Daily Archives: May 13, 2020

FAC696-Sharpstuff

Be the 1st to vote.

I interview cluesforum member Sharpstuff – a very well read researcher on viri.

Here is some of his work:

 

No tags for this post.

FAC696 Shownotes-Sharpstuff’s virus research

Be the 1st to vote.

Some of Sharpstuff’s work:

Fakeologist mobileToday at 5:48 AM

YouTube
Peter Sharpen
The Importance of Good Terrain


YouTube
Peter Sharpen
The Antibiotic Myth

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

sharpstuff » Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:11 am

This is all very interesting academically but it doesn’t say much about reality (as I see it), sorry, chaps. There always seems to be a point where one aspect (genes, for example), relies on the notion of DNA (for example). Without one, the other doesn’t work as a hypothesis.

PROCESSES

There is first the literature of knowledge and secondly, the literature of power. The function of the first is –to teach; the second is -to move: the first is the rudder, the second an oar or a sail. The first speaks to the mere discursive understanding; the second speaks ultimately, it may happen, to the higher understanding of reason.

Thomas de Quincey (1785-1859)

Essays on the Poets: Pope


Collins English Dictionary defines:

Process: continued forward movement; lapse (of time); a series of actions or measures; a method of operation; a series of changes as of growth or decay…


I would define a process as transforming something into something else (for example grains of sand into a brick by whatever means available).

It has been said that nothing can be created or destroyed. If such is the case, then transformation must be the only answer. Transforming is a process. A process as the above definition states is ‘a series of changes as of growth or decay’. This means a constant movement between growth or decay, or as most likely presented, birth and death. However ‘birth’ and ‘death’ are considered as entities within themselves, never extending beyond the creation and the reverse.

Both ‘birth’ and ‘death’ are mere processes of the biosphere, which is the medium in which we are able to ‘give’ birth’ (and endure ‘death’) and after a period (about which we can know nothing at all) a transformation occurs wherein we devolve back into the ‘earth’ from which we came. This is a constant and continual arrangement (if you will) between ‘being here’ and ‘not being here’.

There can be no exact point at which we might claim ‘birth’ or ‘death’, since it is the process by which all bio-spherical ‘organisms’, be them flora or fauna, exist (or do not exist) in a particular form on this ‘planet’. The notion of ‘time’ is a construct, not an actuality as it has no shape or form.

I am reminded of the expression: reductio ad absurdum: (a reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating that its logical conclusion is absurd).

Absurd is defined as: Inconsistent with Common Sense.

‘Common sense’ is that which is agreed by others, such as (in simple), if the suns shines, we get ‘warm’ and so forth.

‘Nothing’ (or no ‘thing’) cannot be practically demonstrated since there is nothing (or no ‘thing’) to demonstrate. What we call a ‘thing’ (noun or name for something) can only be demonstrated with sensual apparatuses particular to us as individuals. Lack of a particular ‘sense’ (for example, deafness, (which cannot resolve a sound), or blindness (which cannot resolve a colour) makes the notion of sound (or colour resolution) either something else, or nothing at all.

It is a useful tool only when it is relative to a certain situation or situations which might be agreed upon with others who work on a similar basis and have already agreed on the terms of their correspondence, however that is achieved.Thus, we must observe that in toto everything is connected to everything else and that nothing is separate from anything else. Separate ‘entities’ cannot exist, as they must always (in some way) be connected.

We can, therefore, not have separate ‘entities’ only a transformation between one and the other by whatever means.

That transformation is the only way to get from one thing to any other. Again, ‘Entities’ do not exist as such, they are only a passage (however accomplished) between one ‘state’ and another. Yet again, there can be no ‘absolutes’, only a transformation between one state (whatever that is) and another, however accomplished and understood by others with different sensual apparatuses.

It may be a convenience (or contrivance) to particulate our world. It may have uses for certain things but we must be very aware that conceiving of such is not a ‘truth’. That is, a truth is not an object that can be held in one’s hands. It is a notion (or in common parlance, idea). A notion must be realised as just that, not an actuality or physical object. We may be able to process an idea (how to make a brick from some sand, for example) but we can never exactly understand how that process is accomplished, however ‘clever’ we think we are.

Relying upon particulates (atoms, germs, viruses for example), however, as an explanation of processes is dangerous ground, since it insists upon them as actualities when they do not exist as specific entities. Discrete ‘particles’ cannot be explained in terms of continuous transformation.

Enter the world of digital versus analogue. Digital is bits, whereas analogue is continuous. Nature is continuous, not digital. The difference is that analogue is a continuous process without interruption. Digital is interruption of an analogue and loses the connection between one piece of ‘data’ (for example) and another. In simple, a digital musical recording can never be the same as an analogue since the brain (analogue) cannot process the digital signal and reproduce the analogue (or whole) signal.

The best example of a process is water. Water cannot be broken down into discrete ‘particles’. It can only be processed from one ‘state’ to another, from a mist to a raging torrent (for example). It is continuously changing backwards and forwards depending upon its situation at any one given ‘moment’. A ‘moment’ is merely a digital version of continuous ‘time’. To claim it is composed of ‘elements’ is to deny its continuous movement from the one ‘state’ to another, since the elements themselves are analogue as well, one being ‘oxygen’ (whatever that is) and two being ‘hydrogen’ (whatever that is).

It is my contention, therefore, that particulate matter such as genes, DNA/RNA, germs, viruses do not and cannot exist independently but are continuous processes and cannot be singled out, whatever the alleged method of extraction might be used (or not used). How can you remove something from a living body and study it as though it were part of a living jig-saw puzzle? Doesn’t water not require outside influences to change its form? We can see changes in a flowering plant but how can we actually describe the process?

As I have said before, naming something does not tell us what it is and stop-motion is not a reality.


e: THE “CHATBOX”

sharpstuff » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:03 pm

I am posting this missive on ‘Chatbox’ since I hesitate to put this on any of the other threads regarding the Crown-19 hoax threads for fears of derailing. Sometimes it needs a step back to see the humour/serious or serious/humour of the situations presented to us by the cretinati.


