I’ve been meaning to create a post for all discussions related to viruses. Do they even exist? Do they cause disease? Are they just misunderstood or mislabeled exosomes? Does SARS-Cov-2 exist? So if you want to discuss any of these issues related to reality of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus. This is your place. I will delete comments about it in other threads. To be clear, you can still post about the insanity related to the alleged pandemic on other threads, but if you want to debate whether that or any other virus is real or not, this is your place. If in doubt, just post here.
The reason I’m doing this is that some people seem to be very passionate about this issue and the discussions about it have started to dwarf what I view as more productive discussions about more pertinent issues.
I have made my opinions on this clear in several different comments, and at one point I may dig out those comments and add them to this post. I am not convinced by the arguments that germ theory is ass-backwards, though I still haven’t ruled out that it’s possible. I have also said that this debate is distracting us from focusing on fighting the Pharma Fascism that is quickly descending across the globe. In that way it is similar to the endless internecine debates within the 9/11 truth movement between the planned demolition, directed energy weapon and mini-nuke camps. To me it’s a distraction to keep us fighting among ourselves. And it works so well because, as a rule, we are people who really desire to know the truth about something, even when it is forever beyond our reach.
Cutting Through the Fog 
I will believe in covid being anything other than a regular seasonal virus when it is proven to me. The establishment does not have the right to be believed on any issue. They simply don’t deserve my belief. The same goes for germ theory in general, the holocaust, and everything else. For all I know viruses are just a normal part of our evolution which has been fetishized into a boogyman, just like sex and everything else. If you don’t think a con like that is possible, try holdng a conversation with the average doctor about the health benefits of saturated fat. Most people regardless of expertise are too cowardly to admit to themselves they’ve spent their lives believing a lie.
As it stands I have always had good health following WAPF guidelines, although with no starches and even less sugar (and no coffee or caffeine). When I get sick the protocol is meat and vegetables, homemeade chicken broth, raw milk, raw garlic, large doses of vitamin c and plenty of sleep. I got sick last week for the first time since 2019 and that solved it in 3-4 days.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Following WAPF is a terrible idea. I almost didn’t approve your comment because of that. Please don’t anybody follow that advice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Almost didn’t approve b/c he follows a diet that works for him? I also follow WAPF and am 53 and in the best health of my life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@dreamblade @kensho
See Grant Genereux’s work. WAPF recommends too many high vitamin A, sulfur, and aldehyde foods
https://ggenereux.blog/my-ebooks/
LikeLike
Josh, i don’t know about his Weston Price organization and if his ideas are maybe corrupted somewhat, but he was on the right track. There is also the book, the fat of the land by Vilhjálmur Stefánsson. The idea that our natural diets are better for us is very sane to me. The extension is that raw animals foods, (meat and fat) is what we are supposed to eat, we are APEX PREDATORS. I am doing raw carnivore for a large part and it is amazing. Below someone mentions Aajonus Vonderplanitz, he is a cool dude too, advocating raw animal food. I recently fermented liver and it was amazing, little bit sour and a lot of flavour…. first time my eyes did tear up, it takes getting used to.
LikeLike
@archer. Avoid liver: vitamin A is through the roof. See links above.
LikeLike
Dude you’ll get fatty liver, IBS and worse in no time if you keep that up. Stay away from excess vitamin a, as Clio advises. Just based on my experience. I got it eating raw carrots in just under 3 months, and it wasn’t even one carrot a day. It’s been 2 years now and it’s STILL not resolved, not to mention joint pain/instability all along the right side of my body, even gum and dental issues on the right side only. Also dry eyes. Very annoying.
LikeLike
@swordofclio and @Swathy Krishna , if you do not know anything about nutrition then please do not lecture me. Raw animal liver is the healthiest thing you can eat, if you eat out of balance, like only liver and no other meat you get too much copper, that is all. There is 0 danger with vitamin A from a raw animal source. As Swathy said she ate carrots, vitamin A in carrots is NOT the same as vitamin A from animals, they are 2 different things. The animal form of vitamin A is safe and most humans are deficient! All plants are BAD for humans, do not eat plants, they are poison to us.
LikeLike
Free advice man, take it or leave it
“https://nutritionrestored.com/blog-forum/topic/dont-fool-yourself-all-poison-vitamin-a-sources-natural-and-synthetic-eventually-turn-into-retinoic-acid/”
The vitA in animal tissues is stored in fat, how did it get there? From plant sources, stored BECAUSE it is toxic. If you don’t believe me please read grant genereauxs books about vitA and the research of dr. Garret Smith. Else you don’t have an opinion on that topic, to be honest. Keep up the consumption of liver and you’ll be autoimmune in no time. Good luck.
LikeLike
Perhaps Josh would like to comment on this thread, considering I found Grant Genereaux’s work on insidious Vit A toxicity via him.
LikeLike
@ archer-d, According to Mosaic law we’re forbidden to consume the organs. The flesh is okay but not the innards.
LikeLike
@Chris Ryska you mean Phoenician law, could be something to it, they do not want us to be healthy, as evidenced by their current vegan and no meat propaganda.
LikeLike
Archer, I think you may have missed the entire post that Josh dedicated to vit A toxicity. Read it in its entirety to understand where Josh is coming from, then read the discussion, starting from here https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/12/26/health-matters/comment-page-1/#comments
Here’s my piece of advice to you – check out the links in that post, for the sake of your own health. It’ll consume some of your time, but it’s more than worth it.
LikeLike
i only see 1 source in that thread, a Dr Smith to boot, i don’t listen to doctors. Also it seems peeps there now think ALL vitamin A is toxic… wrong, we humans NEED vitamin A from animal sources. Vitamin A from plants is indeed toxic, but not from animals. Also that “Dr” has a picture of beans on his front page, beans are NOT human food. Listening to someone that promotes beans as human food, that is dangerous!
LikeLike
@ archer-d, No, I meant what I said. The Phoenicians came along later on.
LikeLike
” i don’t know about his Weston Price organization and if his ideas are maybe corrupted somewhat “.
Anyone can be bought if the price is right.
LikeLike
Aajonus Vonderplantiz is an obvious genius like Miles. And his ‘love of truth’ was just as strong. I believe Yah has given us gifts in these times to see through the lies. Both of them are such gifts. Aajonus’s area of study was food and health. Raw milk and carrot juice, and later raw rabbit meat, saved Aajonus’ life. He found out why. He attacked this subject like nobody before. His work is as astonishing as Miles work. I wish he was still around to poke his finger so eloquently (and simply) in the eyes of ALMOST EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT food, health, virus, and all related.
Here is a link to an interview where he talked about virus and thigs of the world.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhK45vbhJjjZ/
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is way too promoted to be a real figure, man. Simplest way to fix the diet is to go organic, remove pesticides, pollutants and vit A. Please don’t drink carrot juice , it won’t save you. I don’t want to say I told you so. I guarantee you’ll start getting autoimmune symptoms in just a few months.
LikeLike
SK – Say what? Aajonus is not a real figure? He is overly promoted? Are you kidding? You obviously have not discovered anything about him! Saying such things is bizzar.
BTW, He does not recommend carrot juice. He only mentions that when he drank raw carrot juice and raw milk his medically induced, autistic symptoms suddenly disappeared. A hospice worker recommended it to him. He began his pursuit of nutritional truth following that event.
He is the main reason we can buy raw milk in CA. He recommends raw dairy and meat as the best things for us. He tested everything. He lectured at Yale. He wrote books. Lots and lots of his free teachings to watch. He was an obvious genius. He is as fun to listen to as Miles is to read. His books are solid info, and less fun. But more rewarding for me. Raw foods are what the critters in our bodies like best.
I invite everyone to listen to his interviews and presentations. You will learn things. He trumps nutritionists just like Miles trumps physicists. Neither are all-knowing of course, but in their subjects, they stand out as bold, against-the-grain, truth tellers. Everyone else just guesses. They prove it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
pls stop this Swathy, you are very misinformed.
LikeLike
I am not misinformed, as I said I’m speaking from EXPERIENCE. It took me a long time to see through it as well, even though I was vit A toxic and I had read the literature. So I understand your difficulty. Atleast for starters please look up Hypervitaminosis A, you’ll find the same symptoms as autoimmune diseases, and the limit for vitA storage is MUCH less than what we’re lead to believe.
LikeLike
Good luck Swathy
How has trying to help anyone in real life (vitamin A toxicity ) gone. I find like everything else people just flat out refuse to read the actual experiments. Why is that? My wife believes it is because most people can’t read them and are embarrassed (but she won’t read them even though her job is to read proposed scientific experiments and then give feedback as to the likelihood of them being approved by the ethics committees that she supervises). I think in many cases she is correct but I reckon there is more to it, I mean obviously she can read them (she has done 1 and a half already this morning) yet she still refuses to read any I put before her.
Human psychology?
