Post

More from @Alec_Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Jan 11

The biggest false-flag psyop of the last five years is the idea that “COVID came from a lab” — and it's unfortunate that the increasingly popular alternative movement is championing this idea.

COVID doesn't exist. The WHO defines COVID as "an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus." SARS-CoV-2 has never been shown to exist, and, in fact, the methods by which virologists claim to isolate and demonstrate the pathogenicity of viruses have been falsified numerous times.

Consider which has scarier implications: viruses being made in labs with higher lethal potential or the off-chance of a naturally occurring cross-species virus? Neither is true or proven, but unfortunately, the freedom community is championing the former, which has much scarier implications and a much greater likelihood for fear-based psychological manipulation and propaganda tactics.

There's a third option: virology is unproven pseudoscience.

Understanding that virology is unproven and pseudoscientific at its core renders all conversations surrounding the efficacy and safety of vaccination (which is overwhelmingly based on virology), as well as the necessity and efficacy of any health measures related to so-called "viral illnesses," totally absurd. There's no need to discuss the necessity of any of these topics when the foundational premise is totally unproven and thoroughly falsified.
This is a very big deal. Look into it, please.

Read 4 tweets

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Dec 11, 2024

Are you confused by those who say "COVID doesn't exist"? Let me help you out.

Virology 101. A refresher.

🧵

/1

I do not say this lightly: the foundations for virology, and thus the entire field of virology, are fraudulent and pseudoscientific.

Pseudoscience is anything claiming to be scientific that doesn’t follow the scientific method. In every single "viral isolation" paper — which is the foundational evidence for the field of virology (of which both all other pieces of virology and the field of vaccinology are built upon), a variation of this procedure is followed:

/2

snot/blood/other fluids from a sick person assumed to contain virus particles (but never verified to contain virus particles) is added to viral transport medium (VTM).

At a minimum VTM contains fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (a nephrotoxic antimycotic) and gentamicin (a nephrotoxic antibiotic). Nephrotoxic means “toxic to kidneys”, by the way. That’ll come in next.

After this, they take that mixture (a sample of snot/blood/other fluids and VTM) and add it to a foreign cell line that has been kept alive via unnatural means in a lab, typically VERO E6, VERO CCL81 (kidney cells from an adult green monkey) or human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells.

/3

Read 25 tweets

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Sep 27, 2024

There is no empirical evidence that healthy people can become ill by being exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids.

In his recent book, 𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘥?, Daniel Roytas scours the historical scientific literature attempting to find studies in which healthy people can become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids.

He looked at over 200 papers that attempted to demonstrate this.
Here’s what he found:

The overwhelming majority of these studies failed to demonstrate contagion.

• There are several examples of contagion (social contagion and mass psychogenic
illness)that have nothing to do with particles/microbes.

• The modal (most frequently occuring) result was 0 contagion.

• The nocebo effect is a well-established, strong factor in disease.

• In the studies wherein healthy people became sick after being exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids, any one or more of the following occured:

• the study did not include a placebo control group

• the study was not blinded

• unnatural methods of attempted transmission occurred (like injecting blood from a sick patient)

• theplacebo/nocebo effect was likely a factor

• the symptoms were not consistent with the disease in question

In every case, no Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial (DBPCRT) was conducted, and no infectious agent was discovered in the fluids of the sick person

One of set of studies Daniel documents brilliantly occurred during the Spanish Flu.

First, let’s go over some up front context on the Spanish Flu (also covered in Daniel’s book):

• Occurred primarily between 1918 - 1919

• Alleged outbreak began in Kansas in March 1918

• Allegedly caused by an H1N1 influenza A virus

• Est. 50 - 100 million people died

• Est. 180 - 600 million people developed severe illness

• Nearly half of the deaths occured in men ages 20-40

• Occured during WW1

• During WW1, 150,000 tons of chemical weapons were produced
—125,000 tons were deployed on the battlefield

• Doctors were prescribing patients between 8,000 - 15,600 mg of aspirin per day to “treat” the flu
—This is equivalent to consuming 25 aspirin tablets per day

Read 13 tweets

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Jun 13, 2024

I hope people understand the implications of what we’ve done.

