All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2020 - David Icke
29:54
Collective Torture For A Virus That Has Never Been Shown To Exist - David Icke
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started.
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16th, 2020, the World Health Organization,
this corrupt director general called Ted Ross, said, we have a simple message for all countries.
Test, test, test.
And they knew that the more they tested, the more fake Cases of COVID-19 they would generate and the more they could up the ante and the fear and justify the imposition of fascism to save the world from disaster.
And the...
Offguardian article continues.
The message was spread through the headlines around the world, for instance, by Reuters and the BBC. Still on the 3rd of May, the moderator of one of the journals, they quote, One of the most important news magazines in German television was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with admonishing words.
Test, test, test.
That is the credo at the moment and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.
Complete garbage.
So the article says this indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR test is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts.
And as Walter Lippmann, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century, the article says, said, we all think alike.
No one thinks very much or we're all think alike.
No one thinks very much. And that is spot on.
The classic herd mentality.
So to start, it is very remarkable that Carey Mullis himself, the inventor of the PCR technology, did not think alike.
His invention got him the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemists regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was and still is to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences in millions and billions of times and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
And that's exactly what it's being used for.
And it's not detecting them.
It's detecting a certain genetic material Which they're calling a positive COVID-19 test.
So all these, oh, we've got to lock down because more people are testing positive, is utter, utter nonsense.
And those on the inside of this know it.
As the article says, how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Colata in her 2007 New York Times article, faith in quick tests leads to epidemic that wasn't.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients, presumably infected patients, by what is called SARS-CoV-2, do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point, it says.
Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness, strictly speaking, their sensitivity and specificity by comparison with a gold standard, meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test, the gold standard will be the pregnancy itself.
But as Australian infectious disease specialist Sanjaya Senayak, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in answer to the question, how accurate is COVID-19 testing?
If we had a new test for picking up the bacterium golden staph in blood, we've already got blood cultures.
That's our gold standard we've been using for decades.
And we could match this new test against that.
But for COVID-19, we don't have a gold standard test.
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University in England confirms this.
In her Interpreting a COVID-19 Test Result, published recently in the British Medical Journal, she writes that there is, quote, a lack of such a clear-cut gold standard for COVID-19 testing.
And the reason there's a lack of a gold standard, because if there was, the test would show to be what it is, which is total freaking irrelevant.
Nonsense. And instead, The article says, of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus proven through isolation and purification can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that pragmatically COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself,
may be the best available gold standard.
So something without a gold standard may be the best available gold standard.
But as the article rightly says, this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of a gold standard to evaluate the PCR test.
There are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, even as people such as Thomas Locher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and a member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us. And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis, contrary to Watson's statement, cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, experts such as Watson, experts in quotes, mind, overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e.
an unequivocal virus proof, Can be the gold standard and that's what we've been going on about being rejected by the alternative media overwhelmingly as much as the mainstream for months.
They have not isolated the virus and they've not shown that the virus is causing an infectious disease.
End of. That is why the authors say, I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis may be the best available gold standard if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn't be the best available possible gold standard.
But she hasn't answered these questions yet despite multiple requests.
Why? Because she can't. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on our article in which we address exactly the same points So, the next section of the article is no proof for the RNA. This is the RNA genetic material that they are testing for.
Being of viral origin.
Now the question is, it says, what is required first for virus isolation proof?
We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks, e.g.
White, Fenner, Medical Virology, 1986, page 9, as well as leading virus researchers such as Particle purification, i.e.
the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Maria Curie purified radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende.
is an essential prerequisite for proving the existence of a virus and thus prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA, but it cannot determine where these particles came from.
That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences, in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be an RNA virus, We have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus, and to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of relevant papers, which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2, for proof whether the electron microscope shots depicted in their vitro experiments show purified viruses.
You know that all these pictures that are all over the place of the COVID-19 SARS-2 virus are computer creations.
They're not pictures of the virus itself.
They are computer-generated images.
But he says, I mean, or the authors, the two authors, the.
The question has not been answered by a single science team.
Because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences, We have to know that these gene snippets are part of the look for virus and to know that correct isolation purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron microscopic shots depicted in their vitro experiments show purified viruses as I said a few minutes ago but not a single team Could answer that question with yes.
And nobody said purification was not a necessary step.
We only got answers like no, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.
We asked several study doctors, do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?
And they came back with the following responses.
Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health.
Study one.
And the answer was, the image is the virus budding from an infected cell.
It is not purified virus.
Then there was study two.
Identification of coronavirus isolated from a patient in Korea with COVID-19.
They were asked, does that...
Include the isolation of purification of the virus to show that the virus exists.
And the answer came back, we could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus in cultured cells.
So here we have the confirmation Of what some of us have been saying for months, there is no COVID-19 SARS-2 virus.
They've never shown it to exist.
They've never purified it to show it exists.
And they've never shown it causes an infectious disease.
Never! Study three, virus isolation from the first patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea.
Did you purify the virus?
Answer. We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.
And the fourth study.
A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China.
Answer, we show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.
Regarding the mentioned papers, it is clear that what is shown in the
electron micrographs, EMs, is the end result of the experiment, meaning there
is no other result that could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies can see that they're published Electron micrographs do not show purified particles then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral.
In this context it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term isolation in their papers but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation purification process.
Consequently in this context the term isolation Is misused.
And so what you have, when I put out on the internet, which I do regularly, that there is no COVID-19 and there is no SARS-2 virus, never been shown to exist.
Therefore, you can't test for it.
Therefore, you can't create a vaccine for it.
People come back and say, oh, no, this paper says that they've isolated the virus.
Well, that's exactly what they mean by isolation.
They do not mean purification.
Thus, they do not mean they have identified a virus free of any other genetic contaminant and shown it to cause an infectious disease called COVID-19 which has the, quote, symptoms of endless other potential causes.
Which I've been re-designated, COVID-19.
End of story. So what's being gathered here as we go deeper and deeper in the rabbit hole is more and more evidence that what some of us, a very few of us, I've been saying for months is actually fact.
There is no virus.
And yet, because people believe there is and act upon the fact that there is, human society is being transformed.
Not least for children.
Who are having their behaviour and their perceptions completely rewired into the new normal.
Here's a headline.
Children have a 0.00% chance of dying from COVID but are harmed for life by social distancing, which has its roots in CIA torture techniques.
This is what is happening.
California civil rights attorney Lee Dundas published a video on Facebook this week to show the devastating consequences of isolating children and forcing them to practice social distancing at places like school.
Here are some of the lesser known facts about social distancing and isolation.
It was developed 70 years ago by the CIA to break down enemies of state.
It is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and being an alcoholic.
It doubles the risk of death and destroys the part of the brain responsible for learning.
She pointed out that according to the statistics and the Centers for Disease Control in America, a child's risk of dying from COVID-19 is 0.0%.
No child has passed on COVID to a family member or third party.
They do not transmit.
And she goes on to explain that the historical origins of practicing social distancing and how the technique was developed by the CIA to torture enemies of the state.
Here's a summary of her research designed to educate school administrators so that they abolish social distancing rules in schools.
This is a sample letter to school on harms from social distancing by attorney Lee Gundas.
I write today to highlight certain factors that will hopefully serve to inform what are likely ongoing embryonic conversations at the district level relating to COVID and the 2021 school year.
And further, To urge a particular path of restraint during such conversations based on abundant scientific, medical, neocognitive or neurocognitive and legal considerations which have now emerged.
At the beginning of this letter I want to acknowledge that it is quite obvious that there is a virus.
Now this is where they all go wrong.
I mean she's going to say some very important things.
This is where they all go wrong.
When I was chatting with Andrew Kaufman this week, I was saying that once you won't let go of the myth that there's a virus, everything else becomes flawed from that.
Like in the alternative media, I hear people say, oh, there is definitely a virus.
No, there's not. No, there's not.
And once you let that go, Then everything falls into place.
So I want to acknowledge that it is quite obvious that there is a virus.
There isn't. And it's not obvious.
Which can be sometimes fatal, particularly to certain demographics.
Here she's repeating the official story.
That said, there are also a federal or there's also a federal and state constitution Which have been to some degree overlooked by certain states in their rush to contain the virus, as well as data in the form of hard maths and hard science, which is now emerging in the context of COVID and which
bears review.
The study that precipitated the lockdown of more than 95 percent of Americans population and indeed
the planet's population was authored by Neil Ferguson out of the UK,
predicted deaths in the millions.
This alarming conclusion was taken into account by leaders and of most nations and acted on
accordingly.
America acted by quarantining not the sick, but the appropriately or
approximately 311 million Americans who were not sick.
