You're viewing the archived Hearts Center Forum.

You won't be able to post, but you can still view old topics. If you want to post on our new forums you can do so here.


Hearts Center Forums

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 04/20/2020 5:41 PM by  Charles
does CV19 really exist?
 0 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Charles
Member
Member
Posts:1


--
04/20/2020 5:41 PM
    I found this well referenced paper discussing so called CV19.

    https://www.academia.edu/...c_Theory_version_7.2

    Note that this web page implies you have to sign up to get the doc. You don't. Just scroll down.

    Assuming this article is true, it completely dismantles the idea of a "novel coronavirus".

    If there isn't a clearly isolated and defined virus, then how can they test for it? Furthermore, how they can make a vaccine for it?


    The conclusion from the above paper is pasted below:

    The coronavirus panic is just that, an irrational panic, based on an unproven RNA test, that has never been connected to a virus. And which won’t be connected to a virus unless the virus is puriied. Furthermore, even if the test can detect a novel virus the presence of a virus is not proof that it is the cause of the severe symptoms that some people who test positive experience (but not all who test positive). Finally, even if the test can detect a virus, and it is dangerous, we do not know what the rate of false positives is. And even a 1% false positive rate could produce 100,000 false positive results just in a city the size of Wuhan and could mean that a signiicant fraction of the positive test results being found are false positives.

    The use of powerful drugs because doctors are convinced that they have a particularly potent virus on their hands, especially in older people, with pre-existinghealth conditions, is likely to lead to many deaths. As with SARS.There is very little science happening.

    There is a rush to explain everything that is happening in a way that does not question the viral paradigm, does not question the meaningfulness of test results, and that promotes the use of untested antiviral drugs. And, given enough time there will be a vaccine developed and, for some of thetraumatized countries, it may become mandatory, even if developed after the epidemic has disappeared, so that proving that it reduces the risk of developing a positive test will be impossible.





    You are not authorized to post a reply.