More covid

[HKOwen]

I have no evidence only my opinion.

Covid was released on purpose not from the Chinese but someone from the West.

I remember Trump coming out with he had evidence that the Chinese leaked it and he would show the evidence something he never did I wonder if that is because he ended up seeing it was either his own people that did it or people above him who told him to shut it down.

Many moan about Borris but do not understand he is an uneducated man when it comes to a lot of things which is why you have advisors etc and those people should be the ones people go after for the lies (I called them out at the time when they was coming out with science claims yet when I read through the so called studies they showed nothing which was claimed only there own made up epidemiology models which was 99% of what they worked off those are not valid science)

I even went through all the "vaccine" claims a took those apart (I was from the start telling people Vitamin D and from to sort out lifestyle/diet as well)

The govt own stats was under 20 thousand died without any known underlying health conditions from covid yet we kept being told it was 150-200 thousand in this countries complete lies (99% of people who died had health issues already with most of them vulnerable state flu would have taken them out)

The worst thing was there was clear evidence it does not affect children yet they pushed to have children vaccinated.

A lot of people are unhealthy they just don't know it and this virus showed it. (the virus is real people who claim otherwise are crackpots and most of them are same people that believe the Earth is flat)

You are David Icke and I claim my £5

 

[Mattconrov]

You are David Icke and I claim my £5

A great compliment I would happily take.

Icke like me, doesn't believe it was a novel disease .
An inspiration of a man,whom I get much of
my madness from.

 

[Mattconrov]

I have no evidence only my opinion.

Covid was released on purpose not from the Chinese but someone from the West.

I remember Trump coming out with he had evidence that the Chinese leaked it and he would show the evidence something he never did I wonder if that is because he ended up seeing it was either his own people that did it or people above him who told him to shut it down.

Many moan about Borris but do not understand he is an uneducated man when it comes to a lot of things which is why you have advisors etc and those people should be the ones people go after for the lies (I called them out at the time when they was coming out with science claims yet when I read through the so called studies they showed nothing which was claimed only there own made up epidemiology models which was 99% of what they worked off those are not valid science)

I even went through all the "vaccine" claims a took those apart (I was from the start telling people Vitamin D and from to sort out lifestyle/diet as well)

The govt own stats was under 20 thousand died without any known underlying health conditions from covid yet we kept being told it was 150-200 thousand in this countries complete lies (99% of people who died had health issues already with most of them vulnerable state flu would have taken them out)

The worst thing was there was clear evidence it does not affect children yet they pushed to have children vaccinated.

A lot of people are unhealthy they just don't know it and this virus showed it. (the virus is real people who claim otherwise are crackpots and most of them are same people that believe the Earth is flat)

If you can prove to me covid was a new/novel disease, then I'd love to see the scientific evidence. You wont find any.

For the hundredth time,I'm not saying people were not suffering from a virus. For all lockdowns and restrictions, people had to be coerced into believing it was a new virus we didn't understand.

I don't believe it was a new disease. I don't believe in flat earth either.

 

[cryrst]

Tbh I agreed with the way most of it was handled. This though is all about the money for many. Family death for others sadly. The cost to us was and is huge and from the lowest worker to the big suppliers people were taking the pis s. If the world hadn’t shut down apart from Sweden and a couple of others then we may have wished we had. My wife caught something and was bed ridden for 6 days. It showed as Covid so I assume it was. She said it wasn’t flue as she’s had that before.
A tad ironic though that when Covid is discussed many professionals are wrong in some eyes but when it’s climate change professionals some of the same Covid deniers claim it’s all fact.
Cake and eat it !

 

[HKOwen]

We are somewhat closer to the source here in Asia. My theory is that it was taken to Europe by the many Chinese from Wuhan who work in the Milan garment industry Milan was pretty much ground zero in Europe

 

[McAhuna]

Let’s put this plainly then.

You’ve said that “normies” shut down when they’re presented with facts. So let’s take the most basic question: was Covid real?

You’ve read articles, watched interviews and listened to commentators, then reached your conclusion.

I stood in a hospital and watched my father die from the disease he had been diagnosed with. I also had Covid myself and experienced it firsthand.

So, when deciding whether Covid was real, I’m going to place rather more weight on what I personally witnessed than on somebody else’s interpretation of an interview, a paper or a YouTube video.