LikeLike
Finally someone says it. That guy has a wikipedia page, his name is fake, and probably his death is too. Plus the commenter above me just said he lectured at Yale. He is is fishy as hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright, first post.
So how do viruses even move? They aren’t motile. They don’t even have a simple mechanism like a squid to push liquid. How do they align themselves to face a cell wall to inject RNA?
What is the biomechanics behind the parts involved with this RNA injection?
The ongoing discussions about viruses and germ theory vs. terrain theory from the Current Events thread has been outstanding in my opinion and I hope it continues over here.
Hopefully the catty infighting over shills etc does not, though. Go outside, get some fresh air and sunshine!
LikeLiked by 3 people
First reply.
Before answering to your questions i will take a little detour, you will understand why.
First of all, particularly in biology a primordial capacity is require for any entity to sustain its life : metabolism
Let’s take a definition from wikipédia : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism
“Metabolism (/məˈtæbəlɪzəm/, from Greek: μεταβολή metabolē, “change”) is the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The three main purposes of metabolism are: the conversion of the energy in food to energy available to run cellular processes; the conversion of food to building blocks for proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and the elimination of metabolic wastes. These enzyme-catalyzed reactions allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures, and respond to their environments.”
Notice that only thanks to this capacity, any entity is allowed to maintain its structure and respond to its environment.
Now let’s see if any viruses at all are capable of it : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus (Life properties section)
“Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life or organic structures that interact with living organisms.[11] They have been described as “organisms at the edge of life”
From the same source, it is also admit that :
“Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell”
So they admit that since a virus doesn’t metabolise it is considered as an ‘organism at the edge of life’.
Also an other interesting point which is often underestimated, is the fact that viruses need a cell to make new products since they aren’t able to metabolise in the first place contrary to a cell.
In the french version of the wikipedia page about viruses it is said on the very first lines that : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
“Un virus est un agent infectieux nécessitant un hôte, souvent une cellule, dont les constituants et le métabolisme déclenchent la réplication.”
Which could be translated by :
“A virus is an infectious agent requiring a host, often a cell, whose constituents and metabolism trigger replication.”
So it is the metabolism of a cell that triggers/cause the replication of a virus not the virus itself.
Already here we can spot a contradiction since viruses don’t metabolise by themselves, how do they use a cell and affect it in any way in the first place(?), also since it is the cell metabolism that cause a virus to replicate, it imply that the virus isn’t the CAUSE here.
Finally thanks to these elements it will be easier to answer your questions, you say :
“So how do viruses even move? They aren’t motile. They don’t even have a simple mechanism like a squid to push liquid. How do they align themselves to face a cell wall to inject RNA?”
Since a virus doesn’t metabolise in the first place, it can’t respond to its environment so it can’t move by itself, it can’t use a mechanism to push itself even more propel itself to get align to face a certain direction.
All of these actions require to metabolise in the first place or more precisely to use your internal energy and transform it into another type of energy.
More simply put : to move, to use, require one to understand how to use its internal energy which a virus doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They could be just expelled or integrated by living things around them like cells. Since dna/rna is supposedly information/code they could be methods of communication between cells or debris from cells or some other reasons either not yet known or kept hidden.
I think it’s likely though that military or others have the tech to create bioweapons. Synthetic life at the molecular level has likely already been achieved.
Thanks to everyone here, it has been a real eye opener reading this & Miles’ site over the last few years.
First time I’ve posted here, IMO this subject is very important & goes at least back to when they were investigating & playing around with bacteria in the 1800’s.
LikeLike
Since dna/rna is supposedly information/code they could be methods of communication between cells or debris from cells or some other reasons either not yet known or kept hidden.”
To communicate require one to know how to use its internal energy in the first place.
It’s like a baby understanding first that he has to know how to use his vocal cords before learning the pattern of his parents language.
Any living processes cannot be conducted without an internal energy, an energy such as light which is both the intermediary and the driver of any processes.
To better understand what i mean, let’s set an example :
Let’s suppose a cell A is communicating with a cell B.
A send to B an information code such as the dna/rna you mention.
Alright, but how do B translate the code A send to him and with the right timing ?
It’s not the cell which communicate but its internal energy, the biologist would say the enzyme but even so the enzyme is “only a structure” which carries an energy.
It has to be that A and B have access to an energy of the same nature that permits this transcodage, also this energy has to simultaneously and immediately induce a change in both A and B in order for them to conduct living and vital processes adequately, at the right moment.
Only light has this ability and as such without light there is no life.
Even to learn an information you need to integrate an energy.
So you need to maintain the right structure and sufficiently longer to develop it.
After that depending on the seek purpose, you need to transform this energy in another type.
Only light has the ability to do so in all environment(in air and in water), which any virus isn’t capable of, remember they don’t metabolise.
Unless they are machines (microrobots) like you said but we’re approaching here the intentional disruption of a living cell so…
Anyway, if a virus is alive it can’t function and if it is dead it can’t be the cause of anything unless it is a machine but a machine is programmed and behind any programs there is an intention so…
LikeLike
I like beating a dead horse, “viruses” whatever they are; do not exist! There is 0 evidence for them.
The medical establishment knows fk all about health or how the human body works. We are beings of light, if we live as nature intended; eating our raw animal food we would never get sick, be strong and live much much longer lives…
“Viruses” were invented by the Phoenicians as a means of control, it is easy to scare people with an entity you can not see, and because we also can not prove they exist an infinite supply of varieties can be thought up… a bit like fake physics with all their quarks and other imaginary particles.
It is all blatant nonsense. I guess the fake pandemic is sort of proof they do not exist, we now have a direct example of how/why “viruses” are used…. and there are many more instances, we now can also make lists where diseases that were said to be caused by “viruses” are actually not at all caused by “viruses”.
-HIV (drug abuse literally causes AIDS)
-Measles ( the german that said measles virus is not proven won his appeal, this is scrubbed from news messages!)
-Polio (more likely to be caused by pesticides, i have not researched this competely)
-Flu (flu is the body cleaning itself from chemicals that build up in the body, if you eat naturally you NEVER get flu like me, there is no “virus” in sight)
– etc.. if anybody takes a hard closer look at any supposed “virus” disease they will find out that the real cause is something else…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with the above but I know several people with real herpes. thoughts?
LikeLike
i have not researched herpes, but people that have it seem to lack nutrients, ie poor diets, but also they are probably eating too much of certain chemicals…
LikeLike
ps. I could not resist….. i found out that “herpes” is triggered by too much arginine, foods with arginine are whole grains, beans, nuts. What people with sores need more of is meat, chicken fish, preferably raw, they contain more lysine. So people with “herpes” have outbreaks of sores caused by improper diets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ archer-d, It’s gotta be more than that. What you’re saying is an oversimplification.
LikeLike
@Chris Ryska how is it an oversimplification? we are what we eat. arginine is a plant protein, humans need animal proteins to make cells, probably the body does try to use the animal protein, which it normally would not even attempt, but when it does you get bad cells and they burst and give you sores, how is that for an oversimplification….
LikeLike
I’m not saying that you’re totally wrong. I’m just saying that there’s probably more to it. I’m not sure if I believe in viruses, either. Actually, I’m leaning towards no viruses, but there might be some other thing that’s going on that we’re not aware of.
LikeLike
@archer-d Arginine is an amino acid, which is present in all protein-containing foods, whether animal or plant in origin. Humans can also subsist off of plant proteins, although they are less bioavailable, and deficient in certain amino acids.
LikeLike
No, humans slowly die with only eating plants, see epitome of malnourishment on youtube.
LikeLike
I agree with a lot here. AIDs by the way, was also pushed along by AZT and other “cocktail cures” from Pharma. I’d like to think that the body is just cleansing itself, and that is why we have things like flu, but that doesn’t seem to answer all my questions. For example, last Christmas we had a dozen people over and everyone got sick except the person who had already been sick a month prior. I don’t think we all got food poisoning either. I had started getting a runny nose the day before, but kind of ignored it. I’m not saying it was a flu or cold, but something was communicable (or it seems). It was very mild and half of the people who were there, decided to get tested—all testing positive for Covid. Knowing the test is BS for this kind of thing, my wife and I never bothered. We all did lose our sense of taste, with my daughter still not back to 100% in that area. Strange.
Most of the people are true believers. The only one not getting sick had been through the same symptoms a month before and he had tested positive for Covid. So The whole Covid ruse works for people. My wife spends an enormous amount of time researching this subject, and we’ve never heard a satisfactory answer of why we all get sick when exposed to others who exhibit symptoms of whatever they’re dealing with. I’m OK with mysteries, because I think “science” so-called, has a whole lot fewer answers about our wondrous bodies and the world we live in than they’re willing to admit. The gods can’t really do anything but lie, because they’d look like the idiots they really are—and everyone would lose faith in them. That can’t happen. Most of us here know that Covid has never been isolated or purified, and that the PCR is the wrong tool—even Mullis, the inventor knew that.
