. You know about that because she made some pretty nasty comments to you under Hazan vid which you later did SS article on. She went on to smear nanotech/GO pushers, dismissing them all as nutjobs. I defended both the nanotech and no virus "nutjobs", yourself in particular and promptly got myself banned from commenting "for a 100 years" with no refund of my subscription fee. At least Coppolino only banned me for a month! I also unsubscribed from Kirsch where I'd been a paid subscriber for maybe a year, after complaining about Kevin McCairn's disgusting comment to you. I don't recall any of the top dogs condescending to defend you. If so, "pls provide proof" as you would say. One word from Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey would have shut Kirsch up once and for all. I can't imagine McCairn daring to insult Bailey's wife like that without hubby & all the top dogs stepping in to defend her? Too busy or too important to make a SS comment to defend you? I don't think so. You are wasting your precious time supporting them to focus on debating with a no-one like me over a Scoglio paper or Coppolino's shenanigans. No need to worry about the alpha dogs. They're all doing just fine. Look into dog pack dynamics. As for Eric, he's at best a toutou, at worst a Schweinhund or maybe just a dog-eat-dog person?
"There is zero reason for debates around "graphene" to be restricted to Eric's show, what a strange suggestion."
Agree, very strange suggestion. Please let me know where I said that.
"Stefano has helped expose that: 1) there's no science showing a "virus" and the entire "pandemic" narrative is garbage; 2) the jabs have not been shown to cause the body to produce "spike protein"; 3) the "spike protein" studies are based on lab-created proteins not found in people, and indirect non-specific tests."
Agree with 1) and 2). I would rephrase 3) as follows: "Alleged proof of spike protein presence in blood/tissues of vaccine-injured or deceased is based on presence of non-specific antibodies untested against other potential toxic substances" (aka PEG, GO etc.) I would also suggest Scoglio is unclear re. mRNA. He has said that it is extremely toxic yet is found excreted unmetabolized from the body, i.e. it goes in and comes out in same form, so remains at extra-cellular level until we flush it out. Others have claimed to have found either no mRNA or very little in the shots.
"Can you point to any falsehoods that [Scoglio] has promoted?"
No. Scoglio first needs to clarify the what/who/how, as noted in separate post.
"The no-virus group tends to follow the leader. Whatever the top dogs Lanka, Scoglio or Cowan have to say is gospel. So they're not going to touch the nano stuff....That's offensive and inaccurate in more than 1 level. No-virus people do not agree on everything, in fact some vehemently disagree on some things. There is even some disagreement over "the spike protein" (although all agree that the jabs have not been shown to create it). We are independent thinkers and take different approaches to our no-virus work. Most have spent relatively little time on the quackcines because until people realize that the core scam of "germ theory" is a misdirect they'll continue being harmed in myriad ways, jabs and otherwise, fake-covid and otherwise. Quite different from peddling fear porn over imaginary "viruses", bodies full of "spike protein" and 1 atom thick "graphene"."
I think I've already explained my follow-the-leader comment in separate post(s). On spike protein, I heard Mark Bailey say it has been defined in med lit (independently from sars2) so it exists in some form or another, that its function/origin are unclear but given sars2 has not been proven to exist, same goes for sars2 spike protein, so if no virus logically no spike either. I've heard Cowan toing & froing over exosomes vs. spike and parroting Scoglio on mythical nanoparticles. I would say there's more disagreement over shedding which Kaufman has dismissed as probably anecdotal and possibly psychosomatic. Well he would know I suppose, being an ex-psychiatrist and no doubt having force- injected 1000s of schizos with "safe & effective" poison until covid somehow woke him up. Not to forget he invented a device to detect moment when schizo is about to do away with himself after years of being told the voices that plague him are mere anecdotes and due to chemical imbalance in his brain. Maybe ask him about it. Does it work with biosensors and if how, is it wearable, implantable? On independent thinkers, not so sure, but definitely some are in a bit of a bubble. Fine not to focus on "quacksines". Fine too for others to focus on their contents without being labelled as fraudsters. Of course, exposing virology as fraudulent pseudoscience is crucial. That's why I began this thread (another one?) promoting your essential work and suggesting how to move the cause forward. I also understand immense obstacles in the way and accept general consensus expressed here that my suggestions were unrealistic. So for time being, my focus is on contents of shots and how my daughter & granddaughter in particular, can detoxify themselves.
I'm not even reading this one, based on your arrogant, false "maintaining" that I follow the "gospel" of the no-virus leaders.
I've explained several times that my comment was not directed at you personally. Take it or leave it. Too easy to ignore the rest of my comment which I took some time to make in response to all the comments/ questions you've been bombarding me with over past few days. I could have ignored you too. Believe you me, I have enough stress in my life already without taking on your tantrums. We're all entitled to express our opinions, however misguided they may be/you think they are. Keep playing thought police and you will alienate even your most ardent supporters and ultimately impede the cause we all support.
Oh I'm thought police now? Wow. Unreal.
No one needs enemies with "supporters" like this.