The questions are not formulated correctly, they conflate covid with Sars-cov2 virus. Covid is an illness, a collection of physical symptoms in a human. Sarscov2 is a theoretical concept. The sequence of it exists on a computer but have not been proven with true scientific methods in reality. It has also not been proven as a causative agent of covid illness.
There is a gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 virus in circulation, but its detection is fradulent (RT-PCR) and the regular flu is counted as Covid. The plandemic does not follow a normal pattern due to "vaccines" creating immune tolerance and thus letting mutations/variants through.
I understand that some people believe that all viruses are internal and therefore their expression is based on the host’s terrain. This particularly makes sense given the vastness of the human virome (this word is so new spell check doesn’t recognize it!) and how little we know about it. However, I have seen viruses spread quickly, such as the fast and furious gastro that tends to make an appearance this time of year. There is no reason to discount either theory and I feel both terrain and contagion exist. COVID is real to me and it was unlike any virus I have ever had and it took me awhile to recover which has never happened to me with any other virus as an adult. I feel there is so much hubris on both sides of this debate. We know SO little about viruses. Better to start with what we don’t know and work from a place of humility.
I am following Fenton & Neil because I appreciate critical and scientific approaches. As such, the term "virus" requires definitions and hypotheses followed by lots of fieldwork, publications, reviews, verification (or rather falsification) and communication. When I started to have doubts, in mid 2020, I still trusted that I simply lack the knowledge and that it would be easy to find literature from the groundwork. As I am digging deeper I am loosing my hopes. For instance, it baffles me how many papers I have read now that simply lack proper controls, or a null hypothesis, or proper statistical analysis. Furthermore, I wonder how many publications were muffled or were not even accepted as preprints, like so many papers by Fenton, Neil et al. I find this very worrying, to say the least.
Of course SarsCov2 is real, but the public narrative vastly oversimplifies. No wonder conspiracy theorists claim it's a fiction, when the mainstream story simply doesn't hang together, and inconsistencies are explained away with facile arguments.
"two questions have split the covid sceptic community"
I wouldn't say it has 'split' the community, so much as a vocal minority of shills working to discredit the movement by foisting unevidenced theories are trying to drive a nonsensical wedge, who seem larger than they actually are.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was financed by either governments or pharmaceutical companies as a sideshow to waste time and distract from their own involvement in engineering viruses (can't be blamed for virus engineering if you convince an angry crowd they don't exist). I imagine they've managed to draw in some gullible suckers who haven't seen electron microscopy of viruses etc.
I think you will find not only will a majority of people agree viruses exist, having experienced things like colds and flu, but the majority will insist SARS-CoV-2 is real as well, having gotten infected with something they hadn't experienced before (which gaslighters will try to insist is their imagination or attributable to something else).
That said, PCR tests are horribly flawed given they're based on amplification cycles which produce false-positives above 35 cycles. Most healthcare professionals consider anything above 30 cycles to be fraud.
If you look over old NHS data for PCR cycles for SARS-CoV-2 via FOIAs, you will find they range anywhere from 33 cycles to 40 (the maximum the test can handle). Then there's the whole 'acidic drinks will trigger a positive result' thing that even children found out and exploited.
They can effectively make case rates go up or down depending on the cycle rate of the PCR test. Lower means less amplification, less likely for positive, higher means more, more likely to be (false) positive. The FDA had to issue a recall notice in the US for a specific set of PCR for issuing 'too many false positives'.
I also concur that death rates for SARS-CoV-2 were inflated, because if you take the PCR cycle abuse to be true, then you have to take the detection rate of the cases to be inflated, and thus also the associated mortality rates to also be inflated.
Then there's that mess of 'with COVID' as opposed to 'from COVID'. In the US hospitals got paid extra for every registered COVID death, so naturally they're going to inflate the numbers. There are also accusations some hospitals were as malicious as to intentionally let patients die to cash in.
Summary: virus real, tests can be manipulated to increase case count dramatically, hospitals had a financial incentive to do so, thus mortality rates are also inflated by consequence, so case figures are not accurate.
Also, just to clarify, COVID-19 is for the symptomology ('the disease'), SARS-CoV-2 is for the virus (the infectious agent). Unfortunately media abuse has misused the term as sleight-of-hand when it comes to both the tests and the vaccines. So they may say someone 'has the symptoms of COVID' (that does not mean they necessarily have the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Likewise, the media might report a vaccine 'reduces COVID', meaning the symptoms, not the virus.
I'm just an uneducated pleb but I assume covid exists inasmuch as it has been referred to as a coronavirus and I am pretty sure they exist. I think colds are either coronaviruses or rhinoviruses or influenza viruses so covid is one of them. I sort of thought back in March 2020 that it was just the latest form of influenza and for some reason everyone had decided to go mad with fear about catching a renamed 'flu. Then I realised Sars-Cov-2 was an abbreviation of Severe Acute Respiratory-Coronavirus-2 which isn't influenza. Haven't got a definite theory on how these bugs travel around though but I do know they are far too small to be bothered by masks and 2 metre rules!