LikeLike
Damn folks. LISTEN to Aajonus. If you do you will quit guessing.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhK45vbhJjjZ/
This is what he teaches us. It makes sense and is simple.
We often get sick together because we all need to clean our house (body) now and then. More often if we ingest toxins. We get sick together like women have their periods together, like bears get up together. As a herd. We are animals too. Our bodies talk to each other.
Polio surfaces in the herd every 200 years of so according to Aajonus.
Virus is soap. Very powerful soap designed by God and created by cells in each tissue to clean itself when microbes and friendly parasites can no longer do the clean up job because of excess toxicity.
As for raw meat and dairy, it is what my cat likes. My cat is smarter than us. And a better hunter. And better company. 😉
(As if I’d know. I don’t keep zombie friends. And I see almost no other species these days.)
LikeLike
How many geniuses would you say die by falling off their own balconies?
LikeLike
Only one that I know of.
LikeLike
In my opinion the underlying question in this section should NOT be
“do viruses exist?”
but rather
“is convincing evidence available to prove that viruses exist?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fight against Covid tyranny is the short con, the fight against misinformation in virology is the long game. Sure, folks are touchy about it, but nutrition is always a touchy subject in this country since politics got involved. But it’s not really dividing these groups in a divide and conquer sort of fashion, because no one who is questioning virology is changing sides to vote for medical tyranny.
LikeLike
exactly! diabetes seems pretty real to alot of people, if they really cared about health sugar should have been banned decades ago. yet it is pushed incessantly.
LikeLike
I’d say, it’s never just one thing. There’s no smoking gun of nutrition. I know folks who smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years with no problem. I know folks who ate nothing but processed food and still, somehow, managed to not totally poison themselves. This diversity should be celebrated actually, not micromanaged into oblivion. How is it some are able to withstand tornadoes and others collapse in a sprinkle, that’s what science should be studying, not what one solution will ‘work’ for every body!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Logan
“In my opinion the underlying question in this section should NOT be
“do viruses exist?”
but rather
“is convincing evidence available to prove that viruses exist?”
There are better questions than that, i think :
Does a presence of something in one condition attest to its functionality on all conditions ?
Does the presence of a virus in a dead cell equate to its presumed functionality in a living one ?
So is a photo or even a video of a virus a sufficient evidence to conclude that a virus cause diseases ?
This is where your research must be focused at, i think.
LikeLike
@logan @ali
In my research, which is messy and devoid of footnotes, I have many times asked the that poignant question: “is convincing evidence available to prove that viruses exist?” but as you two know the info always seems suspect precisely because the those fields are and have been dominated by the empire of spooks and their credentials are as compromised as the money funding their “research”.
hopefully this resource thread can provide as space for the outing of virus myths and compile solid data from specialists, “virologists”, and doctors whose information may have slipped through the cracks.
Brilliant solution @josh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@notabaron
“hopefully this resource thread can provide as space for the outing of virus myths and compile solid data from specialists, “virologists”, and doctors whose information may have slipped through the cracks”
You’re too hopeful about that in my opinion.
I think virology is the spook’s decoy by excellence.
So let’s us assume that no virologists, no specialists, no doctors will be here to help and that the answers will only depends on our capable shoulders and come through our capable hands at the very end.
I’m not trying to sound pessimistic but understand that it is a dreadful subject especially for the ones you’ve mentioned.
The very few of them that are conscious of this(if any, i wonder if it is the case now…), are isolated by their spooks colleagues.
It would be quite unreasonable to ask from them to act like kamikaze hero while not supported enough.
LikeLike
Expecting a virologist to claim virology is a fraud is like expecting a priest to claim Catholicism is a fraud (except the virologist gets paid much better and has a lot more respect) . The moment they make that claim they are no longer a priest or virologist.
LikeLike
Agreed! These ‘photos’ prove nothing at all. Photos of virus, photos of ‘outer space’, what is really being captured there? And that’s the fun part. The serious part is, those who control the instruments, control the narrative, so we are right back in an age-old narrative of The Pide Piper
LikeLiked by 1 person
How the…. Does this thread start with a discussion about wapf? Anyway each food will have a different effect depending on what is in it classing potatoes and sweet potatoes or carrots together is ridiculous or organ meats etc.
Just remember the video of the Christchurch shooting can be seen by some as evidence of a mass shooting (I sometimes forget this). Anyone truly looking will see it as evidence of a staged event. The medical field, viruses in particular, is no different.
LikeLike
Because WAPF is the only organized resistance against the scamdemic
LikeLike
Really? We have regular organised resistance meetings in Adelaide organised by many different groups including the federal liberal party that is also in charge of running the country being the party the prime minister is from. Last meeting was held at a gym in Salisbury a couple of weeks back. By the way not one mention of the possibility that covid or viruses were make believe at the meeting.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading Ethel Douglas Hume (1923) Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology
because Graham mentioned it in the ‘Health Matters’ thread, I believe. He said it was the best read ever, apart from Miles’.
But I was still in the dark about how to connect the story to our times. Béchamp is all good now? Am I now supposed to take the Béchamp vaccin? It is however established that Pasteur was a quack who was only in it for the money, I think. And hugely promoted. I also watched the black & white movie Pasteur from 1935. Like Miles said, propaganda does not age well, and it was very easy to see right trough it.
Pasteur’s opponents at the Académie Française are totaly dimwits. Later on, one of them needs desperately a doctor for his wife in labor. Pasteur magnanimously agrees to help him out, but: “This time we are going to do it my way. Wash your hands first!”
All that’s missing is that he tells him to social distance or wear a mask.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh writes elegantly above “this debate is distracting us from focusing on fighting the Pharma Fascism that is quickly descending across the globe. In that way it is similar to the endless internecine debates within the 9/11 truth movement”
Bingo, everybody here might re-read what he wrote again a few times.
Also here:
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-52/#comment-77113
” I’ve decided it’s time to push back and push back hard. The notion that viruses don’t exist strikes me as obviously wrong, and I’m afraid the outing of Wendell Stanley just isn’t enough to prove the point. There is plenty of evidence that viruses do exist.”
Josh didn’t call out “this debate” as a distraction before. He calls viruses=fake as intuitively wrong. What he writes here is a NEW and forward step. Its a pointless debate when Medical tyranny is descending.
I was engaging in this topic, on the main forum mainly because people keep pushing,”viruses and Sars-cov-2 are fake and don’t exist.” and because Josh never made this point so clear before.
LikeLike
again from Josh
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-22/#comment-45457
“I suspect the terrain vs. germ dichotomy is a false one and that the truth lies behind some as yet unknown door number three.”
LikeLike
I want a clear term for this, the false dichotomy, and another term for the thirdDoor interpretation.
We see content from “germs/virus exist, but are bad” to “body needs certain things to run disease free” and we polarize a bit on that.
It could be both, germs+terrain, neither can disprove the other maybe, I would need a lot more familiarity with both to know. But its not a binary reality, its not either or.
Read Jim West
https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/04/COVID2020.html
I suggest you hit “reality checks” and focus on #2. his “virus” stance, is one we see here on the main forum and throught the debate.
He takes on his divergence from Sucharit Bhakdi, and where they agree which is on a great deal. They both emphasize air pollution patterns and data analysis cross check with what we get from Sars Con artists 2019-2021.
And check out his data on fracked fuel pollution and dangerous cyanide an entirely plausible causitive agent we could be grabbing data on. How to test fuel?
All this toxicity, from ALL sources, can be additive, can multiply other effects and in general its even measurable by any science or medicine or heath methodology. In many cases is has been done, like with air polution. But also in mainstream science and even alopathic western medicine. All sides can agree that air polution is a problem that exacerbates symptoms and mortality of CuufVlooey no matter what actually causes it.
Its a 3rd door stance based on an alternative view, a way of proceeding to treat the symptoms and mortality. Flu too. Its could be a superier insight to break out with a message that we KNOW we are poisoning ourselves and our children and babies.
By just removing the widespread exposures, or at least measuring them and then publicizing them and the true risks being taken. We need to protect our air supply from big oil. How can we test our air? Its a worthy question as well. A 3rd door approach to all the bullshit door1v2 useless debates.
Whether a virus exists or not, even a germ, or not, we can still bolster our defenses cheaply and with the highest quality guidance, and we can learn how to avoid exposure and where risks actually lie.
Its not operation chaos19, it was just poison in the fuel dummy! An entirely different interpreation than I seen widely emphasized. There is a big financial conflict of interest in NOT going to extra steps to make our fuel products safe, for old people with comorbidities.
This shatters the narrative of some door1’s and door2’s at the same time.
Stop choking on smog, as a public health message. Stop making smog with special poisons in it, yeah, who is gonna oppose that message 🙂
Fuel prices would rise. We shouldn’t expect to be able to detect that. We would need to measure fuel contaminant levels, and local air quality, even in our house, if Terrain is to be the cause, or if virus is to be the cause. Or several other combinations of science, health, medicine, of a very wide and complex nature.