Influenza Viruses

According to the C.D.C. (whoever they are or represent…not us!):

Source:

www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/…

There are four types of influenza viruses: A, B, C and D. Human influenza A and B viruses cause seasonal epidemics of disease (known as the flu season) almost every winter in the United States. Influenza A viruses are the only influenza viruses known to cause flu pandemics, i.e., global epidemics of flu disease. A pandemic can occur when a new and very different influenza A virus emerges that both infects people and has the ability to spread efficiently between people. Influenza type C infections generally cause mild illness and are not thought to cause human flu epidemics. Influenza D viruses primarily affect cattle and are not known to infect or cause illness in people.

Influenza A viruses are divided into subtypes based on two proteins on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). There are 18 different hemagglutinin subtypes and 11 different neuraminidase subtypes (H1 through H18 and N1 through N11, respectively). While there are potentially 198 different influenza A subtype combinations, only 131 subtypes have been detected in nature. Current subtypes of influenza A viruses that routinely circulate in people include: A(H1N1) and A(H3N2). Influenza A subtypes can be further broken down into different genetic “clades” and “sub-clades.” See the “Influenza Viruses” graphic below for a visual depiction of these classifications.

(In deference to sanity, I have omitted the ‘visual’.)

Below is my examination paper on the above quotation:

Influenza Viruses

Please read the whole list of questions and notes before answering the questions.

  1. From whence do all these names and numbers originate?
  2. How exactly do they differentiate all these alleged ‘viruses’?

  3. What exactly do all these numbers (e.g. ‘H1 through H18 and N1 through N11’) mean and how exactly are these known to exist within a living organism?

  4. How exactly do you demonstrate the existence of D.N.A. (or R.N.A.) outside a living organism?

  5. How exactly do you demonstrate a ‘gene’ as an apparent entity which can be examined in its entirety? If not, then what exactly is a ‘gene’?

  6. If a ‘virus’ is supposedly an entity that can replicate, how exactly does it do this if a ‘virus’ is merely a ‘strand’ of D.N.A. or R.N.A.?

  7. If D.N.A. (so-called ‘genetic material) is a sequence of an atomic/molecular stage (various ‘bases’ of atomic structure) and not an entity, how does it become a ‘virus’ which, (according to graphic images of ‘viruses’) must be a multicellular entity and have the ability to reproduce?

For extra marks:

Please explain ‘protein’ in layman’s English, or other translatable language.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Please append all or any original documents relevant to all these questions otherwise your answers will be null and void.

All answers must be able to be verifiable by the lay public.


One might also (seriously) look at this site I found regarding the notion of ‘infectious diseases’.

preventdisease.com/news/13/052… … ease.shtml

Be well and keep singing…

[Admin Note (SCS): I moved the excellent post above to this topic on April 2, 2020.]


Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

sharpstuff » Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:08 am

As I suspected, the video link Simon posted regarding the 5 rules refers to Dr. Hamer, of whom I researched a number of years ago and I mentioned in my first post on Engineering Disease. Indeed our dear Seneca wrote to me regarding this mention.

Having, amongst other many things, studied embryology, I personally can feel perfectly safe with Dr. Hamer’s thesis and my views on biological systems outside the ‘main-stream’.

Having said that, I noticed in the comments on the video that an English translation, given the difficulty of following the presentation and the sub-titles might be available. Since the video is now quite ‘old’ and none has appeared, I offer the links below.

Therefore, in case members and visitors may not have discovered German New Medicine, the following links:

Positive:

learninggnm.com/home.html

www.newmedicine.ca/

In contrast, we have this site:

sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-i… … -quackery/

It is therefore up to individuals to make up their own minds.

‘-ave no fear, the truths may be ‘ere’.

Be well.


Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

sharpstuff » Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:38 am

Rusty wrote:

One of the problems of the above video is, that it does not address the PCR/DNA topic at all, which is totally at the core of modern virology. No one will take you seriously as long as you don’t at least try to understand and explain what’s going on there.

The phrase ‘which is totally at the core of modern virology.’ is totally redundant if D.N.A. (and thus genes) does not exist as portrayed. It was made perfectly plain that you cannot expect a biological process to be the same if removed from a living body and expect it to behave in the same way outside of it. Even if there was D.N.A. in the first place, it would not be D.N.A. in the second. That is why we have the expressions in vitro and in vivo.

The fact that the so-called extraction may be apparent does not make it a truth in terms of a biological process. Also, I for one, would certainly not care a hoot if some-one does take me seriously because I don’t understand the system when it makes no sense to me in the first place. Because we can’t tie Nature down to whatever fanciful words or number systems or ‘technological’ equipment, is too bad. You can take a cell from a living body (perhaps) and put it under a microscope but you can only say: This is what it looks like under a microscope and leave it at that. It does not tell you how it works, that would be pure speculation, whatever you did to it. Once out of the body, it would become denatured and not part of a biological process which would explain it.


Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

sharpstuff » Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:30 am

EPIDEMIC EPIDEMICS

Unproven and unprovable assumption: Germs/viruses cause ‘disease’. So-called ‘diseases’ like ‘influenza’ or the ‘common cold’ appear at certain times of the year apparently in mainly the so-called ‘Winter months’.

So what happens during this period that precipitates this?

My answer: The human body works best in a particular environment, such as heat, cold, accessibility to certain available required foodstuffs or anything in between, depending upon where one lives. The range between heat and cold is determined by Nature for all biological forms according to the nature of the, what we call, the ‘Universe’. That we have digitised this universe does not give us a clue as what actually happens at the analogue of ‘time’ which we digitise as hours, minutes, months, years and so forth.

If we do not prepare ourselves for our ever-changing environment using natural means, we are then subject to creating anomalies of Nature. Not enough ‘sun’ or too much ‘sun’ (for example) will not prepare our bodies for proper perpetuation within this ever-changing environment.

Our diets (whatever they are) our clothing, our particular responses to change will determine our ‘health status’, if you will.

It was/are ‘germs’ and later ‘viruses’ that are deemed to ‘cause’ disease, although this can easily be ‘debunked’ as bunkum, it is still the well held and engineered ‘theory’ that these alleged entities are responsible for our irresponsibility relating to how we lead our lives or are deprived of such through foreign intervention or poor living conditions most often not of our own making (the various ‘plagues’ of history as we are led to believe).