With multiple independent labs, we’ve conducted the exact same experiments as are conducted by virologists — wherein they claim the results of the experiment demonstrate both the presence and pathogenicity of a virus, except we DID NOT have any human sample (meaning no possible source of a virus) and we achieved the same results, repeatedly.

Think about what that means for virology’s foundational “evidence.”

We conducted the exact same cell-culture isolation technique EXCEPT we DID NOT include a human sample (which they say contains viruses).
We used one of the most robust cell lines — Human Embryonic Kidney Cells, with the exact same antibiotic and serum concentration.

We achieved the exact same cytopathic effect (CPE, or cellular breakdown). This CPE is what virologists point to as proof of viruses. And we did it multiple times, without any human sample — meaning no possible source of a “virus”— and got the exact same results.

A separate independent lab then conducted Transmission Electron Microscopy on the samples after CPE.

In the TEM images, we found:

-HIV (exact size, shape)
-SARS-CoV-2 (exact size, shape)
-Measles (exact size, shape)

Again, this is without ANY human sample at all, which means no possible source of any “virus.”

Read 4 tweets

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Jan 20, 2024

“The idea that we get sick because of energy is woo-woo nonsense”

Is it really “woo-woo nonsense”?

We have measurable and observable (through instrumentation) electromagnetic fields that surround our bodies — the human biofield.

Electromagnetic fields interact and share information. That’s how the technology you’re reading this on works. Is it *really* that far-fetched to think our bodies are communicating information, possibly in a more sophisticated and intelligent way, through our biofields?

Maybe it seems “woo-woo” because we’ve been conditioned to believe in the disproven, materialistic germ paradigm while overlooking the metaphysical aspects of who we are.

I can confidently say disproven because there are over 60 experimental attempts to demonstrate fluids from a sick person cause disease in a healthy person and all of them failed.

I also acknowledge that the energetic explanation has not been thoroughly explored. It is but one of MANY other explanations for the phenomenon of two or more people experiencing symptoms in the same space.

Before we proceed we need context for where I’m coming from:

I think that what we refer to as “sickness” is simply our body intelligently detoxifying and/or our body intelligently responding to something in its internal/external environment, and that (in the overwhelming majority of cases) if we just get the hell out of the way and/or change the conditions of the external environment, our body will do exactly what it’s supposed to do to heal.

There is much more to be said about this (and some nuance), but we’ll save it for another time.

Read 9 tweets

D. Alec Zeck

@Alec_Zeck

Jan 17, 2024

Layer one:

Okay, I was wrong. In hindsight, the health measures were a little excessive and the health authorities and governments of the world freaked out a little too much, and so did I. The vaccines weren’t as effective as they’d originally planned for, but it’s because they’re using a new technology. Those people saying the shots are killing people and the virus came from a lab are crazy.

Layer two:

Okay, I was wrong. It’s even deeper. The health measures were an explicit act of government overreach and were based in little actual science or data. The COVID shots are killing people, but it’s because they rushed a new technology. Those other people saying the COVID shots were an intentional bioweapon are crazy. Oh, and the virus might have accidentally come from a lab — I’m not sure.

Layer three:

Okay, I was wrong. It’s even deeper. There is a clear worldwide agenda at play, and this was clearly NOT about health. The COVID shots were a bioweapon that was planned off of the other bioweapon — the virus. This has pulled back the curtain on the entire pharmaceutical industry, and it’s clear that there is a major problem with the efficacy and safety of all shots, not just the COVID shots. I still think that the other vaccines are generally good, though.

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

D. Alec Zeck

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Alec_Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

D. Alec Zeck

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!