Fauci Admits Nothing Will Change After Vaccine

[Jenard Butler]

Are we sure there's even such a thing as covid-19?

So far just some jackasses on the televitz repeating the assertion ad nauseam. Unfortunately, even here, some consider that proof enough.

 

[Todd]

Wow..good find on this Kim Iversen. An honest progressive like Jimmy Dore. Need alot more of them..

 

[Invisible Man]

We are not (no isolated virus, etc).

What does "no isolated virus" mean?

 

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

I know that "molṑn labé" is ancient Greek for "come and take them."

But what is ancient Greek for "come and give them" ... ?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

 

[cjm]

What does "no isolated virus" mean?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?549651-CDC-admits-COVID-19-never-isolated

 

[Invisible Man]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?549651-CDC-admits-COVID-19-never-isolated

That actually doesn't answer the question of what "no isolated virus" means. But also, note that the CDC source cited there certainly doesn't support the conclusion that there is any doubt about the existence of the COVID 19 virus. And if you mean to say that the COVID 19 virus has never been isolated (which, even if true, would not be any reason to doubt that it exists), the source doesn't claim that either. The source cited, which was from July, doesn't even make the claim that no isolates of the virus existed at that time, only that they weren't available to certain scientists who had performed some earlier research to which that document refers. But even if it did claim that isolates of the virus didn't exist at all yet in July, it would certainly not be a valid conclusion that no isolates of the virus existed at all even today so many months later.

Unfortunately, the source being relied on in that thread isn't directly the CDC document that it cites, but instead that document got mediated by way of a crank article written by Jon Rappaport, who, unfortunately, has no credentials in this subject and clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Granted, I don't have credentials either. But when I read articles like Rappaport's, I do so critically, and when I did that this time, I found that it was all too easy to blow holes in his claims and conclusion. I find it really unfortunate that others read articles like that so uncritically, and then go on and continue to pawn off his claims as if they're settled facts.

 

[devil21]

That actually doesn't answer the question of what "no isolated virus" means. But also, note that the CDC source cited there certainly doesn't support the conclusion that there is any doubt about the existence of the COVID 19 virus. And if you mean to say that the COVID 19 virus has never been isolated (which, even if true, would not be any reason to doubt that it exists), the source doesn't claim that either. The source cited, which was from July, doesn't even make the claim that no isolates of the virus existed at that time, only that they weren't available to certain scientists who had performed some earlier research to which that document refers. But even if it did claim that isolates of the virus didn't exist at all yet in July, it would certainly not be a valid conclusion that no isolates of the virus existed at all even today so many months later.

Unfortunately, the source being relied on in that thread isn't directly the CDC document that it cites, but instead that document got mediated by way of a crank article written by Jon Rappaport, who, unfortunately, has no credentials in this subject and clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Granted, I don't have credentials either. But when I read articles like Rappaport's, I do so critically, and when I did that this time, I found that it was all too easy to blow holes in his claims and conclusion. I find it really unfortunate that others read articles like that so uncritically, and then go on and continue to pawn off his claims as if they're settled facts.

Kinda like how people watch the news uncritically and believe whatever comes out of it. Invisible enemies are the tactic used repeatedly to herd the masses. No reason to think this instance is any different, especially since it's so conveniently timed to enable the furtherance of other planned agendas by related people and organizations.

Having said that, whether covid remains an imaginary invisible enemy or at some point does become very real, is anyone's guess. My bet is that it eventually will become something real but only after enough people have been jabbed.

 

[Invisible Man]

Kinda like how people watch the news uncritically and believe whatever comes out of it.

Yes. The very same thing.

 

[cjm]

That actually doesn't answer the question of what "no isolated virus" means. But also...

I see you were not seeking clarification, you wanted to argue with someone. My mistake.

And if you mean to say that the COVID 19 virus has never been isolated (which, even if true, would not be any reason to doubt that it exists)

Sure it is. Doubt just means you're somewhere between "it exists" and "it doesn't exist." Feel free to believe 100% that it exists. I'm below 100% positive that it exists, so to [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]'s question "are we sure...?" my answer is no, I'm not sure. And honestly, I don't even care that much. We still have a central bank.

 

[Invisible Man]

I see you were not seeking clarification, you wanted to argue with someone. My mistake.

When it comes to claims like that, seeking clarification about the meaning of the phrase "no isolated virus" is an important prerequisite to drawing any conclusions. So that clarification is needed either way. A major weakness of the thread you linked is that it didn't actually provide that clarification, but only proceeded to make the same assertions while skipping over that necessary foundation. Jon Rappaport would have spared himself a great deal of confusion if, prior to leaping to his conclusions, he had patiently asked himself just what it means to isolate a virus and looked into that. The claims he makes about it are the claims of someone who clearly skipped that step.

Sure it is. Doubt just means you're somewhere between "it exists" and "it doesn't exist." Feel free to believe 100% that it exists. I'm below 100% positive that it exists, so to @devil21's question "are we sure...?" my answer is no, I'm not sure. And honestly, I don't even care that much. We still have a central bank.

But one can be 100% certain that the virus exists without anyone having gotten an isolate of it. So no, the lack of such an isolate (even if that were the case, which it is not--many labs have isolated the COVID 19 virus, and already had prior to July) would not be a reason to doubt its existence. We had plenty of proof of its existence before anyone had made isolates of it. After they did, then that only provided us with even more proof of the existence of a virus whose existence we already had solid proof of.

 

[Dr.3D]

I can't see what all the hoopla is about.

Don't even need a vaccine.
If somebody comes down with the Rona, give them Ivermectin and all is well.

 

[Contumacious]

Fauci is a low life scumbag who should have resigned his NIHID directorship due to his involvement financing $7.4 millions worth - the Wuhan China Virology Lab.!!!!!!!!!!!!!