However, we are to be presented with the notion of these spurious non-entities that can cause an ‘epidemic’ or even ‘pandemic’ for the realities that we do not, in fact, ‘look after ourselves’ according to the needs of our bodies, for one reason or another, or season or another.

In simple, if we imbibe the most natural ingredients that suit our particular bodily needs (diet and the catalyst of ‘sunlight’, for example) appropriate for the time of ‘year’, then we will not be blessed with runny noses and coughs, etcetera.

However, assuming (incorrectly) that there are ‘pathogens’, we must still ask questions!

So far as I can gather (and stand to be corrected) we have the notion of an epidemic or pandemic (even if they are pancomic). [Beware the back-stories!]

Apparently, epidemics/pandemics…..start…..peak…..trail off

  1. Who and how does one determine or initiate the start?
  • Who, how and when does one determine a peak?

  • Who and what initiates this apparent ‘trailing off’?

  • My personal answers:

    1.Those who consider themselves as the ‘illuminati’ (or whatever) and need to demonise other groups or wish to maintain a precipitous hold on their apparent ‘power’.

    2.The same group or groups who wish to end their exercise to see where it might lead to their constant fear of their demise.

    3.Engineering their benevolence at being able to control others by their methods of convincing others of their ability to control the ignorance/indoctrination of the general public by their false claims as to their worthiness as ‘leaders’.

    ‘The rest is silence…’ (‘Hamlet the Prince of Denmark’, attributed to the ‘Shakespeare’ consortium.)


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:51 am

    I hope readers appreciate that I have spent a long time on this reply to various members and any of the many people looking for some sense in the present as well as past endeavours of a group of insane individuals (to be kind) who have an anti-human agenda. I always write in good faith and with consideration and a great deal of research over many years. I could never claim to have answers, merely to give ‘food for thought’.

    Rusty wrote:

    I think it’s very important to clarify and agree on a common terminology before we move onward. Let’s make one thing clear: Viruses exist only by DEFINITION.

    Answer: What would be a ‘common definition’? How would/could you accomplish a ‘common definition’? Who might agree with that definition? Definitions most often refer to dictionaries or encyclopaedias written by apparent ‘scholars’ according to their propensities at defining natural or other events according to the situation in which they live and in probable consequence of the nature of the work into which they place their thoughts according to the dictionary into which they insert their definition?

    The topic is comparable to the dinosaurs: Nobody has ever seen one, but because of DEFINITIONs almost everyone believes they once existed.

    Answer: Who defined ‘dinosaurs? How did they arrive at a definition? Why did the definition require a status as to their actuality?]

    Rusty wrote:

    So, here is my knowledge about what is known to exist:

    • Proteins in the blood which everyone has to some extent
  • Tiny particles that can be photographed in an electron microscope

  • Short strands of polynucleotides which are detectable by PCR

  • “Disease” programs with mostly unknown causes and effects

  • Virology combines these to the claim of tiny particles which contain RNA/DNA and a protein shell, produced by cells, causing disease.

    Answer:

    1. What exactly are ‘proteins’?
  • What exactly are the ‘tiny particles’ that can be ‘photographed (how?) in an electron microscope?

  • Do we know that such a device (an electron microscope) has been constructed or how it actually works?

  • Have you ever seen or used such a device or is it just a figment of someone’s imagination created to pretend that such small elements exist (especially taken from a so-called ‘living tissue’ that outside of its environment and therefore cannot exist as it was before its retrieval from a living source? ]

  • Rusty wrote: Modern science focuses on CORRELATION analysis. Correlation between nucleotides, between nucleotides and proteins, between proteins and disease, between nucleotides and disease.

    Answer: So-called ‘modern’ science is a misnomer. ‘Modern science’ produces all the things (whatever they are) to create the notion of ‘disease’ and all the other tripe we are forced to consume, like ‘rocketry’ and so forth. If you replace ‘modern science’ with reason and perpetual allegiance to it you may acquire some sense (as in common sense). Common sense is that which, when, for example you cut the grass it will grow again (which is readily observable even by the blind).

    Please explain: Correlation between nucleotides, between nucleotides and proteins, between proteins and disease, between nucleotides and disease in any sense that I/we can make of them. What on this planet are all these things that can make a sensible/coherent explanation to anyone else who is not versed in this religious mantra?

    Rusty wrote: Evidently, it’s possible to find all sorts of CORRELATIONS if you just try hard enough. However, everything else is just speculation, especially the question of CAUSE AND EFFECT.

    Answer: ‘Correlations’ are not evidence unless they can be proven and visibly evident. There is certainly a notion that ‘patterns’ can be significant but only as markers for some things which need to be explored further, especially in terms of theories. Patterns as in art-forms, of course can be quite beautiful.

    However, looking for patterns that are invisible to the naked eye that can only rely upon some form of magnification are a different matter. All very well looking through a magnifying glass (e.g. a rain-drop which is natural) and those that work well through other (very cleverly created from glass and other means, for example) they are always subject to interpretation of the object so magnified since they are, as I have said before are in vitro.

    As to ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, one would have to explain precisely what is/the ‘cause’ and by a totally agreed definition (as well as practically demonstration to all who might agree or disagree) by the ‘cause’ and the ‘effect’ thus produced and both views described and recorded, in detail, that any of us can understand (without the teaching of ‘established’ views meant to disrupt alternative investigation.

    Rusty wrote: I totally agree nature is not self-destructive.

    Answer: Thank you. ‘Destruction is the dissolution of an apparent ’physical’ object (something that can be held and contemplated) that can be broken down, not into its apparent ’components’, since we cannot always comprehend its existence albeit with the ‘senses’ with which we have at any given time. ‘Dissolution’ is a process. Nature is a process from, as far as we can imagine, from whatever was here before us and whatever follow. We are ‘born’ and we ‘die’. It is purely a form of transformation from one thing to something else, however one might want to append a ‘god-theme’ of some description.

    Rusty wrote: There is a purpose in everything.

    Answer: How do you come by that statement? Who says?

    Rusty wrote: But this does of course not exclude the possibility that “tiny particles”, proteins and “strands of polynucleotides” are part of natural processes.