LikeLike
You still have lockdowns for ever with your ‘3rd’ door’ because you still have the pretend deadly virus as real. You have just added in more control for the powers that be who as we know will decide ordinary people are the cause of pollution while still running their private jets and power plants.
Also please don’t conflate viruses , which are not real, with things like bacteria and parasites which are real. This might mislead people accidentally. Most people don’t even know which diseases are supposed to be caused by which pathogen.
Each part of your germ theory needs to be looked at individually. Starting from the beginning not from a study of air pollution. Is there evidence said cause exists: viruses zero evidence ;bacteria can clearly be seen; parasites can clearly be seen.
Next we would then move on to a particular disease and look at the supposed cause and see if said cause is the problem it is really straight forward and logical. For Example the parasites that supposedly cause maleria are they there in all maleria cases does every one with these parasites get maleria do they cause maleria or are they just there taking advantage of the situation (like maggots in a dead animal) would also need to be worked out. If I was interested in this I would start reading the literature especially any animal experiments done in passing on the disease (I am now interested and will probably look into this over Christmas). I suspect most of what we are told about the cause of maleria is true (but I also thought the same of other diseases and was wrong). It would also be worth looking into why some people or animals don’t get maleria.
When you look at viruses and the diseases supposedly caused by them the first problem is the virus can not be seen, the second problem is that the rna tests that are supposed to identify the virus do not come up positive in a significantly larger percentage of the diseased population than the undiseased (obviously what the rna actually comes from is also important) . The problems go on from here and get worse including that the mechanics of virus theory makes zero sense without employing magical thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I got to “You still have lockdowns for ever with your ‘3rd’ door’ because you still have the pretend deadly virus as real.” and stopped reading.
Your first sentence has problems. I don’t really feel like discussing what you just wrote, but if I did, it would have to be the first sentence and only the first sentence for now.
Think you can agree to that condition?
LikeLike
Big pharma fascism is flying on the wings of germ theory. I’m positive we can agree on this point. Hence my effort here, trying to point to some of the myths of prevailing contagion paradigm. Understanding the fundamentals is definitely helping in cutting through the fog, I reckon.
It’s a fact that Sars-Cov2 virus was never isolated nor purified. This was hashed over for many times before and elsewhere. But for the sake of making this new thread up-to-date with the trickery within microbiology / virology,, I’m willing to go through with it again. It seems this will take me less time than searching through all the comments.
So, if you will, can you show me the scientific research paper evidenting the existence of Sars-Cov2?
What Josh said or what he believes to be true is irrelevant to the point of the discussion allowed on this topic. Making this new thread is definitely a step forward, so let’s temporarily suspend calls to any authority, for the sake of objectivity. We can peacefully co-exist in disagreement about the contagion theory, as long as we can clearly see who is the real enemy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are not JUST flying on germ theory. They are flying on complex PROFIT making schemes, genomics, centerfugation, nosology, “standard of care” guidelines that are strict and enforced by civil malpractice lawsuits. All of that rests on a very complicated scenario involving bio-chemistry and human immunity that ignores nutrition/toxicology in almost every case.
Ignoring nutrition/toxicology might be the thing that puts most of the lift in their wings.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later, I’ll start a new thread for each little point you made because I value your participation here. Don’t go over again the contagion myth busting on my account, I’ve read most of it already. Thats why I debate this topic, that myth busting has real flaws that make it ineffective to sway the mainstream or back off fascism.
LikeLike
I disagree, the most recent turn of the regime into heavy fascism, like i.e. the State and Corporations working against the People, was made possible exactly because of the virus myth. The most important myth being that Sars-Cov2 was isolated – it was this precise moment or event which has turned the heat on. Before, or in pre-covid era, BigPharma was definitely a mafia-like group of corrupt entities, but no heavy fascism was being noticed nor criticized. Understanding that their power and profitability arise from false premise or premises, is crucial for being able to understand the point what made fascism possible in the first place.
In a way, you’re confirming this by ackonwledging their ignorance of the most essential elements in disease development – nutrition and toxicology, both having direct impact on internal millieu.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think this is such fertile ground for discussion Vexman, thanks for joining me here. I want to slow down and show we agree that germ theory helps big pharma scam us with CoVlooze.
I really do think that what everyone’s opinions on WHAT “plarma flies on” is a key to simplifying this complicated debate.
It also highlights the many different ways we can push back against “pharma”. Amenable to such a focus??? I can’t cover germ, virus, and isolation all at once in a blog’s comments, its just too complicated, I’d need a hundred words at least.
If that is too focused, or not your preference, I still want you to pick a focus of some kind, I’m open to your suggestion on that. what is YOUR choice of debate topic, I leave the possibilities wide open.
LikeLike
3Rd door I suspect you still have not read the actual experiments that supposedly proved viruses these are what you need to read the rest is just written by the controlled opposition. You have not even truly began to investigate until you read those experiments and anything you say until then is basically just an appeal to authority the equivalent to claiming the Christchurch shooting is real without watching the video while claiming it has to be real because what Alex Jones or David Ike etc said is wrong and doesn’t make sense.
That is how their whole system works get past the gurus on the mountain (all of them including the ones here) and get as close to the source as possible. Then try to prove your current theory and beliefs wrong not right. That is how it’s done on every subject be it religion governments wars medical.
Remember there is ALWAYS another guru waiting for you looking to guide you.
LikeLike
So again you are appealing to authority rather than looking at evidence. But not just authority but an authority that claims never to have looked into it but rather intuits it. Sounds logical to me. I give up.
If you won’t read the experiments on virus isolation that is fine but ask yourself why not? Are you afraid of learning something or that you won’t understand them or is there another reason? The topic appears to interests you it will only take a few hours to read a couple of experiments and then you can post and talk about them rather than tell us what someone who hasn’t read them said. That would make for a worthy conversation but seriously “insert name” said is not convincing evidence to me and should not be to anyone else either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are saying I’m appealing to the authority of Josh?
yes but only in the sense that we are on his blog, trying to cut fog MM style.
I’m not saying that Josh’s opinion settles the matter of whether viruses exist or not. That is a straw man argument.
LikeLike
Why were you appealing to his authority again and how is what I argued a straw man argument. Read the experiments then argue. Explain how any of them are evidence of a virus existing that is what is being asked. I don’t care what any guru who has not read them has to say on the topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By my own authority, I choose what debates to engage in. Is that clear alexrimmer0973?
LikeLike
there is something that i don’t understand.
If a virus need a cell to replicate…
how does it enter in the cell ?
and then after replication, how do the virus-sons go out from the cell to catch other victims ?
they jump from cell to cell with their olympic legs ?
they go with the blood ?
they fly ?
i can’t visualize this… may be because i’m not biologist
anyway, nice to have this specific thread !
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo
Your particular language flavors capture very nicely the absurdity of the virus narrative. One of my favorites is that the virus “tricks” the cell into letting the cells own “machinery” replicate the virus. We both might ask, how does it “trick” the cell into this immoral act of copulation? Perhaps, say by speaking French to English cells, and so on? Or by making promises that it won’t keep?….At any rate, the virus copulates with the cell, and all the little virus-“sons” mosey on out (kinda like Snow Whites seven(ty) dwarfs) to do some more trickery/dirty work elsewhere.
As to your multiple choice, I’ll (for now) go with “olympic legs”.
LikeLike
trick….
this is the good word
everything is trickery in this virustory…
but, the virus should be over sexy if it can trick every kind of cells in human body :
lung alveoli cells to trigger respiratory distress,
taste bud cells to trigger loss of taste,
booze cells to trigger loss of smell,
existential anxiety cells to trigger heart acceleration,
temperature regulation cells to trigger a fever flare …
wow …
it’s the sexiest virus in the world if it messes up at this point in any type of cell !
we should award him the title of “sexiest in the universe”, replacing John Legend (hero of the film “I am a legend”, with, as main actor, an invisible virus and, for supporting role, Will Smith)…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also if they allegedly dont have metabolism and therefore cannot move or detect a potential target cell to infect, cell-by-cell infection could only happen on a random
basis, in other words, by chance, by landing on a target by luck.
This IMO would go against explanations for rapid spread of infection, but Im sure
virologists have their statistical models to “explain” that.
Sadly it is difficult (if not impossible) trying to discuss this concerns with a virologist, as he or she is most likely to see you as a tinfoil hat flat-earther right off the bat when he or she realizes that the implications could threathen the whole field of virology. Similar to trying to discuss “global warming” with an evironmentalist or climatologist, but in this case thank god some of them are not only open to discuss it but are also highly skeptical of the official narrative. Sadly it is very rare to see any of those ones
getting any air time in the MSM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Stephen
“So how do viruses even move? They aren’t motile. They don’t even have a simple mechanism like a squid to push liquid. How do they align themselves to face a cell wall to inject RNA?
