It was duly noted Richard. Arkmedic is certainly a shill. The sucking up of people to him about what a wonderful article he wrote was sickening.
The best one could say about the article is that it was like the curate's egg, good in parts. His overall thrust was of course a load of bollux.
I noted a Laura challenging him who was banned I believe. Others challenged him too.
As someone said to him 'Are you just looking for an audience?' 'Yes' seems to be the obvious answer, and distracting people from the real nub of the COVID 19 issue; virology is fundamentally flawed.
I read it and can support Richard. The article was fundamentally flawed and arrogant in its premise and the author's comments to some of those who disagreed were pathetic.
Now that is interesting. I did comment on Rebekah Barnett article but now it is restricted, one has to subscribe to comment which I hate. I suspect she may be milking Covid.
May I ask was it a background sense or did you note particular evidence? I tried looking for details on Rebekah Barnett but came up with nothing concrete from a cursory search.
The sequence is of some extra cellular vesicle assumed to be a virus which is assumed to come from the sample of a sick person even though you have other sources of genetic material in a cell culture (extra cellular vesicles from calf bovine serum or monkey kidney cells). In other words...we know it’s a virus because it’s a virus. CIRCULAR LOGIC
It was duly noted Richard. Arkmedic is certainly a shill. The sucking up of people to him about what a wonderful article he wrote was sickening.
The best one could say about the article is that it was like the curate's egg, good in parts. His overall thrust was of course a load of bollux.
I noted a Laura challenging him who was banned I believe. Others challenged him too.
As someone said to him 'Are you just looking for an audience?' 'Yes' seems to be the obvious answer, and distracting people from the real nub of the COVID 19 issue; virology is fundamentally flawed.
I am not familiar with his Substack. I hadn’t heard of him until your post.
However, I do know that this type of person (I can’t go into detail)
cannot bear what they perceive as any kind of criticism.
I read it and can support Richard. The article was fundamentally flawed and arrogant in its premise and the author's comments to some of those who disagreed were pathetic.
They were. He also had strong support from Rebekah Barnett and indeed I suspect that he is her brother.
Now that is interesting. I did comment on Rebekah Barnett article but now it is restricted, one has to subscribe to comment which I hate. I suspect she may be milking Covid.
It's only a hunch right now.
May I ask was it a background sense or did you note particular evidence? I tried looking for details on Rebekah Barnett but came up with nothing concrete from a cursory search.
Interesting. Her brother emailed me about a year ago trying to get me to back away from 'no virus'.
Maybe try this, especially the "also viewed"
https://au.linkedin.com/in/rebekah-barnett-17a069258
A troll?
If someone doesn’t value you, they deserve to lose you.
It’s that simple —-Isaac Asimov
When the virus was discovered, who decided its name?
Honestly, WHO?
Looks like Gov ID to me.
Also Ark Medic.
What's the story there?
He'll be walking the plank if I have my way.
How do you know where the sequence came from?
I don't, but I fail to see why that's relevant?
What you have there is a perfect description of a vaccine even if it's an establishment version (i.e "functional genomic seqeunce").
The sequence is of some extra cellular vesicle assumed to be a virus which is assumed to come from the sample of a sick person even though you have other sources of genetic material in a cell culture (extra cellular vesicles from calf bovine serum or monkey kidney cells). In other words...we know it’s a virus because it’s a virus. CIRCULAR LOGIC
We know what? (we know being replaced by 'circular logic')
What are you, AI?
AI is becoming common and it even authors articles.
Seems to have a blip, article posted unfinished and then very quickly updated so as not to appear as 'edited'.
Not sure if that's the case here or not. Appeared to be to me when I posted that.
ah never mind. Probably just the preview cutting you off at "we know".
BTW otherwise agree with your description of a 'virus' there.
I don't believe their mRNA claims.
Good for you!
Good to point out propaganda for sure.
Maybe the banning was for bad language.
LOL
No not at all as you can see by the 19 minutes.
And the 19 hours before that. He banned me for being caught out for being a smart arse.
Well, if so then fuck that. (Sorry you set me up!)