I'm putting them under the functional equivalent of house arrest for an indefinite period of time.
Interestingly, after a mere one day of himself being under lockdown in the UK, the study's author walked back his maths.
A shocking 96% his revision of deaths in his own country went from a predicted 500,000 down to 20,000.
Actually, there's been no deaths from COVID-19, because there isn't a COVID-19, and there isn't a SARS-2.
At this juncture, allow me to point out the obvious using an analogy involving my daughter.
If my daughter Katya routinely said the answer to a maths problem this year was 100, when it was indeed only 4, and Katya continued to get her maths problems wrong by 96%, she would receive a failing grade in maths From Foothill High, and rightly so, with such incompetence in basic arithmetic reflected in her transcript.
I would hope that she would not be hired by anyone anywhere in a serious job that required basic mass, such as such degree of error in engineering, statistics, or any other job would have fatal consequences.
Imagine if the degree of slope in a freeway overpass was 96% wrong.
Why Ferguson's model was adopted in the first place is curious.
It's not because the model was produced to justify the lockdowns.
That's all that it was done for.
Ferguson being massively funded by Bill Gates.
So there's a section in this In addition to having a less than 1% fatality rate overall, the fatality rate for children who appear to be essentially immune Likely due to their contraction of endless common colds, most of them of which are coronavirus strains, is zero.
You read that right.
Worldwide, zero children under 10 have died.
And in the US, zero individuals under 20 have died.
Yet further, the number of deaths for all people in the US to date is proving this virus to be no more deadly than a bad flu.
Actually, it's been redesignated to a bad flu.
And she says here, in addition to having less than 1% fatality rate overall, the fatality rate of children who appear to be essentially immune, and she says it's likely because of common colds, it's not.
The reason that children are immune to dying from COVID-19 is It's because children do not have other, overwhelmingly, do not have other reasons to die.
So you cannot redesignate the cause of death, COVID-19, whereas with old people, you have endless potential.
Because people are dying all the time of various things, not least respiratory disease, which is the third biggest killer in the world.
And you designate it COVID-19.
There is no virus.
It's all figures. It's all manipulation.
And she goes on to explain that obviously children are in no danger whatsoever.
And then goes on to explain how children It's devastating for the things that people are being told they have to do.
It's devastating for the mental, psychological health of children.
Here's a section.
Social distancing is a euphemism that hides a more pernicious truth.
On the point of school alterations, let me preface the discussion with a scientific review of social distancing.
Social distancing is a euphemism which is not only inaccurate, but has many euphemisms, like many euphemisms, hides a more pernicious truth.
Social distancing is in fact social isolation.
One can argue that distance is not the same as isolation, but Only becomes isolation after a certain yardstick of measurement has been reached between persons.
But the reality is that such is not the case.
If you doubt this, take a walk down the aisle at Vons and try to initiate a smile or simple hello to someone six feet away.
Though this is theoretically possible as voices and visual cues carry across a distance of six feet, nine out of ten people would not respond.
And yes, I've conducted this little test just last week.
I studied psych before becoming an attorney.
Psychology, sociology, I suppose that means.
Medical journals agree social distance is social isolation and social isolation is thus the term I will use for the duration.
To lead with the conclusion, social isolation is a human rights violation.
Which is on par with torture and other war crimes.
Indeed, social isolation is the primary protocol deployed against enemies in times of war, regardless of time, period or country in question.
This is due to a large part to the fact that it is so successful in psychologically destroying the individual without need of more bloody and difficult physical interventions.
The studies of social isolation against enemies of the state began in the 1950s and 1960s by the CIA. Quote, in 1960, one of the agency's most active contractors, Lawrence Hinkle of Cornell, confirmed the significance of Hebb's research for the CIA mind control effort.
Through a comprehensive review for the purposes of intelligence, Hinkle found Hebb's work on social isolation in light of neurological literature, the most promising of all known techniques.
It has been long the custom of captors, police and inquisitors to isolate their prisoners.
But which of these methods, Hinkle asked, is the most effective?
All the standard interrogation techniques have varying impacts on the brain's functioning, but of all possible techniques, isolation is the ideal way of breaking down a problem.
And she goes on again.
You can see the article in full.
It's a long article on davidite.com.
Children have 0.00% chance of dying from COVID. We'll get you there in the search engine.
And she goes on to explain the tremendous impact which she defines as torture.
▲
Export Selection