There is more and more and more evidence mounting that completely discredits virology and proves it as pseudoscience. Not saying Covid isn’t real, but even as hard as it’s been to learn of the virology hoax (I mean let’s face it, we’ve always been taught about germs and viruses) I suspect it’s something else. A pathogen of sorts that infects and causes respiratory illness. Perhaps laboratory pneumonia?
This was difficult to answer. I have my doubts whether virology is a useful tool to prevent illness, but my guess is that SARS-CoV2 exists as a distinctive structure. Whether it is the cause of the symptoms or just another symptom is a question I am not qualified to answer. I would really like to see this discussed more by reasonable people because I really distrust both public virologists and the snake venom crowd.
But you asked about Covid, the disease, so I answered "it does not exist". Given the diffuse symptoms that are stated, there is really no way to distinguish it from the common cold, and thus it makes no sense to have a different name for it. A year ago, I might have accepted "like the common cold, but slightly worse" as a description, but since the wave of common cold sickness in the fourth quarter of 2022, which had much stronger symptoms and spread a lot quicker than Covid here in Germany, I doubt that now.
Covid to my opinion is a constructed illness made by all the various symptoms that all humans have from flu or common cold . As for the sarscov2 is a computer made sequence.
I suppose it depends on how you read the question... 'covid' is real... (covid is shorthand for coronaviruses - which have been described for something like 40 years... Hepatitis B and C were once actually described - rightly or wrongly - as corona type viruses).
Covid - the shorthand for Sars-CoV-2 (Covid-19) was just the normal seasonal cold. We either saw what we wanted to see or saw what they told us to see... Covid-19 as a pandemic level condition was nonsense... or as someone wrote yesterday, the Fauci/Gates protection racket (except we are the windows being smashed or 'protected')
It must be a weird coincidence, but, as these pfizer employee undercover videos came out, I'm seeing a much increased quantity of "viruses don't exist" comments.
Believing that or getting people to believe that would erase the significance of the pfizer employee confessions, huh? Since they can't serial passage a virus that doesn't exist after all...
The questions are not formulated correctly, they conflate covid with Sars-cov2 virus. Covid is an illness, a collection of physical symptoms in a human. Sarscov2 is a theoretical concept. The sequence of it exists on a computer but have not been proven with true scientific methods in reality. It has also not been proven as a causative agent of covid illness.
There is a gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 virus in circulation, but its detection is fradulent (RT-PCR) and the regular flu is counted as Covid. The plandemic does not follow a normal pattern due to "vaccines" creating immune tolerance and thus letting mutations/variants through.
I understand that some people believe that all viruses are internal and therefore their expression is based on the host’s terrain. This particularly makes sense given the vastness of the human virome (this word is so new spell check doesn’t recognize it!) and how little we know about it. However, I have seen viruses spread quickly, such as the fast and furious gastro that tends to make an appearance this time of year. There is no reason to discount either theory and I feel both terrain and contagion exist. COVID is real to me and it was unlike any virus I have ever had and it took me awhile to recover which has never happened to me with any other virus as an adult. I feel there is so much hubris on both sides of this debate. We know SO little about viruses. Better to start with what we don’t know and work from a place of humility.
I am following Fenton & Neil because I appreciate critical and scientific approaches. As such, the term "virus" requires definitions and hypotheses followed by lots of fieldwork, publications, reviews, verification (or rather falsification) and communication. When I started to have doubts, in mid 2020, I still trusted that I simply lack the knowledge and that it would be easy to find literature from the groundwork. As I am digging deeper I am loosing my hopes. For instance, it baffles me how many papers I have read now that simply lack proper controls, or a null hypothesis, or proper statistical analysis. Furthermore, I wonder how many publications were muffled or were not even accepted as preprints, like so many papers by Fenton, Neil et al. I find this very worrying, to say the least.
Of course SarsCov2 is real, but the public narrative vastly oversimplifies. No wonder conspiracy theorists claim it's a fiction, when the mainstream story simply doesn't hang together, and inconsistencies are explained away with facile arguments.
COVID is the brand name of the fear phenomenon- very infectious and socially debilitating
SARSCOV2 is the correct nomenclature
I believe Covid is real, however the deaths and illness related to Covid was overstated. People were dying with covid, not due to covid.
Happy to see the result of the poll so far.
"two questions have split the covid sceptic community"
I wouldn't say it has 'split' the community, so much as a vocal minority of shills working to discredit the movement by foisting unevidenced theories are trying to drive a nonsensical wedge, who seem larger than they actually are.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was financed by either governments or pharmaceutical companies as a sideshow to waste time and distract from their own involvement in engineering viruses (can't be blamed for virus engineering if you convince an angry crowd they don't exist). I imagine they've managed to draw in some gullible suckers who haven't seen electron microscopy of viruses etc.