    Answer: All these ‘tiny particles’, ‘proteins’ strands of polydoolackies and other trivia are part of the misinterpretation of what is seen under some sort of ‘microscope’ or other device. As I have said before, many times, out of a living structure you cannot remove it and ‘see’ what it is like outside of it without speculation as to its ‘purpose’. Nature does not have a ‘purpose’, it merely does what it does unless you believe in some form of direction from an amorphous omniscience. Is this not blatantly obvious?]

    Quote:

    Alovas1980 wrote: I wasn’t clear enough it seems.

    So, there are no viruses and no antibodies.

    But there are/will be tests which test if someone has antibodies against a virus. Whatever they claim they are.

    So, what I would like to know. What will the test do? What are the tiny things they claim are antibodies?

    Answer : Sanity! My dear Alovas1980, please be assured that there are no viruses, antibodies, germs to grab you during the night of a potentially restful sleep devoid of this nonsense. How can you ‘test’ something that is not ‘there’ in the first place? If there are no germs and viruses, then how can there be anti-bodies? If Nature does produce these entities, why are we all still here? If these things are ‘air-borne’ or ‘contact-borne’ then why are we all still here? If Nature can produce ‘bodies’ harmful to itself’, why then would Nature need to produce ‘anti-bodies’? Why would there be an unnecessary battle between the two factions? What is Nature up to?

    Quote: Kham wrote:

    Indeed Rusty,

    Correlation is not causation. But what about causation? Assuming that viruses don’t exist, I would like to see an explanation of how chicken pox or mumps or measles spread because they all have separate and unique symptoms.

    Answer: You are asking about ‘causes’. The only ‘cause’ of what we care to call ‘diseases’ are what I (and I am not alone) have always claimed as ‘dis-eases’. There is a significant discrepancy between the two terms. ‘Disease’ refers to a particular reference to which certain ‘symptoms’ (derived from whatever you wish to lump together to claim such) and the notion of an ‘unhealthy’ life-style, however this may come about.

    The human body, as with all other life-forms, is, in simple, self-healing. That means that if one is injured (by whatever means, since we all react with another in some way) that is not conducive to our own particular welfare, the body reacts, so far as it can, to repair the damage thus caused.

    All life-forms (however you define them) require particular ‘diets’ and circumstances (e.g. daylight) to maintain that self-healing. If the constituents of those diets and circumstances are not available, the body attempts to rectify that by whatever means are necessary. If it fails, then we can be in trouble.

    When the required nutrients are not available and substitutes are added which are not conducive to the repair of your particular body, then the body will react and try to get rid of them.

    Thus, when, after the Second (contrived) World War, during which I was born (mid 1944) there were, because of certain food shortages a lack of nutritious material which was available to us. We therefore (I imagine and given my parents care as much as could be) be received less nutrition than was necessary and that which was not, our bodies attempted to relieve themselves, hence our (what they called) ‘measles. Pustules, of any kind are a ’symptom’ of the body trying to rid itself of that which is not conducive to its natural function.

    So-called ‘disease’ is a function (process) of getting rid of that which a particular substance is anathema to the particular body. Given enough of the incorrect food (data in technological terms) the output is a ‘dis-ease’.

    In short, anything that you ‘inject’ into a human body, natural or otherwise, must result in a non-positive reaction. The body will reject these unnatural products, if it can. Pustules (or whatever) are the evidence that the body needs to get rid of unnatural products to survive (via self-healing so far as it is possible). If you inject ‘anti-biotics’, or ‘vaccinations’ (anti-life) into a body you cannot expect to have or produce, progeny who can expect an uncompromised body and therefore subjected to the mores of the progenitors of ill-health (W.H.O., the U.K. N.H.S., C.D.C. etcetera). Whatever they do, they do not promote health.


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:39 am

    Alovas 1980 wrote:

    Dear Sharpstuff,

    I appreciate that you have spent a long time on you reply.

    In the last 20 year I never really believed in viruses and epidemics, and since the last “Ebola virus epidemic” I know that it is BS. So, there are no viruses. They don’t exist.

    But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not. The tests are not 100%, I think more like 60% right. They say they are looking for antibodies. I know if viruses don’t exist then antibodies don’t exist either. Very logical.

    But I want to know what the test does. Is it totally random or are they looking for some specific thing in the body? I don’t say that viruses and antibodies exist. I don’t say that they are looking for antibodies with the tests. I don’t care about proteins or if they exist or not.

    I just want to know what the test really does.

    I hope it is clearer like it.

    Kind Regards,

    Alovas1980

    Dear Alovas thank you so much for your appreciation. I am not medically trained (thank goodness) I merely studied many medical subjects in my youth (and continue to do so). Therefore I can only offer what I have learned over the many years. You say:

    But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not.

    My questions are:

    Are there really diseases?

    Are there really tests?

    What precisely are these tests and how exactly are they accomplished?

    How can you construct a test for something that does not exist?

    I would love to know for myself.

    Here are a few definitions of ‘test’:

    1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.
  • An examination of part of the body or a body fluid for medical purposes, especially by means of a chemical or mechanical procedure rather than simple inspection.

  • Chemistry: a procedure employed to identify a substance or to reveal the presence or absence of a constituent within a substance.

  • The result of a medical examination or analytical procedure. “A positive test for protein (for example)”.

  • A means of establishing whether an action, item, or situation is an instance of a specified quality, especially one held to be undesirable. “A statutory test of obscenity”.

  • Definitions do not tell us what something is (or isn’t) they merely ‘name’ something. None of the above definitions tell us how these so-called tests are accomplished! We have been brain-washed with all these notions of ‘tests’. We have been bombarded by all the (possible/probably deceitful) images, videos of all these marvellous gowned personages in apparent pristine laboratories who spend their ‘lives’ putting ‘things’ into petri dishes and so forth, shoving them under unsuspecting ‘microscopes’ of some kind; adding and subtracting unknown chemicals, attaching spurious labels to spurious reactions. How could you make sense of that? We are relying on what we are led to believe that these people ‘know what they are doing’.