That doesn’t mean every government policy was justified, every statistic was accurate, every vaccine was harmless or every official statement was truthful. Those are separate arguments.

But was Covid real? Based on my own experience, yes. I’m going to conclude that it was.

I realise we are discussing an incredibly sensitive and emotive example, but then again you were the one who put it out there on a public forum.

I'll just say this - the ability for even a medically trained professional to identify which specific respiratory condition a patient is suffering from, just by a visual assessment, is a new one on me.

 

[McAhuna]

Yesterday's 'baseless conspiracy theories' have become today's truths (that every normie now claims they knew about all along).

 

[McAhuna]

Tbh I agreed with the way most of it was handled. This though is all about the money for many. Family death for others sadly. The cost to us was and is huge and from the lowest worker to the big suppliers people were taking the pis s. If the world hadn’t shut down apart from Sweden and a couple of others then we may have wished we had. My wife caught something and was bed ridden for 6 days. It showed as Covid so I assume it was. She said it wasn’t flue as she’s had that before.
A tad ironic though that when Covid is discussed many professionals are wrong in some eyes but when it’s climate change professionals some of the same Covid deniers claim it’s all fact.
Cake and eat it !

That's an odd claim.
In my experience, covid sceptics tend to overlap heavily with climate change sceptics, as well as other 'new religions' such as the existence of multiple genders.
Similarly, those who accept the mainstream narrative on covid, have a strong tendency to accept mainstream narratives on other subjects too.

 

[Mattconrov]

That's an odd claim.
In my experience, covid sceptics tend to overlap heavily with climate change sceptics, as well as other 'new religions' such as the existence of multiple genders.
Similarly, those who accept the mainstream narrative on covid, have a strong tendency to accept mainstream narratives on other subjects too.

Plus the claim is based on meh

 

[CPFCSaturn]

If you can prove to me covid was a new/novel disease, then I'd love to see the scientific evidence. You wont find any.

For the hundredth time,I'm not saying people were not suffering from a virus. For all lockdowns and restrictions, people had to be coerced into believing it was a new virus we didn't understand.

I don't believe it was a new disease. I don't believe in flat earth either.

What would you accept as evidence out of interest?

I'm not deep in this topic at all, but a poke around ChatGPT has given me the below which seems pretty convincing:

"
Scientists isolated the virus from patients, sequenced its entire genome and compared that genome against previously known coronaviruses. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses classified it as a distinct virus, SARS-CoV-2. Its genome is related to SARS and to bat coronaviruses, but is genetically distinct from them.

The first complete genome was publicly released on 11 January 2020, allowing laboratories around the world to independently develop tests and identify the same virus in patients.
"

Assuming all that is true and we have isolated the virus, its genome sequenced, independent samples producing the same genome, and phylogenetic analysis showing a recent common ancestor, I'm struggling to make sense of the claim that there's no scientific evidence for it.

Genuinely interested in your take - you're clearly much more invested in the topic than me.

 

[Mattconrov]

What would you accept as evidence out of interest?

I'm not deep in this topic at all, but a poke around ChatGPT has given me the below which seems pretty convincing:

"
Scientists isolated the virus from patients, sequenced its entire genome and compared that genome against previously known coronaviruses. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses classified it as a distinct virus, SARS-CoV-2. Its genome is related to SARS and to bat coronaviruses, but is genetically distinct from them.

The first complete genome was publicly released on 11 January 2020, allowing laboratories around the world to independently develop tests and identify the same virus in patients.
"

Assuming all that is true and we have isolated the virus, its genome sequenced, independent samples producing the same genome, and phylogenetic analysis showing a recent common ancestor, I'm struggling to make sense of the claim that there's no scientific evidence for it.

Genuinely interested in your take - you're clearly much more invested in the topic than me.

That didn't isolate the virus. It was drawn from lung fluid with various other genetic materials. Its hard for me to see how they separated it from that.

They used computer modeling to work out the said sequence.

I wouldn't assume it's true. Of course I know they claimed to have isolated it.

because the actual virus wasn't isolated (just a sequence they in put into a computer. They were never able to inject it into a healthy specimen to see if that person/animal becomes ill.

The pcr test that what was used to test the virus was unable to do that job. A test that the inventor said was not a test but a dna amplification tool. So how was a test that doesn't test for viruses proof that someone has the virus.