What is the biomechanics behind the parts involved with this RNA injection?”
@Mantalo
“there is something that i don’t understand.
If a virus need a cell to replicate…
how does it enter in the cell ?”
I invite all of you to see my first comment on this thread since i already have answered to your questions.
But well i will make an answer for you, a much clearer one, so that you understand where i’m going.
Since a lot of you are familiar with Miles Work and much more than me, it should be easy for you all to understand this :
A VIRUS DOESN’T METABOLISE, it means for you all that IT CAN’T GET ACCESS TO THE LIFE CODE(LIGHT-PHOTONS), channel charge, recycle photons IN ORDER TO KNOW HOW TO FUNCTION since only light know the HOW.
A virus doesn’t metabolise so IT DOESN’T KNOW HOW to enter into a cell in the first place.
A virus doesn’t metabolise so IT HAS NO CLUE HOW to filtrate chemical constituents from its body and transfer part of them to another entity in order to infect it.
Which means even if a virus is in contact with an host, it can’t develop, i repeat even in contact.
The KEY WORD here to understand if a virus could be a cause of disease or even to explain its presumed function is “METABOLISM”.
@archer-d
– etc.. if anybody takes a hard closer look at any supposed “virus” disease they will find out that the real cause is something else…
Well know i can answer to your question too, the cause of dis-ease is a lack of health more precisely a lack of charge, of photons going through your body, of light which will impact your metabolism.
Light and health are the very same thing in fact health should derive from light
LikeLike
@Ali, yes, you are right, light is number 1 in human health. And if we shine a light on supposed “viruses” they all go poof. I think the v-word should be rooted out from the dictionary and human health sciences should start over from scratch…no, not scratch… first embrace the light and then take it from there……
LikeLike
In Ayurveda… not only did ancient humans stare at the sun, but sun gazing improved their eyesight and overall health.
Passed down generation after generation, this practice has transcended millennia. If it didn’t matter, surely it would have died out long ago.
Yet even today you’ll find sun gazers in every city around the world.
Sun gazing is safe when practiced properly.
https://outliyr.com/sun-gazing
LikeLike
@Ali:
it is because I had read your comment that I agreed with you: how does the virus enter the cell … in fact, it cannot, it does not have the physical means.
Question settled.
Everything else falls off if the virus can’t get into the cell.
no need to worry anymore 🙂
Regarding health, I am much better since I spend more time outside, in the mountains, in the forest (since I am far from the sea, which is, in my opinion, the number one healer).
I walk and as soon as I find a trickle of water, I set my feet in it. Running water also has a beneficial effect.
At the moment, I’m swimming in the lake too, since it’s hot enough for that, on the other hand, never in a fucking pool full of chlorine (we owe the bleach to Mr. Berthollet, a famous spook, whose the statue stands at the edge of the lake, facing the Tournette, his hand in his underpants like all his congeners …)
https://monumentum.fr/statue-berthollet-pa74000030.html
In short, if we are beings of light, then light is beneficial to us …
with that, I’ll set my feet in the river 🙂
LikeLike
error, he doesn’t have his hand in his underpants… my mistake 🙂
LikeLike
Whose underpants does he have his hands in then?! (Une blague.)
LikeLike
usual problem with the position of the “reply” comment
LikeLike
POLIO
Some more on polio can be found here: https://jchristoff.com/20-things-you-dont-know-about-polio-2/
I think Jason Christoff sourced it pretty well, i do not know the guy, but i did ask him a question about nutrition and he has answered me very politely and it was helpful.
For people that can not be bothered to take the link, the cause of Polio is indeed pesticides. It has NOTHING to do with a virus, that was a cover up. Also the polio “vaccine” has done more harm then good, ie killed people.
Exposing fake viruses is also exposing fake medical science, fake “vaccines” and fake pandemics,
LikeLiked by 2 people
A hearty Amen! I’m in the choir and singing the same song. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
For me, “virus theory” is somewhat like atomic theory. Whomever controls the narrative controls the “truth”, as most of us don’t have electron microscopes in our garage or particle accelerators in our backyards. Miles’ papers have demonstrated how corrupt science is, and how the major fields of study have been hijacked for profits – and the P-Navy has built a pretty sizable moat around that profit-making machine.
So does it matter when it comes to the theories and “real” nuts and bolts of science? Do I care when I turn on the light switch if it’s electrons or charge flowing on the wires? Should I care if Covid is a virus, or it’s some other “no see’em” that’s making people sick?
It seems the better approach for the common bloke is to determine what “works” in real life to address the problems (ie, sleeping in an environment which conducts charge, taking ivermectin if getting the Covid symptoms), and worry less about the accuracy of the scientific theory behind it.
It’s not to say that determining the truth and correcting the narrative won’t someday be important. But for now, focusing on beating back the narratives with real world, verifiable facts should be the main focus. That’s the way I’ll be fighting the tyranny.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I believe you are being nice when you say “somewhat like atomic theory.” It is exactly like the fake atomic theory and comes from the same liars. It is my belief that almost everything we know about science (and everything else) is pure fiction. I’m not talking about something like bacteria having a rotor and stator. We can actually view these mechanical wonders. The controllers want us fixated on what is not real. Any version will do, as long as it’s on their stage, with their theatrical troupe. The script is always written by them, to focus your mind—to bring it down any path, so long as it’s their path. Like who killed Kennedy? You can’t even answer that question with a No one. That is not in the script, is it. They don’t really care what pond you are fishing in, as long as it’s not the real one. All their fish are toxic.
And sure, you can prove anything with magic math, but that is not science. Since those who control “science” are all liars—when they open their mouths about anything I can’t touch, smell, weigh or see, I’m naturally skeptical. Therefore I can assume that they are lying about everything until I see proof otherwise. And I understand that to question things like this here, among some “true believers,”—such things as particles of light existing, among other fairytales, will surely put a bur under many a saddle. Even many things “we know” of the genome are suspect. We know very little about most things. I know, the trolls will no doubt chime in and say, yes Dave, you do know very little about most things. And yes, I’ll have to agree.
The powers that shouldn’t be don’t want people to think they are not “leaders” and “authorities” on everything, so they must keep the theatrical troupe in place—to give reason for their circus tent. They’re all scary clowns and when you peel back the face paint, they’re even scarier—betraying the real face of evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sven, Seriously? Take Ivermectin??
LikeLike
Ivermectin APPEARS to be effective for treating Covid. There are some underlying assumptions like there really is a virus, and that Ivermectin is effective against said virus. One of the bloggers I follow is Karl Denninger, and his personal experience, as well as many others support this view. He also has a recent blog post on APPARENTLY what occurred in India when Ivermectin became the “go to” drug to treat the Covid outbreak. It’s also worth noting that health officials in Japan and now Australia are using it for treatment.
https://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=243599
What I’ve read on the other side of the argument is OBVIOUSLY propaganda from the Big Pharma side. That, in and of itself of course, doesn’t prove anything, but it does make me stop and wonder. And the anti-Ivermectin backlash by the media (like Howard Stern), the AMA and other health officials (threatening and actually taking licenses away from doctors who use it), and of course from the .gov side (banning it to approve “emergency authorization” for the clot shots) tells me one thing – it probably works.
Denninger has an excellent track record on the whole plandemic, IMHO. I haven’t found a better source for disputing the narrative, and there is now more and more data coming out from the UK, Israel and now in the U.S. that confirms his analyses.
If nothing else, the 30 years Ivermection has been used for anti-parasitic treatment with 4B+ doses tells me it beats the clot-shots in the category of “safe”.
LikeLike
@Chris Ryska Whats the problem with Ivermectin? Seriously, what specific complaint do you have about this medicine?
I have no interest in putting down what could be an effective therapy, because some group believe viruses don’t exist or because it furthers a virus “narrative” scam. So please, and thanks.
LikeLike
You guys don’t know what the risks are. Ivermectin is an insecticide. You really only want to use it topically. It should not be used to treat any kind of infection. What it does is it kills fleas on your cat for crying out loud.
LikeLike
Besides, in the comment section of “Current Events” suntzufighting said, on Sept. 20th at 8:21 p.m. : “…Since you call it a psyop, does it not follow that any cure is also psyop?”, which would more than apply to this situation.
LikeLike
No, it does not follow as SunTzu describes I think. Thats seriously faulty logic in my view.
So where, and its important to ask WHEN, did you hear it was an insecticide that should only be used topically? It is a medicine used on humans, not just animals.
If you don’t remember give me an estimate, like last year, last month, on the web, etc. I think I have data and studies on its risks, its well studied.
LikeLike
“you guys don’t know what the risks are” is not a specific problem you have with this drug.
So Chris, seriously? Casting doubt on the safety of Ivermectin? I’m not even recommending it, I just think its curious its all of a sudden its suppressed by the maimstream, and now by you.
