Today they were forced to admit that Covid 19 does not exist

You are projecting your religious tendencies onto others. I adhere to where the facts and evidence leads. They provided such evidence. As have I. No, I don't care who they are. I care about the evidence they provide. This is otherwise known as "rational thinking."

But thank you for openly admitting that the evidence doesn't matter to you. That explains quite a bit.

 

Didn't everyone know that all tests are sent to a secret lab that has a big red light on it that starts flashing if it detects any variations of covid-19. It's in the bat cave.

The claim of a "new strain" was to negative ending the plutocrats' destruction of the last of middle class merchant competitors upon the vaccine and to continue their 24/7 biolterrorism for profit campaign.

 

Destruction of the merchant middle class permanently for the ever growing wealth and power of the already wealthiest and most powerful corporations and people on earth. ALL competition to Big Tech, Amazon and WalMart MUST be outlaws by ongoing totalitarian edicts.

There is wonderful news in that goal for the endless 24/7 bioterrorism campaign of the plutocrats. Within 2 months, they will have succeeded in permanently eliminating over 500,000 American middle class businesses. That is fantastic for the plutocrats and stock market.

 

Again, your narrative doesn't find support in the citation provided, you misunderstand or don't understand the linked materials, and frankly I doubt you actually took any time to read said links. But sure. You're credible. Masks are entirely useless in protecting the wearer. There is ZERO evidence that social distancing in any way has proven effective. These are indisputable, the CDC, The NIH lots of international medical agencies have had to admit this. And yet, here you still are. At some point, you'd think you'd get tired of being embarrassed. Guess not.

Now, tell us why Full Fact is credible. You said you don't care if they are, and yet, here you are clinging to them yet again. yikes.

 

Masks were, from the beginning, primarily meant to protect others from the wearer. No one ever said otherwise. Yes, social distancing helps, but since you won't read any of the research I linked to, I doubt you would read any additional links. I know this concept is entirely alien to you, as you have made abundantly clear, but the source doesn't matter that much. The evidence that they cite is what matters. I don't care who Full Fact is. I care about the evidence they cite. Please stop pretending you can't understand this concept. It's embarrassing.

 

thinks he did

 

I'm glad you now think so. Glad we cleared that up.

 

One possibility:
**
Opinion: The lockdowns are causing their own pandemic

In our race to stop a pandemic that threatens the old, have we unleashed another pandemic that will take down many other people much earlier in their lives?

Suicides are up. Alcohol consumption is booming. Only time will tell what the lockdowns are doing to stress and deaths from things like heart attacks and strokes.

And as a new paper points out, those their middle years are most at risk of these deaths of stress and deaths of despair. (It adds that misery and unhappiness also increase mortality among the over 70s—raising the paradox that by isolating grandma to keep her from COVID we may be hastening her end anyway.)

COVID-19 is a disease that’s especially lethal to older people. According to New York City data, the death rate among those over 75 is 1300% the rate among those in, say, their late 40s and early 50s.
...
The British Medical Journal says it is too early to say with certainty what the lockdowns are doing to suicide rates. But there are already worrying signs. Health organizations are worried. And in Japan, where the suicide data is fresh, more people died of suicide just in October than have died of COVID all year.

Overall, the Center for Disease Control reports that through early November total U.S. deaths were already about 310,000 above previous years. Of those, about 230,000 were diagnosed as having COVID-19 (though that didn’t mean it was the primary cause of death). That leaves another 80,000 excess deaths from other causes—so far.
***

Source:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-lockdowns-are-causing-their-own-pandemic-11606846289

 

Hmm.. so, why wear a mask if you're not sick. Explain that.

 

. . . because you are contagious before you show symptoms. You are contagious before you know you are sick. Have you really just not even made an attempt to look into this at all? That's a rhetorical question.

 

What scientific evidence do you have that masks reduce incidence of disease?

 

Round means round, shelve the fake intellectualism. Words have meanings....

 

Ordinary scientists are people not employed by the government agencies.

I'm not sure what the CDC is hiding, or if it's hiding anything at all. My mind is not made up. I'm asking questions.

Why is it that Ireland and Canada governments answer 'negative' to requests for information about the isolation of this virus?

Why are non-governmental scientists unable to get an actual virus?

 

If your first sentence is true and accurate, then it seems logical that such virus would be easy to find and isolate.

If it is true that the virus can live on surfaces for hours as we've been told, how do they know that if they cannot isolate a virus on anything but a monkey kidney? If entire grocery stores and airplanes must be disinfected daily to kill the virus, why can't one live long enough in a lab? Technically, of course, a virus is not "living" some say, so the picture becomes even more murky.