The pcr did not need to find the whole sequence. It only needed to find a fragment of the said virus, for someone to have claimed to be covid 19 positive.

This could have included broken off dead pieces of it from months before. This is why so many people were testing positive when completely healthy.

I'm not sure if they have ever successfully isolated a virus.

Obviously people will look at the official line on isolation and agree with. It's been on the Internet since 2020. It doesn't make sense to me

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That didn't isolate the virus. It was drawn from lung fluid with various other genetic materials. Its hard for me to see how they separated it from that.

The genome was a computer generated sequence.

I wouldn't assume it's true. Of course I know they claimed to have isolated it.

because the actual virus wasn't isolated (just a sequence they in put into a computer. They were never able to inject it into a healthy specimen to see if that person/animal becomes ill.

The pcr test that what was used to test the virus was unable to do that job. A test that the inventor said was not a test but a dna amplification tool. So how was a test that doesn't test for viruses proof that someone has the virus.

The pcr did not need to find the whole sequence. It only needed to find a fragment of the said virus, for someone to have claimed to be covid 19 positive.

This could have included broken off dead pieces of it from months before. This is why so many people were testing positive when completely healthy.

I'm not sure if they have ever successfully isolated a virus.

Obviously people will look at the official line on isolation and agree with. It's been on the Internet since 2020. It doesn't make sense to me

I'm not remotely qualified to argue it, but here's what ChatGPT said:



1. “The genome was computer-generated”

No — the sequence wasn't invented by a computer. A computer was used to assemble, analyse and compare sequence data obtained from biological samples.

Researchers extracted RNA from patient specimens, sequenced the RNA and assembled the resulting reads into a genome. That sequence could then be compared against samples from other patients. This is standard genomic sequencing, not scientists inventing a sequence and then assuming the virus exists.

And importantly, this wasn't a single computer-generated sequence. SARS-CoV-2 genomes were subsequently obtained independently from huge numbers of patient samples around the world, and those sequences form a coherent evolutionary family.

2. “It wasn't isolated because the sample contained other genetic material”

That's not what “virus isolation” means in virology.

A clinical specimen obviously contains thousands of things besides the virus — human cells, bacteria, other RNA, etc. The point of isolation is to recover and propagate the virus from that mixture, typically by inoculating susceptible cell cultures and demonstrating viral replication.

That was done with SARS-CoV-2. There are published studies specifically describing the isolation and culture of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from patient specimens. This isn't dependent on PCR alone.

There are also electron-microscopy studies showing coronavirus particles in infected cells.

So saying “the original sample contained other genetic material” doesn't demonstrate that the virus wasn't present in it — that's simply what you'd expect from a biological sample.

3. “They never injected it into a healthy specimen to see if it causes illness”

That's a different question.

You don't need to infect a human being to establish that a virus exists. And “is the virus real?” and “does this virus cause this particular disease?” are separate scientific questions.

Researchers have demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell cultures and conducted animal infection studies. Human causation is established through multiple lines of evidence rather than requiring scientists to deliberately infect healthy people.

In fact, demanding human experimentation as the necessary proof would be an extraordinary standard that isn't applied to essentially any newly discovered human pathogen.

4. “PCR isn't a test; Kary Mullis said PCR was just an amplification tool”

The first half is technically true but the conclusion doesn't follow.

PCR is an amplification technique. That's precisely why it's useful as a diagnostic test.

Think of it like a fingerprint: the machine isn't somehow looking at an entire person. It's looking for specific genetic sequences associated with the target organism and amplifying them so they can be detected.

Modern SARS-CoV-2 NAAT/PCR tests were designed around specific sequences in the virus's genome. The CDC describes these tests as detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequences and uses them as diagnostic tests.

And PCR isn't unique to COVID. The same basic principle has been used diagnostically for decades for viruses including influenza, RSV, HIV and others.

5. “PCR only finds a fragment, so it could be dead virus”

This is actually the strongest point you've made — but again, it doesn't establish what you're claiming.

Yes: PCR can detect viral RNA without proving that infectious, live virus is present. Someone can continue to have detectable viral RNA after they are no longer infectious. The CDC explicitly acknowledges this, including that viral RNA can remain detectable for considerably longer than the period of infectiousness.

That's a limitation of PCR that scientists have always understood.