I think you will find not only will a majority of people agree viruses exist, having experienced things like colds and flu, but the majority will insist SARS-CoV-2 is real as well, having gotten infected with something they hadn't experienced before (which gaslighters will try to insist is their imagination or attributable to something else).
That said, PCR tests are horribly flawed given they're based on amplification cycles which produce false-positives above 35 cycles. Most healthcare professionals consider anything above 30 cycles to be fraud.
If you look over old NHS data for PCR cycles for SARS-CoV-2 via FOIAs, you will find they range anywhere from 33 cycles to 40 (the maximum the test can handle). Then there's the whole 'acidic drinks will trigger a positive result' thing that even children found out and exploited.
They can effectively make case rates go up or down depending on the cycle rate of the PCR test. Lower means less amplification, less likely for positive, higher means more, more likely to be (false) positive. The FDA had to issue a recall notice in the US for a specific set of PCR for issuing 'too many false positives'.
I also concur that death rates for SARS-CoV-2 were inflated, because if you take the PCR cycle abuse to be true, then you have to take the detection rate of the cases to be inflated, and thus also the associated mortality rates to also be inflated.
Then there's that mess of 'with COVID' as opposed to 'from COVID'. In the US hospitals got paid extra for every registered COVID death, so naturally they're going to inflate the numbers. There are also accusations some hospitals were as malicious as to intentionally let patients die to cash in.
Summary: virus real, tests can be manipulated to increase case count dramatically, hospitals had a financial incentive to do so, thus mortality rates are also inflated by consequence, so case figures are not accurate.
Also, just to clarify, COVID-19 is for the symptomology ('the disease'), SARS-CoV-2 is for the virus (the infectious agent). Unfortunately media abuse has misused the term as sleight-of-hand when it comes to both the tests and the vaccines. So they may say someone 'has the symptoms of COVID' (that does not mean they necessarily have the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Likewise, the media might report a vaccine 'reduces COVID', meaning the symptoms, not the virus.
These pedants abuse technicalities extensively...
I'm just an uneducated pleb but I assume covid exists inasmuch as it has been referred to as a coronavirus and I am pretty sure they exist. I think colds are either coronaviruses or rhinoviruses or influenza viruses so covid is one of them. I sort of thought back in March 2020 that it was just the latest form of influenza and for some reason everyone had decided to go mad with fear about catching a renamed 'flu. Then I realised Sars-Cov-2 was an abbreviation of Severe Acute Respiratory-Coronavirus-2 which isn't influenza. Haven't got a definite theory on how these bugs travel around though but I do know they are far too small to be bothered by masks and 2 metre rules!
There is more and more and more evidence mounting that completely discredits virology and proves it as pseudoscience. Not saying Covid isn’t real, but even as hard as it’s been to learn of the virology hoax (I mean let’s face it, we’ve always been taught about germs and viruses) I suspect it’s something else. A pathogen of sorts that infects and causes respiratory illness. Perhaps laboratory pneumonia?
This was difficult to answer. I have my doubts whether virology is a useful tool to prevent illness, but my guess is that SARS-CoV2 exists as a distinctive structure. Whether it is the cause of the symptoms or just another symptom is a question I am not qualified to answer. I would really like to see this discussed more by reasonable people because I really distrust both public virologists and the snake venom crowd.
But you asked about Covid, the disease, so I answered "it does not exist". Given the diffuse symptoms that are stated, there is really no way to distinguish it from the common cold, and thus it makes no sense to have a different name for it. A year ago, I might have accepted "like the common cold, but slightly worse" as a description, but since the wave of common cold sickness in the fourth quarter of 2022, which had much stronger symptoms and spread a lot quicker than Covid here in Germany, I doubt that now.
Covid to my opinion is a constructed illness made by all the various symptoms that all humans have from flu or common cold . As for the sarscov2 is a computer made sequence.
Something makes people sick, call it whatever you want. I call it a virus.
Just read some of the comments, sensitive group, simple question, looking for an emoji laughing face.
I suppose it depends on how you read the question... 'covid' is real... (covid is shorthand for coronaviruses - which have been described for something like 40 years... Hepatitis B and C were once actually described - rightly or wrongly - as corona type viruses).
Covid - the shorthand for Sars-CoV-2 (Covid-19) was just the normal seasonal cold. We either saw what we wanted to see or saw what they told us to see... Covid-19 as a pandemic level condition was nonsense... or as someone wrote yesterday, the Fauci/Gates protection racket (except we are the windows being smashed or 'protected')
It must be a weird coincidence, but, as these pfizer employee undercover videos came out, I'm seeing a much increased quantity of "viruses don't exist" comments.
Believing that or getting people to believe that would erase the significance of the pfizer employee confessions, huh? Since they can't serial passage a virus that doesn't exist after all...