    A strictly ‘Google’ definition of the Litmus test:

    Noun: litmus test; plural noun: litmus tests

    1. Chemistry: a test for acidity or alkalinity using litmus.
  • a decisively indicative test.

  • Example: “effectiveness in these areas is often a good litmus test of overall quality”

    I remember this test from early school-boy days.

    www.merriam-webster.com/dictio… … mus%20test

    Litmus Test Has Scientific Origins

    It was in the 14th century that scientists discovered that litmus, a mixture of colored organic compounds obtained from lichen, turns red in acid solutions and blue in alkaline solutions and, thus, can be used as an acid-base indicator. Six centuries later, people began using litmus test figuratively. It can now refer to any single factor that establishes the true character of something or causes it to be assigned to one category or another. Often it refers to something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that can be used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable or not.

    Even this does not tell us what ‘organic compounds obtained from ’lichen’ are. The phrase ‘establishes the true character of something’ also begs the question what does ‘true’ mean and to whom?

    We could go on endlessly with this.

    Until we know exactly how and with what these ‘tests’ are carried out and with exactly what materials they use to construct them, so that unlike the ‘experts’, the ignorati (in this case the poor souls who are trying to make sense of this diabolical ‘virus’ scam), we must just keep going.

    Be well (untested and un’vaccinated’!)


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:53 am

    I am posting this as serious humour. It relates to all forms of ‘testing’ for alleged ‘bacteria’, viruses’ and other imaginative concoctions by the so-called ‘scientific’ community and heralded as ‘fact’ by the Main Sewer News and its supporters.

    Review of an article from Pathway Genomics

    Foreword

    When I read this article, I was astounded by the methods by which they allegedly extract ‘D.N.A.’ from a living body and thus the standard and now virtually ‘set in concrete’ texts regarding ‘genes’, ‘genomes’ and so forth. I remember reading their book (via a Penguin Book in the early 1960’s) and was fascinated by it; so fascinated that I could eventually draw the sequence from memory and I still have my original notes.

    I now, after many years refute this notion of ‘genetics’ as portrayed and apparently accepted by the masses (including so-called scholars) because of the methods used for ‘extraction’ of any substance from the human body (‘cells’ or fluid) and its viability as an explanation for biological processes.

    My contention is that you cannot explain a life-form from its constituent extracted ‘parts’ since they are linked together in toto and something which would be ‘dead’ cannot be seen to be part of a living structure. To me, at least, this would be inexplicable.

    The same notion for any sort of ‘test’ requiring the extraction of anything from a human body and manipulated by any means outside of it, is simply ludicrous.

    My comments are equally suitable for any other so-called tests.

    Comments in Times New Roman between […]. Article in Bold.

    Sharpstuff

    April, 2020


    Pathway Genomics

    Over the years, DNA tests have been continuously refined to the point where people, in the comforts of their own home, can provide a sample that lab technicians can use to map out a comprehensive report of their genome. Through a small sample of blood, saliva, cheek cells, or a hair follicle, you can better understand your body and its needs.

    [WoW! Exciting stuff!]

    When you use a DNA test [does that mean I can do it myself?], you provide a sample, usually either blood or saliva. Once this sample arrives at the lab, technicians [Yippee!] extract the DNA from this sample. Known as DNA extraction, this is a process by which DNA is isolated from the nucleus of cells. [Hmmm.]Along with DNA testing, DNA extraction is also used to detect bacteria or viruses in the environment. [Please define ‘bacteria’ and ‘viruses’.]

    There are a number of techniques for DNA extraction. For example, the molecular technique FISH (Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization) is used to identify and itemize particular bacterial groups, [How?] whereas sequencing is done to compare portions of or whole genomes with existing sequence in a public database. [Please show examples (bacterial groups, sequencing and explain what they mean. It sounds ‘fishy’ to me.]

    [Nitty gritty.]The Five Steps for DNA Extraction

    While there are DNA extraction kits available, which extract DNA from cell types, these can be expensive, so most scientists and labs develop their own method for extracting DNA. [El cheapo.]While there may be slight deviations, there are general steps labs follow to extract DNA from your sample. [Why would there be deviations? What difference does it make to the findings?]

    Step 1: Technicians first break open the cells [To release the inmates?] in your sample to release the DNA. [You are assuming D.N.A. exists.] This process is known as lysing, as lysins are used to dissolve the cells. To separate the cells in your sample, technicians will grind them [!] and add them to a salt solution. [We are a long way from their alleged existence already.]The sodium ions in the salt, which are positively charged, help protect the phosphate groups that are found in the backbone of DNA, as they’re negatively charged. [How do you explain that?] Following, a detergent, such as SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), is added to remove lipids in the cell membrane and nuclei. [In other words, we batter once healthy ‘cells’ into oblivion and whatever is left is considered D.N.A.?] As these membranes break down, DNA is released.

    Step 2: Next, DNA must be separated from proteins. [What ‘proteins’? Explain ‘proteins.]This cellular debris [It is certainly that!]can make it difficult to get a clean [!] [Sorry… of course it has been washed with detergent.] reading of DNA, so technicians [!] strive to get as clean a sample of DNA as they can. [If not, then what?]There are a few different ways to remove cellular debris and proteins. One method for precipitating the protein is to add ammonium, sodium acetate, or another salt. By vortexing with phenol-chloroform and centrifuging, the proteins can be drawn off. Alternatively, a protein enzyme may be added to the sample to degrade any proteins. [My mind is boggled at this atrocity towards what was living tissue before it was taken from a host.]

    Step 3: After technicians have a clean sample of DNA, they add ice-cold ethanol or isopropanol. While DNA is soluble in water, it isn’t soluble when salt or alcohol are present. The alcohol helps wash the sample and remove the salt that was previously added. As they stir the alcohol in the sample, a white, stringy precipitate (imagine spit in a glass of water [not really as far as I am concerned but then I am not a ‘technician’.) appears and it can be retrieved. [Lordy, lordy, how much of this drivel is one supposed to acquire before I expire from laughter?]

    Step 4: Once the DNA sample is extracted, technicians will further purify and clean it. [By now, whatever it is, cannot possibly be anything of value in a biological sense.] Once clean, it’s resuspended in a buffer that’s slightly alkaline, such as Tris, and is ready to use. [One might ask for what!]