But it doesn't mean that the RNA is random genetic material.

The test is designed to detect particular sequences belonging to SARS-CoV-2. And importantly, PCR results weren't the only evidence for infection. Researchers also used viral culture, sequencing, antigen detection, serology, microscopy, clinical presentation and epidemiological transmission patterns.

 

[Mattconrov]

I'm not remotely qualified to argue it, but here's what ChatGPT said:



1. “The genome was computer-generated”

No — the sequence wasn't invented by a computer. A computer was used to assemble, analyse and compare sequence data obtained from biological samples.

Researchers extracted RNA from patient specimens, sequenced the RNA and assembled the resulting reads into a genome. That sequence could then be compared against samples from other patients. This is standard genomic sequencing, not scientists inventing a sequence and then assuming the virus exists.

And importantly, this wasn't a single computer-generated sequence. SARS-CoV-2 genomes were subsequently obtained independently from huge numbers of patient samples around the world, and those sequences form a coherent evolutionary family.

2. “It wasn't isolated because the sample contained other genetic material”

That's not what “virus isolation” means in virology.

A clinical specimen obviously contains thousands of things besides the virus — human cells, bacteria, other RNA, etc. The point of isolation is to recover and propagate the virus from that mixture, typically by inoculating susceptible cell cultures and demonstrating viral replication.

That was done with SARS-CoV-2. There are published studies specifically describing the isolation and culture of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from patient specimens. This isn't dependent on PCR alone.

There are also electron-microscopy studies showing coronavirus particles in infected cells.

So saying “the original sample contained other genetic material” doesn't demonstrate that the virus wasn't present in it — that's simply what you'd expect from a biological sample.

3. “They never injected it into a healthy specimen to see if it causes illness”

That's a different question.

You don't need to infect a human being to establish that a virus exists. And “is the virus real?” and “does this virus cause this particular disease?” are separate scientific questions.

Researchers have demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell cultures and conducted animal infection studies. Human causation is established through multiple lines of evidence rather than requiring scientists to deliberately infect healthy people.

In fact, demanding human experimentation as the necessary proof would be an extraordinary standard that isn't applied to essentially any newly discovered human pathogen.

4. “PCR isn't a test; Kary Mullis said PCR was just an amplification tool”

The first half is technically true but the conclusion doesn't follow.

PCR is an amplification technique. That's precisely why it's useful as a diagnostic test.

Think of it like a fingerprint: the machine isn't somehow looking at an entire person. It's looking for specific genetic sequences associated with the target organism and amplifying them so they can be detected.

Modern SARS-CoV-2 NAAT/PCR tests were designed around specific sequences in the virus's genome. The CDC describes these tests as detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequences and uses them as diagnostic tests.

And PCR isn't unique to COVID. The same basic principle has been used diagnostically for decades for viruses including influenza, RSV, HIV and others.

5. “PCR only finds a fragment, so it could be dead virus”

This is actually the strongest point you've made — but again, it doesn't establish what you're claiming.

Yes: PCR can detect viral RNA without proving that infectious, live virus is present. Someone can continue to have detectable viral RNA after they are no longer infectious. The CDC explicitly acknowledges this, including that viral RNA can remain detectable for considerably longer than the period of infectiousness.

That's a limitation of PCR that scientists have always understood.

But it doesn't mean that the RNA is random genetic material.

The test is designed to detect particular sequences belonging to SARS-CoV-2. And importantly, PCR results weren't the only evidence for infection. Researchers also used viral culture, sequencing, antigen detection, serology, microscopy, clinical presentation and epidemiological transmission patterns.

Some of that is interesting I'll agree.

I've made my points on how the pcr test was used and it doesn't correlate with an accurate way to create a definitive positive result in finding the virus. It only needed to find a fragment of the material, not the whole sequence. I'm probably repeating myself now.

The pcr test as an Amplification tool is able to find fragments of a absolutely anything in the body. Under enough cycles of the pcr test the pcr will find a positive test.

an actual virus being isolated and then put into a healthy person to see if it is the same thing making multiple people ill doesn't seem to have been done.

True they may have a different way of doing it now. However the Koch postulates was the gold standard. Isolate , inject and see if you become ill.

I'm doing this without chat gpt. They certainly won't help someone like me will they. Lol.