LikeLike
What’s the problem with Ivermectin? Like, what’s the problem with drug intake of any kind in order to treat non-existing Covid disease? Well, you know the answer.
Only IF covid is many other respiratory diseases being rebranded in order to give an empty epidemic claim some reality – would taking any pharmaceuticals have some sense. Since there has been no Sars-Cov2 virus proven in the first place, any and all claims about its treatment are a big waste of time. There’s no argument against it, except for what I just wrote in a previous sentence. I already called you out on it, asking you to present a study claiming otherwise. You haven’t done it yet, and we both know the reason why.
So, extra large doses of organic fruits and vegetables plus resting – will help in most cases of a simple respiratory infection. Avoid any pharmaceutical substances if possible, as it usually IS possible to avoid them AND heal your body’s symptoms in a much healthier way.
LikeLike
Taking a drug for a non existent disease is not a flaw of the drug. Ivermectin is taken for other things besides Covid.
You basically make an argument, that I cannot discuss Ivermectin, without overcoming your contrived demand I present a “study” proving the existence of sars-cov-2.
But thats a fallacy, I can discuss Ivermectin outside of any consideration of sars-cov-2, it is its own thing.
LikeLike
@ 3rd doorman, I do happen to know a little bit about Ivermectin. But I don’t feel that I can tell you anything.
@ Vexman, Thank you for ALL of that!! I agree with everything that you said. You’re just able to say it a lot better and clearer in every which way.
LikeLike
You’re one dense guy, 3rd door.
The introduction to this Ivermectin issue was by Sven, when he said:
“…sleeping in an environment which conducts charge, taking ivermectin if getting the Covid symptoms”
Then Chris Ryska called him out on it, and a few comments later you fall into it, ignoring the context as usually with this question posed to Chris Ryska
“Seriously, what specific complaint do you have about this medicine?”
Do you see what you just did with this? The discussion was about taking Ivermectin for covid symptoms and not the drug itself.
Ivermectin IS an insecticide. What does this tell you? It kills insects, for goodness sake, so yes, it’s a drug with specific function and nobody was arguing that.
Covid symptoms are what, exactly? Coughing? Fever? Shortness of breath? Sore throat? Blood clots? All of them together? So in what manner does AN INSECTICIDE help dealing with any/all of them?
Yes, it may be true that Ivermectin is able to diminish some of the above symptoms, but these people WERE NOT suffering from covid disease. For that to claim, you first need to prove a) isolation of Sars-Cov2 and b) contagion with such isolate.
End point: Ivermectin is an insecticide. It should not be consumed for a non existent disease. I would be very careful and study the cases in which Ivermectin proved to help people with specific symptoms. The dosages in the mentioned cases are to my knowledge completely arbitrary and experimental.
LikeLike
@Vexman – I can’t argue the logic of Ivermectin when used for Covid – it’s use as an “anti-viral” if you will is certainly open for debate, as are many aspects of treatment, AGAIN – assuming there is some underlying “thing” about the virus that does cause illness and death.
But Ivermection is NOT strictly an insecticide. It’s been been used as an anti-parasite drug, which to me is different. It has been used BY HUMANS in roughly 4 billion doses, has helped greatly reduce river blindness and other diseases, and pretty much crushed COVID in its tracks – if the data from India is accurate. How else do you explain those numbers, as well as the effect the drug has had in Japan? Your insistence that it’s an “insecticide” reflects, IMHO, binary thinking. It’s like calling club soda a drink, and a drink only, though of course it’s quite effective at cleaning out fresh stains on clothing.
Furthermore, like anti-oxidents and other treatments like HCQ, it’s hard for me to believe it’s ineffective based on .gov and Big Pharma’s response to limit access and belittle those who use Ivermectin. The backlash against the treatment is based on non-compliance with the narrative of the plandemic. Especially at less than $2 per dose….
LikeLike
@Sven
This is why there is zero chance anything in the next 50 years (I’d suggest a lot longer) of overturning the powers that be, or even making them come up with better more believable scams. Even people who have been here for more than a year fall straight for door 2 and forget all logical thought.
If you do not believe covid is a magical invisible virus how does an anti viral drug fix up all of the diseases that have been grouped together and called covid. Car crashes, heart disease,pneumonia, diabetes etc all cured by the magic trump drug.
I honestly don’t know what you are talking about with India and their Covid numbers demonstrating that any drug works. In my state South Australia we have zero Covid deaths and we have non stop people travelling in from all over Australia (and the world). They do not follow the rules you are told they do, to begin with there were no rules yet no one here or in WA or NT can catch it until we need to extend the emergency orders when magically we have an outbreak for a week and then it disappears all together again. We had no masks no drugs no vaccines no social distancing everything continued basically as normal for 16 months.
People are so desperate to hold on to their old beliefs (Gods, medicine, politics, countries,economics, good vs evil, favourite internet writers) no real progress could ever be made without resorting to tricking people into action which is what we already have.
I’m not going to argue with anyone on here that the disease Covid 19 does not exist because there is no way I could convince some one who has not already been convinced. All evidence shows it doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
@ Vexman, Thanks again for your sound argument. You’re like a rock. I can kind of see the point that 3rd doorman’s trying to make, though.
@ 3rd doorman, The thing that really worked for me that I discovered by accident was oxycodone {I happen to have a prescription}. I kid you not!! It really works. I had a really bad cold/flu that had really hammered me and the oxycodone destroyed all the symptoms for a day. It was like I didn’t even have it. I’m talking about 10 mgs. I think it works because it dry’s you out. So, if you’re feeling like you’re going to die in an emergency you could pop one of those and you’ll be good as new, but only for a day. I guarantee you that it will far surpass anything that Ivermectin is capable of doing for someone that’s suffering from the flu.
LikeLike
oxycodone for a cold? I think this is just you mocking me. An addictive opiod for cold symptoms is not a valid equivalence.
You said you knew something about ivermectin, but couldn’t tell me. I don’t know why you hold back, honestly. But whatever I can’t force it out of you. A cite that calls it an insecticide would be nice.
Anyway here is a meta analysis for various treatments for covid in humans. https://c19early.com/
Notice Ivermectin on the list, also note curcumin, vitamin a, vitamin d, zinc. This meta analysis is limitied though, because some have few trials, and the studies are not all alike.
Here are studies of ivermectin tested in relation to covid
https://c19ivermectin.com/
“All ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 121 studies, 77 peer reviewed, 64 with results comparing treatment and control groups”
So it has “news” mixed in, but it also allows you to exclude by early treatment, late, and prophylaxis.
I found a paper that in this list that went over some hypothesized methods of action for ivermectin, what it does to a body, but that paper was retracted. Here it is anyway to give a sense that ivermectin can have a range of effects, some might be anti-inflammatory, some might be immunomodulating. This all could have an effect even outside of its effects as “anti-viral”, ie. we would see such effects even if the underlying cause is not a virus. That means if could be toxic poisoning or some other cause leading to symptoms currently assigned to a virus, but ivermectin might still be able to have an effect. It does show specific anti viral effects, but not JUST anti-viral effects.
“https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41429-021-00430-5/MediaObjects/41429_2021_430_MOESM1_ESM.pdf”
LikeLike
@ 3rd doorman, I’ll reiterate the quote from suntzu, paraphrased: Since it’s called a psyop, does it not follow that any cure is also a psyop? I don’t care what Ivermectin can treat aside from what it’s designed/specified for. Furthermore, I was warned by a dermatologist’s assistant to NEVER take more than four pills a year internally {even though they have that as an option}, especially if the topical version is an available.
Also, 10 mgs of oxycodone IS NOT going to be addictive especially if you don’t take it everyday. I’ve been taking it for years and I am NOT addicted!
Enough of this Ivermectin bullshit. Why not go on to some other topic that’s actually worthwhile for crying out loud.
LikeLike
“You guys don’t know what the risks are. Ivermectin is an insecticide. You really only want to use it topically. It should not be used to treat any kind of infection. What it does is it kills fleas on your cat for crying out loud.”
But now its: “I was warned by a dermatologist’s assistant to NEVER take more than four pills a year internally {even though they have that as an option}, especially if the topical version is an available.” Cat dermatologist?
I pointed to 60+ clinical trials, you then contradict yourself, warning a dermatologist’s assistant says not more than four “pills” of cat flea insecticide taken internally, per year! Chris Ryska, you and Vexman are paralleling the FDA and CDC and all of the media these days in disparaging it.
SunTzu’s logic is faulty. I don’t even want to get into it here. I’ll make a new thread.
LikeLike
@ 3rd doorman, The Ivermectin pills I was talking about were for people, not cats. Again, it was a dermatologist’s assistant at a dermatologist’s office {for people not animals} that had a horrified reaction when she found out that I had taken more than four ivermectin pills.