    Step 5: Even when it’s ready to use, technicians still need to determine the quality and concentration of the DNA. For example, if not enough DNA is extracted, an additional swab may be needed. [Perhaps a whole living body?] Using a spectrophotometer [?], technicians for an optical density reading[??] , technicians can confirm the presence of the DNA. [Yipee!]Alternatively, instead of an optical density reading, technicians may use gel electrophoresis to indicate the presence of DNA. [Now that is very clever. What is gel electrophoresis? It certainly sounds pretty clever to me.]

    Once technicians [Those dear boys and girls work very hard washing things, don’t they, especially having been brain-washed into believing what they do is anything near real.] have a clean DNA sample extracted from your swab, they can review your DNA for a number of factors. [Which might be?] While 99.9% of DNA from two people will be identical, that 0.1% varies, and it’s what makes us unique. [The %’s are staggering! Really?] Known as genetic markers, these are what scientists focus on when conducting a DNA test.

    DNA testing can reveal your genetic ethnicity and risk factors and potential diseases you may have inherited (or may eventually inherit) from your parents, help you lose weight and more. [Oh, for goodness sake!] And as we’ve all seen on crime shows, [Well, you might have.] DNA samples can also be used to aid in crime scenes and trials, as fingerprints and blood samples can be used to determine the victim and perpetrator. [These have all been disputed many, many times.]

    At Pathway Genomics, we offer a number of DNA tests centered on your health. From understanding your dietary and exercise needs to screening for potential cancer genes,[Oh, dear this is terrible. Who says there are ‘cancer’ genes? Where do you get the idea that ‘cancer’ is caused by genes?] DNA testing can empower you to make informed decisions about your health. [Sorry, bovine excrement.] With a small sample of DNA, you can uncover a number of things about your health and body you never knew. [Extremely doubtful.]

    Be well.


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:58 am

    Sharpstuff wrote:

    When I read this article, I was astounded by the methods by which they allegedly extract ‘D.N.A.’ from a living body and thus the standard and now virtually ‘set in concrete’ texts regarding ‘genes’, ‘genomes’ and so forth. I remember reading their book (via a Penguin Book in the early 1960’s) and was fascinated by it; so fascinated that I could eventually draw the sequence from memory and I still have my original notes.

    My apologies. When I said ‘I remember reading their book’, I was referring to the story of D.N.A. by Watson and Crick.

    Be well.


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:31 am

    Quite an interesting video.

    Much of this I have already said in my previous posts (if anyone actually reads them). I would like to interview this lady. She does, however, stick to the notion that you can study in vivo processes, in vitro, which I dispute. She also hangs onto the word ‘immunity’, again which I dispute, since if there are no actual ‘germs’ or ‘viruses’, there would be no need for an ‘immune’ system from which there would be no need to be immune.

    Cambridge dictionary

    Meaning of immune in English

    1.

    immune

    (adjective) Protected against a particular disease by particular substances in the blood.

    2.

    immune

    (after verb) Not affected or upset by a particular type of behaviour or emotion.

    She is correct, of course, when she talks of natural things for a natural body, (otherwise we would not be here at all!) The less natural your life-style, the more you succumb to the lack of self-healing, bar, of course, accident and emergency.

    I will give you my example of the difference between in vivo and in vitro. If you want to make a cake (for example), you obtain the ingredients (flour, milk, sugar, butter etc.) and you mix them together in a bowl, from which you produce a compound. You then bake it and it becomes a completed object which we then call a cake. The ingredients are in vivo. Now once the cake is made, there is no way possible to ‘un-make’ it and retrieve the original ingredients, is there? However you batter (?) it to pieces, you cannot deconstruct it and say, ‘here is a grain of flour, drop of milk, sugar etc’.

    This is precisely what these biologists/virologists (or whatever they call themselves) try to do with living tissue. What appears under a microscope as a cell unit, is not the cell as it was in the human body. Once leaving the body, it would immediately try to heal itself and become something else, much as a bleeding wound will immediately begin to coagulate to heal itself. Left alone it becomes what we call a ‘scab’ which eventually dissipates and if left untouched will leave no ‘scar’ (healing by first intention). Obviously if the wound is too deep then it may require intervention such a ‘stitch’ (healing by second intention) and there is no problem with that, of course. How can one dispute this notion?

    We really must get to grips with the notion of a process (or transformation from one state to another) in the analogue.

    Of course, we agree that there are biological processes which might go ‘wrong’ for one reason or another, but these must always be looked at in context with the whole person and studied separately.

    Be well.


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Wed May 06, 2020 5:42 am

    Dr. Hilleman still talks as though ‘viruses’ exist and that vaccinations contain so-called ‘dead’ viruses (as opposed to ‘live’ viruses). I dispute this. Also, if there are no ‘germs’ or ‘viruses’ there is no need for any ‘immune’ system, which is yet another scam linked to ‘viruses’ etc.

    Keeping any animals in captivity (including humans) is bound to cause severe stress and other factors, it doesn’t matter what those factors are. People will react in different ways, simply because we are all different (place of abode, sex, age, physical size and so on).

    When one talks about introducing ‘cancer’ into animals via ‘vaccination’, one is talking about the (literal) stabbing of subjects and injecting them with foreign matter (whatever that is) which the body attempts to rid itself from as best it can and as soon as it can..

    If one has any knowledge of Dr. Hamer’s work on ‘cancer’ (much of which I have spoken in the past), they will realise that it is the stabbing which causes a trauma (which would vary according to the age, health, sex and so on of the recipient of the stabbing). This is not ‘rocket science’ as they say. As Basil Fawlty would say: ‘It’s stating the bleedin’ obvious.’

    How anyone can stab an innocent child (or anyone else, for that matter) with such tools as needles, let alone filling them with poisonous material, is beyond me.

    Be well.


    Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE “VIRUS” IDEA

    sharpstuff » Wed May 06, 2020 7:17 am

    WHAT IS A ‘VIRUS’?

    This post may seem inordinately long but I make no apologies for it because I think it essential to explore the notion of ‘viruses’ as entities which might help or hinder biological forms or all kinds.

    I have reproduced the following article from the link below, which you can explore for yourselves.

    The article is in bold type and my questions and comments in standard type-face and brackets ().

    Definitions are marked between […] and in italics.

    This is a serious piece of work, although it must inevitably devolve into satire, no apologies…

    The link to the original is (without the graphic of an alleged virus, (the one used to denote the alleged Corona virus (Covid-19)):

    www.medicalnewstoday.com/artic…

    WHAT IS A ‘VIRUS’?