Not wishing to side step the question of isolation. But I find it interesting that they say that it was different from sars cov 1 and corona viruses. Knowing that, they would have known it was not the Plague they were dealing with. However we locked down the world and created immense fear for a disease that had an average age of 84.

It certainly wasn't the the black death.
The numbers of deaths were recorded as covid whether a person had a heart attack or cancer, if they had died within 28 days after a positive pcr test. So how many people died of the actual covid virus. I recall seeing freedom of information requests showing in various countries the figure being zero. People died with it. Not necessarily of it.

Edit.

Chat gpt mentioned the pcr test was used for finding whole sequences, but it wasn't doing that, it was only looking for a fragment of the sequence.

Kacy Mullis the inventor literally said that it was not a diagnostic tool. His words not mine.

I won't be able to compete with chat gpt, i know that, but I'll give it a go.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Some of that is interesting I'll agree.

I've made my points on how the pcr test was used and it doesn't correlate with an accurate way to create a definitive positive result in finding the virus. It only needed to find a fragment of the material, not the whole sequence. I'm probably repeating myself now.

The pcr test as an Amplification tool is able to find fragments of a absolutely anything in the body. Under enough cycles of the pcr test the pcr will find a positive test.

an actual virus being isolated and then put into a healthy person to see if it is the same thing making multiple people ill doesn't seem to have been done.

True they may have a different way of doing it now. However the Koch postulates was the gold standard. Isolate , inject and see if you become ill.

I'm doing this without chat gpt. They certainly won't help someone like me will they. Lol.

Not wishing to side step the question of isolation. But I find it interesting that they say that it was different from sars cov 1 and corona viruses. Knowing that, they would have known it was not the Plague they were dealing with. However we locked down the world and created immense fear for a disease that had an average age of 84.

It certainly wasn't the the black death.
The numbers of deaths were recorded as covid whether a person had a heart attack or cancer, if they had died within 28 days after a positive pcr test. So how many people died of the actual covid virus. I recall seeing freedom of information requests showing in various countries the figure being zero. People died with it. Not necessarily of it.

Fair enough - you clearly know more about this than me, but I'm still struggling with your claim that there's no scientific evidence that Covid was a new/novel disease - there seems to be rather a lot.

I can agree there were huge limitations in the testing, in the way cases and deaths were measured, in the messaging from the state and the actions the state took... I think all of that is open to very reasonable scrutiny, but I am struggling to square off the claim re the existence of the virus.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Some of that is interesting I'll agree.

I've made my points on how the pcr test was used and it doesn't correlate with an accurate way to create a definitive positive result in finding the virus. It only needed to find a fragment of the material, not the whole sequence. I'm probably repeating myself now.

The pcr test as an Amplification tool is able to find fragments of a absolutely anything in the body. Under enough cycles of the pcr test the pcr will find a positive test.

an actual virus being isolated and then put into a healthy person to see if it is the same thing making multiple people ill doesn't seem to have been done.

True they may have a different way of doing it now. However the Koch postulates was the gold standard. Isolate , inject and see if you become ill.

I'm doing this without chat gpt. They certainly won't help someone like me will they. Lol.

Not wishing to side step the question of isolation. But I find it interesting that they say that it was different from sars cov 1 and corona viruses. Knowing that, they would have known it was not the Plague they were dealing with. However we locked down the world and created immense fear for a disease that had an average age of 84.

It certainly wasn't the the black death.
The numbers of deaths were recorded as covid whether a person had a heart attack or cancer, if they had died within 28 days after a positive pcr test. So how many people died of the actual covid virus. I recall seeing freedom of information requests showing in various countries the figure being zero. People died with it. Not necessarily of it.

Edit.

Chat gpt mentioned the pcr test was used for finding whole sequences, but it wasn't doing that, it was only looking for a fragment of the sequence.

Kacy Mullis the inventor literally said that it was not a diagnostic tool. His words not mine.

I won't be able to compete with chat gpt, i know that, but I'll give it a go.

I don't think it did say that (I could be wrong!):

"PCR doesn't need to find an entire viral genome. It detects particular target sequences and amplifies them. You're also right that PCR can detect viral RNA when the virus is no longer infectious. So a positive PCR result isn't, by itself, proof that somebody is carrying live, infectious virus at that exact moment.

But that's very different from saying PCR can find “fragments of absolutely anything” and will inevitably produce a positive result if you run enough cycles. The primers are designed to bind to specific sequences."