LikeLike
“pills” doesn’t indicate a DOSAGE, its entirely possible these “pills” were DESIGNED to only be taken at most 4 times a year. If it was a human dermo, then why bring up CATS and recommend only topical application?
Nevermind, obviously you are not going address the contradictory statements you made. 60 clinical trials vs. one, ONE! horrified reaction from a dermotologist’s ASSISTANT over a dosage we cannot estimate. Never told me WHEN, but don’t bother now.
My original question was posted on Sept 22, its now October 17. It took me almost a month to get this info out of you. Obviously no argument against organic veg, fruits, and rest! Of course I have plenty of money for unspecified organics and am not struggling under lockdowns and obliteration of my employment! I’ll just “rest” and avoid pharma thats been used for decades safely and cost $1.50.
I never said YOU were addicted, I said the substance was addictive. I didn’t have your dosage or frequency, and didn’t care because like I said, its a false equivalency fallacy to even bring it up when the subject is IVMectin for covid symptoms.
LikeLike
@ 3rd doorman, 60 plus trials?? Remember how that I said not to waste any more time on the subject of Ivermectin?? And now you’re delving into 60 plus trial materials?? Good luck with that. Please STOP treating colds and flus with insecticides!!
LikeLike
Yes, 60 plus trials, into a anti-parasitic prescribed multi-millions of times, that is being used offlabel as an early treatment anti-viral with excellent safety history, one of the safest drugs in the world. I’m open to its safety being challenged, thus I asked you for further info.
Again, it took me a month to discover the depth of your information was a reaction from a dermatologist’s assistant; who objected to an unknown dosage being used internally by a human more than 4 times a year. So basically you have no information on why an insecticide was suitable for you then, and is somehow ill-advised now.
I won’t even ask what what you were treating with you internal ivermectin dosage, since that would be a private matter. Its like me saying caffeine is an insecticide, but I refuse to outline any data on how its a human health risk. When pressed for more info, I admit “someone in a doctor’s office told me” and leave it at that.
60 human trials at least presents more data than “someone told me”. Although like I said, I was open to that being challenged. It was not effectively challenged, not even a little bit. In fact it was bolstered since you admit taking it internally.
LikeLike
Mantalo’s simple, direct logic and way with words has inspired me to repost this mini tome that I wrote, just after the beginning of this psyop.
Empire Building in the 21st Century (or, evolution of bat particles)
The world’s greatest empire, an empire that rules over all so-called sovereign states, has unleashed, once again, its most feared and most powerful weapon. Yes, the Rockefeller empire of medical/ religious churches and affiliate organizations has launched its most direct viral attack yet on the world’s population. Several unlucky citizens are confirmed to have died of the virus or some other cause already.
This evil creature, well…it’s not actually alive…this thing, this VIRUS…is quite intelligent, and that’s why it’s so effective. Even though lacking a brain, heart, nervous system, arms, legs, wings, or anything else to make it functional or give it a modus operandi, this mini-monster has jumped and flown and traversed oceans (after escaping from its normal hangout in a bat, or civet-cat, or pig or something, it’s all a bit muddled), and ended up in Tom Hank’s nose. And in Australia, of all places! We know that because he said so, so it’s true (and it was reported in the New York Times). We also know (as reported in The Guardian), that this virus had a fling with a couple of Chinese nationals, killing one of them by mistake, before making its mysterious journey down under.
After landing in Tom’s nose, this brainless but brilliant particle of protein with a snippet of rna or dna or some other bat (or civet or pig) fibers attached, bored straight through his protective mucous layer, managed to sneak past a few white blood cells, and arrived at the door of a very, very, good- looking cell on the side of Tom’s sinus cavity. Slimy, but beautiful. Our little particle prick couldn’t help himself, of course, he knocked, and she let him in. And if that wasn’t bad enough, he didn’t tell her that he was a bat, or civet, or pig, or whatever, and that his jism just wouldn’t get the job done in the end. But she didn’t care, and she didn’t ask. He stuck his rna in her dna, and contrary to all the known laws of biology, the earth moved. This suited both of them just fine, so he kept stickin’ it to her, and boy did she ever respond. Now and then she would swell up and burst open, and lines of cute little rag-tag protein particles marched on out of her, kind of like Snowwhite and the seventy dwarfs.
As a result, Tom got the sniffles, then he sneezed. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Tom did not shove his mouth into his elbow before letting loose. Worse yet, he sneezed again, no elbow. It was probably the second sneeze that infected the prime minister before he traveled to America. The CDC should know about this stuff, and they say that a second sneeze is usually necessary, with an effective range of from one millimeter to six miles.
In case you’re wondering, Tom got well, but of course he’s a great empire patriot, so it figures. The big mystery was how in the world could a bat protein prick impregnate a human sinus cell. After all, everyone knows this cross-species stuff can’t happen, with the wrong dna/rna and all. The medical mafia kept putting the story out there that the viral prick-dude would “hijack” the cell, or “trick” the poor thing into (get this!), allowing it to REPLICATE. Makes a lot of sense, right? I’ll stick with the story above, just pure lust and earthquakes.
Finally, I have it from good sources that a collaboration between Rockefeller / GatesFoundation / Microsoft tech wizards figured out a way to get micro computers installed in all those nasty little v/buggers, and that’s how they fixed the glitch in the copulation chemistry. And that’s how the west was won, and why the Empire stays strong.
LikeLike
you made me laugh…. thank you very much… i like it 🙂
my favorite :
Even though lacking a brain, heart, nervous system, arms, legs, wings, or anything else to make it functional or give it a modus operandi, this mini-monster has jumped and flown and traversed oceans (after escaping from its normal hangout in a bat, or civet-cat, or pig or something, it’s all a bit muddled), and ended up in Tom Hank’s nose
How was the minimonster able to travel so fast ?
because it had already its compulsory health pass ! Ah !
And remember that Dear Tom was already playing “the death of Phèdre” in Philadelphia (1993) winning his first Oscar for Best Actor for his role as Andrew Beckett.
LikeLike
The Germ Theory is the only theory Big Pharma allows. The main reason being a perfect fit for their money-making business and control model. This model – from the One Germ -> One disease -> One cure aspect – allows Big Pharma to continuously invent thousands of expensive, narrow-focused drugs, which are arguably useful for one particular disease or condition. They invent a new drug or procedure, then patent it and are off to making huge profits, despite the drug’s or procedure’s vicious side-affects. The alternative, terrain theory has the potential to eradicate this business practice at once.
LikeLike
“…terrain theory has the potential to eradicate this business practice at once”
Since its industries are the main polluters of the planet, terrain theory has the potential to eradicate the PN’s entire empire.
LikeLike
LikeLike
So, opening this image and zooming in [because I had to make out the text] I read “Look ahead engage with change”.
I just want to ask you Sunshine, and I’m only asking Sunshine, Why embed TWO of these synthetic scenes with the same text message, and even if there was only one, what do you expect us to get out of it?
LikeLike
Reply to Alexrimmer
I guess it’s just inertia, not wanting to let go of past beliefs. Probably the more she studies truth in general the more accepting she would be of new information. But even I was skeptical and hesitant of the vitA detox. It requires a lot of reading for starters 😂, so already 90% of the population are out, they won’t go through with it, just because of mental laziness. Then the “drastic” change in diet and all. The only reason I went through with it was because I had no recourse left to me. Big hospitals and ayurveda weren’t helping even in the slightest. 3 days after I started the detox diet though, I was dumping vit A like crazy, mostly in the form of toxic bile, so I KNEW I was on the right path then and there.
My mom has high blood pressure, my dad has heart troubles and both have unhealthy body weight they could fix tolerably well with the diet, but even after hearing me go on and on about it they still won’t. My mom has been taking fake BP medicines for decades now, with no effect, still she outright said that she’d rather continue taking the medicines than opt for a low cost diet that would likely fix the issue in a few months. Why continue to live in misery when they have seen how my symptoms improved fast, most of them disappearing permanently?
Human Psychology ☺️.
My cousin is a physics major and she understood very quickly how my condition was a state of hypervitaminosis, but holds the belief that vitA is essential and not toxic at the end of the day. She also cannot understand how easy it is to enter into hypervitaminosis A, and how most of the population is already toxic, which manifests itself as “autoimmune” conditions, and how autoimmunity itself is fraud. Just going along with what she’s been taught is all. That’s all the experience I’ve had with talking about vitA to people.
My girlfriend’s mom actually has osteoporosis, I haven’t had a talk with her regarding vitA yet, but I’ve talked to her about corona and the vaccines being fake, and dissuaded her from getting a second dose (hopefully) 😂, and her daughter from getting it altogether. Since she is open minded I will atleast request her to read that chapter of grant’s book, let’s see.