    Viruses are microscopic organisms (please explain) that exist almost (please explain) everywhere on earth.

    They can infect [Infection:

    www.medicinenet.com/script/mai… … key=12923

    The invasion and multiplication of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites that are not normally present within the body. An infection may cause no symptoms and be subclinical, or it may cause symptoms and be clinically apparent. An infection may remain localized, or it may spread through the blood or lymphatic vessels to become systemic (bodywide). Microorganisms that live naturally in the body are not considered infections. For example, bacteria that normally live within the mouth and intestine are not infections. animals, plants, fungi, and even bacteria.] animals, plants, fungi, and even bacteria.

    Sometimes a virus can cause a disease (please explain ‘disease’) so deadly that it is fatal. Other viral infections trigger no noticeable reaction.

    A virus may also have one effect on one type of organism, but a different effect on another. This explains how a virus that affects a cat may not affect a dog.

    Viruses vary in complexity. (How?) They consist of genetic material, RNA or DNA, surrounded by a coat of protein, lipid (fat), or glycoprotein. (Please explain these terms in detail with references to their authenticity) Viruses cannot replicate without a host, so they are classified as parasitic.

    They are considered the most abundant biological entity on the planet. (By whom? Please provide relevant sources as to the voracity of this statement.)

    Fast facts on viruses (Please provide in detail those that are not ‘facts’.)

    Viruses are living (please explain ‘living organisms’) that cannot replicate without a host cell. (Which precludes the ‘fact’ that the DNA/RNA theory is not held in high esteem.)

    They are considered the most abundant biological entity on the planet. (By whom?)

    Diseases caused by viruses include rabies, herpes, and Ebola. (Please explain diseases, again.)

    There is no cure for a virus (Why?), but vaccination can prevent them from spreading. (How can ‘vaccination’ (please explain), which is an unnatural imposition on any living bio-organism possibly do any ‘good’ whatsoever, since the body will automatically reject such an imposition and cause untold stress in the meantime?)

    What are viruses?

    Almost every ecosystem (?) on Earth contains viruses (What is your proof?).

    Before entering a cell (?), viruses exist in a form known as virions. (Really? Please explain.)

    During this phase, they are roughly one-hundredth the size of a bacterium (please explain in detail a ‘bacterium’) and consist of two or three distinct parts (Oh! My word, only two or three):

    genetic material, either DNA or RNA (not conclusively agreed that it exists, please provide repeatable proof)

    a protein coat, or capsid, which protects the genetic information (I am lost here unless you can explain a protein coat, capsid or genetic information).

    a lipid envelope is sometimes present around the protein coat when the virus is outside of the cell (why is that? What is a lipid? How does all this work in real life?)

    Viruses do not contain a ribosome (which is what, precisely?) so they cannot make proteins. This makes them totally dependent on their host. They are the only type of microorganism that cannot reproduce without a host cell.

    After contacting a host cell, (by cell-phone?) a virus will insert genetic material (what ‘genetic’ material?) into the host and take over that host’s functions (why would it do that?).

    After infecting the cell, the virus continues to reproduce, (I was told that ‘viruses’ could not reproduce) but it produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of the usual cellular products (why on earth would it do that? Does it also have a brain and reasoning or unreasoning powers?).

    It is this process that earns viruses the classification of parasite.

    Viruses have different shapes and sizes, and they can be categorized by their shapes.

    These may be:

    Helical: The tobacco mosaic virus has a helix shape.

    Icosahedral, near-spherical viruses: Most animal viruses are like this.

    Envelope: Some viruses cover themselves with a modified section of cell membrane, creating a protective lipid envelope. These include the influenza virus and HIV. (How do you come by all this?)

    Other shapes are possible, including nonstandard shapes that combine both helical and icosahedral forms. (How can one make such a statement without providing exact methods of visible evidence?)

    READER SURVEY

    Help us answer your questions about Covid-19 (You cannot, unless you can prove without doubt that such a thing exists in reality.)

    Share your questions and concerns with MNT so we can provide helpful information for you. (You could not answer them in any meaningful way.)

    Viruses do not leave fossil remains, so they are difficult to trace through time. (Possibly they do not exist, like dinosaurs.) Molecular techniques (which precisely are?) are used to compare the DNA and RNA of viruses and find out more about where they come from. (An incredibly insane mind?)

    Three competing theories try to explain the origin of viruses. (Possibly four if you discount their validity.)

    Regressive, or reduction hypothesis: Viruses started as independent organisms that became parasites. (Really? How could you possibly know this?) Over time, they shed genes that did not help them parasitize, and they became entirely dependent on the cells they inhabit. (Please, please! My credibility is reaching its limits!)

    Progressive, or escape hypothesis: Viruses evolved from sections of DNA or RNA that “escaped” from the genes of larger organisms. (You mean escaped from the Alcatraz of Mother Nature! How dare they!) In this way, they gained the ability to become independent and move between cells. (If they need a host cell to exist, how exactly do the ‘move between cells?)

    Virus-first hypothesis: Viruses evolved from complex molecules of nucleic acid (?) and proteins (?) either before or at the same time as the first cells appeared on Earth, billions of years ago. (Such is speculation!)

    Transmission

    A virus exists only to reproduce. (I believe it has been said that ‘viruses’ cannot reproduce which is why they have to be ‘cultivated’ to even find out that there are any.) When it reproduces, its offspring spread (exactly how? This is supposed to be a ‘scientific’ piece and offspring? Do they have babies?) to new cells and new hosts.

    The makeup of a virus affects its ability to spread. (How, exactly? Lipstick? Face-powder? Gender re-assignment?)

    Viruses may transmit from person to person, and from mother to child during pregnancy or delivery. (Prove it.)

    They can spread through:

    touch

    exchanges of saliva, coughing, or sneezing

    sexual contact

    contaminated food or water

    insects that carry them from one person to another

    (Please explain these five notions in detail. If these ‘viruses’ live in the ‘cells’ of biological bodies, how are they able to get themselves out of the body to ‘infect’ other people or species when outside the ‘host’ they are unable to exist? Am I missing something here?)