On the PCRs, I'd also point to ChatGPT's earlier claim that:

"PCR isn't unique to COVID. The same basic principle has been used diagnostically for decades for viruses including influenza, RSV, HIV and others."

 

[Mattconrov]

Fair enough - you clearly know more about this than me, but I'm still struggling with your claim that there's no scientific evidence that Covid was a new/novel disease - there seems to be rather a lot.

I can agree there were huge limitations in the testing, in the way cases and deaths were measured, in the messaging from the state and the actions the state took... I think all of that is open to very reasonable scrutiny, but I am struggling to square off the claim re the existence of the virus.

I don't know if I do know more about it than you.

They didn’t shut the world down for sars cov 1 did they. Admittedly people will take this as proof of it being novel. It doesn't bother me. It's not the hill I'm dying on.

However with it being framed as a mysterious new novel disease we wouldn't have got the results of the restrictions etc.

Anyways, I appreciate your efforts albeit with chat gpt. At least you have provided some questions to my claims.

My wife uses Ai Claude I think. Bloody amazing.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I don't know if I do know more about it than you.

They didn’t shut the world down for sars cov 1 did they. Admittedly people will take this as proof of it being novel. It doesn't bother me. It's not the hill I'm dying on.

However with it being framed as a mysterious new novel disease we wouldn't have got the results of the restrictions etc.

Anyways, I appreciate your efforts albeit with chat gpt. At least you have provided some questions to my claims.

My wife uses Ai Claude I think. Bloody amazing.

Likewise, I only started looking at it on ChatGPT because your posts on this topic interested me and I wasn't knowledgeable enough to challenge them myself.

Amazing tech really - slightly terrifying to imagine where it can end up.

 

[Mattconrov]

I don't think it did say that (I could be wrong!):

"PCR doesn't need to find an entire viral genome. It detects particular target sequences and amplifies them. You're also right that PCR can detect viral RNA when the virus is no longer infectious. So a positive PCR result isn't, by itself, proof that somebody is carrying live, infectious virus at that exact moment.

But that's very different from saying PCR can find “fragments of absolutely anything” and will inevitably produce a positive result if you run enough cycles. The primers are designed to bind to specific sequences."

On the PCRs, I'd also point to ChatGPT's earlier claim that:

"PCR isn't unique to COVID. The same basic principle has been used diagnostically for decades for viruses including influenza, RSV, HIV and others."

It's inventor mullis said the pcr tool will find anything if amplified enough. Tony falcui surprisingly admitted this in an interview too. Not exactly as Mullis,but the need to not over amplify.

The fact that the pcr didn't need to find the whole sequence or whether it was even capable of that, shows why we had so many healthy people going home from work for 2 weeks singing and dancing. I know , enough did at my work. Lol

I know we've had a few discussions in the past not always agreeing. But I find you very reasonable and have an honest intent in your views. Cheers.

 

[Nutmegyeti]

I realise we are discussing an incredibly sensitive and emotive example, but then again you were the one who put it out there on a public forum.

I'll just say this - the ability for even a medically trained professional to identify which specific respiratory condition a patient is suffering from, just by a visual assessment, is a new one on me.

Except they didn’t do it visually and initially they didn’t think it was Covid. His blood oxygen was so low though that they did both the Covid Test and X-Ray/CT

The issue was it went to Covid Pnuemonia (which is different to “normal” pnuemonia). It’s more widespread throughout the lungs rather than localised and affected the lung tissue in a deeper way.

 

[Mattconrov]

Likewise, I only started looking at it on ChatGPT because your posts on this topic interested me and I wasn't knowledgeable enough to challenge them myself.

Amazing tech really - slightly terrifying to imagine where it can end up.

Even if you watch the first 10 mins it gives a fairly decent reply to some of the questions on isolation and challenges some of questions from chat gpt.

I bang on about this because the isolation/new virus is absolutely critical to everything that has happened. Can I put my life on my opinion, no I can't.

But guys like the one in this video we're heavily censored around 2020/2021.

I knew a lot more about this subject back in 2020. I'm a little rusty to be fair. That's why I welcomed your questions . You made have to think a bit. Lol

Edit. I said chat gpt said pcr could find the whole sequence. I think I got that wrong. However by that rational it shows its limitations as a test.