These mysteries fit in nicely with an inert virus being engineered for gain of function, and what we learned about Event 201. All that planning for a virus that cannot be isolated.

 

Relatively easy with the right expertise and equipment, yes. That's how lots of different organisations have done exactly that as we have shown.

There will be other materials on those surfaces which allow the viruses to survive for certain periods (most commonly the bodily fluids they'd have arrived in). The reason they last longer on different kinds of surfaces is in part because of how long those other materials will typically remain on them.

You seem obsessed with the idea of "monkey kidney" when it really isn't relevant. As I said, labs could culture viruses on all sorts of different mediums. They use whichever ones are easiest and cheapest for them to use, which will commonly be animal tissue. There is no question of capability, just convenience.

You also seem to be missing the technical distinction between "isolate" (separating the virus samples from their current environment) and "culturing" (multiplying the virus to allow more tests and experiments to be performed with it). They could technically test with just the virus that is isolated from the source but that would often be more difficult since it would only provide a very small amount of the active virus. Some of the quick tests for the virus do exactly that, only sampling directly from the patient, which is why they're not as accurate or reliable as the lab-based tests, which will include culturing the sample to (potentially) provide more virus to test for.

These are not mysteries, you're just ignorant of the facts (and seem unwilling to acknowledge that despite having them explained to you multiple times by different people). Yet again, the virus can be and has repeatedly been isolated.

Anyway, even if anything you'd claimed was accurate, I fail to see how it would support the idea of the virus being engineered. And the claim in the OP wasn't that the virus was engineered, it was that the virus doesn't exist at all. Are you at least able to acknowledge that accusation from the source you linked is simple false?

 

Frequent use of "could" "might" and other hypothetical terms make your post not particularly persuasive.

If it's so damn easy, why are the FOIA requests getting the answers they get?

 

I used "could" twice, with one following on with an example of "does" (on testing with just raw samples). I didn't use "might" at all so I've no idea where you got that from.

My core points are not hypothetical. Lots of different organisations have isolated and cultured the virus so the claim in your OP is simply wrong. The video only references one alleged FOI request and what they claimed was part of the response. That alone doesn't prove anything about the specific Irish organisation they're talking about, let alone anything about the existence of the virus in general. One of the links I provided previously was even an FOI response from Public Health England providing information to answer exactly the same question.

You clearly know that (even if you're not willing to admit it) because you shifted what the accusation was, from the virus not existing to it being "engineered", not that you have anything to support that claim either. The bottom line remains that nobody was forced to admit COVID-19 doesn't exist.

 

What lab has the isolated, purified virus?
What patients was it ectracted from?
Be specific.

 

I posted a selection of references in post #13, which I found by searching something like "SARS-COV-2 isolated". Some of them are high level, some go in to technical detail and there were plenty more in the results if you really want to plough through them for details. I trust at least some of the sources so don't feel the need to dig in to that much detail (and wouldn't understand the deep technical details anyway).

I also have the advantage of knowing some people who work in research labs and though they're not working directly on COVID, they have first hand knowledge of some of the results. Obviously I can't support any of that though, but it adds to my personal confidence in the statements I've been making.

Anyway, the assertion in the OP was that if one organisation in Ireland gives an FOI response saying they don't have the evidence themselves, that proves COVID-19 doesn't exist. I think we need to recognise that conclusion would be obviously wrong regardless of anything else. It's difficult to have a rational discussion on the basis of an outright lie (or extreme ignorance of basic instinctive logic).

 

Are you really arguing the Earth is not round? Words do have meaning, you should get a dictionary.

 

Are you only trolling? As someone who is just getting over covid, I can assure you it's real (and it sucks!). BTW, I tested positive before I was showing any symptoms.

 

Argue with them.....

Is the Earth round? - NOAA's National Ocean Service
oceanservice.noaa.gov › facts › earth-round
Nov 5, 2020 — The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid. While the Earth appears to be round when viewed from the vantage point of space, it is actually closer to an ellipsoid.

 

Round: shaped like or approximately like a sphere.

Is an ellipsoid shaped approximately like a sphere?

 

It isn't "fake intellectualism." It's just learning what words mean. English words, not FatBackese words. In FatBackese, round may refer solely to perfect spheres, circles, and cylinders. In English (and pick up any dictionary to confirm if you are going to pretend to have never encountered this before) the word can also refer to approximate shapes.

When my barber asks if I want my hair square or round in the back and I say round, he doesn't start trying to form the back of my hair into a perfect sphere.
When my sister describes my niece's face as "round," she does not mean it is a featureless, perfect sphere floating above her neck.
When personal trainers talk about a round body shape, they do not mean to refer to such humans as sentient, featureless, perfect spheres.

 

Well, flat earthers dont mean the world is really flat, just sorta flat....like that?