    Some viruses can live on an object for some time (Are there any studies to prove this?), so if a person touches an item with the virus on their hands, the next person can pick up that virus by touching the same object. The object is known as a fomite [definition: objects or materials which are likely to carry infection, such as clothes, utensils, and furniture..]

    As the virus replicates in the body (How, for goodness sake? And forget the DNA/RNA nonsense.), it starts to affect the host. After a period known as the incubation period (please explain), symptoms may start to show.

    What happens if viruses change? (From what to what?)

    When a virus spreads, it can pick up some of its host’s DNA and take it to another cell or organism. (Please explain the process.)

    If the virus enters the host’s DNA, (explain D.N.A.) it can affect the wider genome (?) by moving around a chromosome or to a new chromosome. (?? Please explain)

    This can have long-term effects on a person. In humans, it may (? How?) explain the development of hemophilia and muscular dystrophy.

    This interaction with host DNA (Please explain what exactly, you mean.) can also cause viruses to change.

    Some viruses only affect one type of being, say, birds. (How do you know that? What verifiable evidence will convince me?) If a virus that normally affects birds does by chance enter a human, and if it picks up some human DNA, this can produce a new type of virus that may be more likely to affect humans in future. (Surely this is pure speculation.)

    This is why scientists are concerned about rare (Rare? On what do you define ‘rare’?) viruses that spread from animals to people.

    Viral diseases

    Viruses cause many human diseases. (Really? How do you define ‘diseases’?)

    These include:

    smallpox

    the common cold and different types of flu

    measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, and shingles

    hepatitis

    herpes and cold sores

    polio

    rabies

    Ebola and Hanta fever

    HIV, the virus that causes AIDS

    Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

    dengue fever, Zika, and Epstein-Barr

    (Are these really ‘diseases’ or made up for ulterior purposes?)

    Some viruses, such as the human papilloma virus (HPV), can lead to cancer. (Please define ‘cancer’.)

    What are friendly viruses? (? I thought ‘viruses’ we ‘bad’ for us. How come some are ‘friendly’ to us? How is it possible to detect the ‘friend’ from the ‘enemy’?)

    Just as there are friendly bacteria (Explain ‘bacteria’.) that exist in our intestines and help us digest food, humans may also carry friendly viruses that help protect against dangerous bacteria, including Escherichia coli (E. Coli). (So now we have ‘friendly bacteria’ and ‘enemy bacteria’. How are we to suppose the difference and by what methods do we distinguish between the two?)

    Combating viruses (The ‘war’ words of medicine rear their ugly head.)

    The body defends itself through the deployment of T-cells, which attack the virus. (Oh, dear, please explain ‘T-cells’ being ‘deployed’.)

    When the body’s immune system (How come the body has an ‘immune’ system? What is an immune system and why would we have one in the first place?) detects (what sort of sleuth can detect a virus, even if it exists? Where are Holmes and Watson?) it starts to respond, to enable cells to survive the attack. (The mind boggles.)

    A process called RNA interference breaks down the viral genetic material. (Could you explain that, please.)

    The immune system produces special antibodies that can bind to viruses, making them non-infectious. The body sends T cells to destroy the virus. (Send in the cavalry!)

    Most viral infections trigger (Sorry! The cavalry don’t have guns, we need armed troops.) a protective response from the immune system, but viruses such as HIV and neurotropic viruses have ways of evading (How?) the immune system’s defenses.

    Neurotropic viruses infect nerve cells. They are responsible for diseases such as polio, rabies, mumps, and measles. (Really?)

    They can affect the structure of the central nervous system (CNS) with delayed and progressive effects that can be severe.

    (This whole thing gets worse…)

    Treatment and drugs

    Bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics, but viral infections require either vaccinations to prevent them in the first place or antiviral drugs to treat them.

    Sometimes, the only possible treatment is to provide symptom relief.

    Antiviral drugs have been developed largely in response to the AIDS pandemic. These drugs do not destroy the pathogen, but they inhibit their development and slow down the progress of the disease.

    Antivirals are also available to treat infection with the herpes simplex virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, shingles, and chicken pox.

    Vaccines

    Vaccinations are generally the cheapest and most effective way to prevent viruses. Some vaccines have succeeded in eliminating diseases, such as smallpox.

    Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent viruses.

    (This whole section beggars belief.)

    Virus vaccinations consist of:

    a weakened form of the virus (Beaten up in the centrifuge, most likely.)

    viral proteins called antigens, which stimulate the body to form antibodies that will fight off future infections with the same virus (It’s a good job our bodies have some military training.)

    live-attenuated viruses, such as immunization for poliomyelitis (I would still like to know how all this is accomplished.)

    Live-attenuated vaccines carry the risk of causing the original disease in people with weak immune systems. (Not enough military training?)

    Currently, vaccinations exist for polio, measles, mumps, and rubella, among others. Widespread use of these vaccines has reduced their prevalence dramatically. (We are heading for some bovine excrement, here.)

    Two doses of the measles vaccine, for example, offer 97 percent protection against this disease.

    The measles vaccine has achieved a 99-percent reduction in the incidence of measles in the United States (U.S.). If there is an outbreak, it usually affects people who are not vaccinated. (Oh, dear, really? Evidence?)

    Continue reading

    No tags for this post.

    Shame new world

    Be the 1st to vote.

    The new surveillance friendly, physically separated world is being built while you’re locked in your houses.It’s sad, sick, and anti-human.If you’re reading this, then at least you’ve spent your time off wisely.www.buzzfeednews.com/article/k…

    No tags for this post.

    Defy unconstitutional order and…. win!

    likes this

    Gretchen Whitmer Lashes Out at Michiganders: Lockdown ‘Not Optional’
    Whitmer was asked about business owners and residents “doubting” her authority to enforce executive orders.

    www.breitbart.com/politics/202…

    No tags for this post.

    More proof this is a simulation

    Be the 1st to vote.

    The elite choose their words carefully, PK noticed and did a video.

    “Can be characterized as” does not equal “declared”.

    The media lies by omitting this truth.

    It sounds the same but it’s not, legally.

    It’s not illegal for the media to lie.

    If you believe the lie, it’s your fault.

    They told you the truth.

    No tags for this post.