I think Alex, it’s best just to request them to read and see if they are willing, and leave it if they’re not. The way grant has shown how the experiments that established retinol as a vitamin are fake is in itself very eye opening. Or the effect of cod liver oil on rats, how it causes tissue degeneration within days. Maybe start with those? Try recommending the book to people who have autoimmune conditions and you’ll have better results. Bye😁
A question for archer-d, if animal based vitA is essential, and most people are deficient, then I should have this deficiency as well na, I’ve been on a severely restricted vitA diet for one and a half years now., Eating only lentils, beans, rice, potatoes, cauliflower, mushrooms and sometimes chicken. How come I don’t have any deficiency symptoms? I had overdosed on carrots, tomatoes and spinaches, and haven’t , touched any animal source of vitA. How come I’m not deficient? You can reply in healthmatters if you choose to :).
LikeLike
i made a post in health matters, yes, we should separate the “virus” stuff from the personal health stuff / i never seed animal vitamin A is essential, just that it is needed (when i say needed, i mean our body uses it). I could be wrong about that, i am always willing to eat crow 🙂
LikeLike
Doesn’t a low-vitamin-A diet also tend to be a low-fat diet? How do you distinguish the effects of restricting vitamin A from those of restricting fatty acids or other fat-soluble toxins?
LikeLike
I was getting enough fats from coconut oil I think, which is what I used to cook. The main problem that happened with me I guess is the lack of protein intake when I was munching down carrots. Would have prevented a lot of problems, hah. Besides, the dumping of vitA is very unique and familiar to me by now, it happens either when I go low on the intake, or when I have ingested too much too fast, or when use activated charcoal or something, the body just starts dumping toxic bile like crazy.
LikeLike
Well if most of your fat was coconut oil, then your PUFA intake was extremely low. PUFAs are pro-inflammatory, so how do you discount that as a cause of your improvement? Not to mention many other things you might have restricted or eliminated unknowingly.
LikeLike
@Ben
“How do you distinguish the effects of restricting vitamin A from those of restricting fatty acids or other fat-soluble toxins?”
First off, I’m no expert; I’m just getting started myself with the VAD diet (Vitamin A Detox). There are other fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins (lutein, synthetic vitamin D and E) that can be toxic depending on the health of the liver &/or inhibit detoxification, so one ends up restricting more than just vitamin A if detoxing. Lab work is recommended to monitor the effects of reducing serum retinol. Basically vitamin A is exceptionally easy to poison oneself with, and, because they inhibit the ALDH and DH system, other fatty acids can be problematic too as well as foods high in sulfur and aldehydes. If you check out Grant’s book he goes through the many hypervitaminosis A studies, like the study with rats and cod liver oil mentioned above, finding that the documented symptoms of vitamin a poisoning are conspicuously similar to nearly every autoimmune disease.
https://ggenereux.blog/my-ebooks/
LikeLike
this is continued in the health matters thread.
LikeLike
I know it’s not PUFAs because I was extremely low on its intake anyway, and I developed my symptoms over the course of a few months eating carrots, tomatoes and spinach raw or souped. The detox symptoms are pretty unique, and I had a huge list of them, which corresponded with hypervitaminosis A symptoms. Your body can either go into storage or detox mode regarding vitA. When in storage mode the symptoms don’t manifest themselves, which is why Grant calls it an insidious toxin. The third day after I went on the rice beans diet I went into detox mode and was dumping vitA like crazy, in the form of toxic bile. That’s how I’m sure. Retinol causes inflammation and tissue destruction, which is why it’s used in chemotherapy.
LikeLike
No a low vitamin a diet is not low fat. You do not distinguish the effects when you change your diet that is what experiments are for. You can try it yourself with a few animals if you don’t believe the ones already completed. It will cost you a few hundred dollars. Have maybe 4 groups zero to lots of vitamin A and make that the only variation see what happens.
LikeLike
Lots of foods have essential fats without the vit A. Start with Flax/Linseed (milled).
LikeLiked by 1 person
In order to get a grasp on the already established knowledge about the possibly smallest forms of life, get familiar with the work of the pioneers of pleomorphism. Their astounding findings, made over more than a century ago, have been consistently ignored, censored by silence or suppressed throughout all of that time by ruling “opinion-makers”, orthodox thinkers in mainstream microbiology.
Antoine Bechamp and his entire opus is a must-read section. Here’s a link to his very last book from 1912, “The Blood And Its Third Element”. *https://archive.org/details/the-blood-and-its-third-element
Raymond Rife is another one of the pioneers researchers of pleomorphism. He came to the independent conclusion, to which others had come to independently both before and after him: depending on its inner state, germs arose within the body itself that, in Rife’s opinion, were not the cause but the result of disease states.
One of the earliest members of this group of pioneers was also Ernst Bernhard Almquist. In 1922, after two long decades of work, Almquist came to the conclusion that “nobody can presume to know the complete life cycle and all the varieties of even a single bacterial species. It would be an assumption to think so“.
Gaston Naessens is the next pioneer, whose findings are a must-read. After years of research, he was able to document the entire cycle of the tiny form he calls the somatid and to show how that form not only is all but indestructible, but through experimentation, how it acts something like a “DNA precursor”.
All this knowledge kind of culminates in the work of Gunther Enderlein, more precisely in his book “Bakterien Cyclogenie”, (The Life Cycle of Bacteria) from 1925. He asserted, while different types of micro-organisms normally live within the body in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, with severe deterioration of the body’s environment they develop into disease-producing forms to create what he called dysbiosis, or “a fault in the life process”.
Finding and accessing their books proved to be quite a difficult task up to this very moment.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Vex any of their books you find for free that you reckon are worth reading. I’ll have a read. Post up the links either here or on your blog or alternatively email me.
LikeLike
If the books are hard to find, then I guess they cannot be used overturn pharma hegemony until they are more widely available.
Vexman, you came at me pretty hard asking for a paper that isolated and demonstrated sars-cov-2, but I can’t use that tactic on you to point to “smallest forms of life” when so much of the research is hard to even access, spread across many books, and written in several languages.
When a covid scam caused a wave of fear, I have no way to review but one translation of Beauchamp, who wrote in french, Almquist who is swedish and hasn’t even an english wikipedia entry, rife much of whose work was lost. Found this though:
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1658030/”
Naessens who is not so much anti-germ theory as anti-cancer innovator
“https://www.faim.org/sites/default/files/documents/Wise-Journal-Change-of-Strategy-in-Cancer-Care-Management.pdf”
has a publication by him that totes a pharma drug as anti-inflamatory immunotherapy to restore somatid funtion. Was the somatid ever isolated/purified is not something I am going to demand.
Enderlein, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Enderlein
makes one interesting claim that I cannot review, that he claimed things the size of or smaller than a virus could be seen with dark field microscopy. Bakterien-Cyklogenie, originally in german, or the life cycle of the bacteria might be summarized fairly here:
https://www.mold-survivor.com/a_modern_scientific_perspective.html
Anybody who says this is going to be easy is mistaken, all these guys use different terminology in many cases. As challenge to germ-theory or big pharma it seems unlikely to gain momentum in time, but at least word is getting out they exist. Time to scan them and get copies online any any text format possible if they are valuable to your struggle.
LikeLike
“Vexman, you came at me pretty hard asking for a paper that isolated and demonstrated sars-cov-2, but I can’t use that tactic on you to point to “smallest forms of life…”
Use a tactic on me? I want to believe this is just an example of figurative language and not a slip of tongue of any kind.
The global covid mania begun with an empty claim of a novel virus being discovered. This is simply not true as there’s no evidence of any new virus. Everything being discussed in that perspective is thus pure fiction. I wrote these words on my blog in the very first weeks of this global covid frenzy. Until this day, nobody claims to have a covid virus isolate / sample un their possession and nobody has yet managed to infect another healthy person by inoculating him/her with such isolate. No Koch / Rivers’ postulates were being met and they even admitted it in their research papers.
The reason I confronted you in the first place is because you’re pushing the virus=poison narrative without any proof of it being true. If you’re actually open-minded to other theory of contagion, at least show some doubt in your own knowledge, as is the case in this last comment.
It’s very likely that people with respiratory issues are lately exhibiting symptoms of respiratory infection/s that are more severe than noted before. It is very likely that the underlying reason or reasons are due to a new chemical being pushed to consumer markets – such as nano GO – a new material being praised by the proponents of 4IR, which is highly toxic within a human body. Researching GO’s toxicity will lead to you discovering exactly the same pronounced symptoms of respiratory tract infections being described as Covid disease symptoms and many others – like mitochondria disfunction leading to oxidative stress which leads to severe shortness of breath, for instance. As shown by the pioneers of Terrain theory and others, like Jim West, toxicity of the environment, both inner and outer, is the most probable culprit of the development of any disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your assertion that an isolate needs to be produced, needs a precise definiton. Its a word that is used in many different ways in many different contexts.
Why don’t you define isolate precisely if its so important to you? Its your requirement, so can you be specific?
And yes, I could ask you who has an “isolate” for the “smallest forms of life”; same tactic, but I think its an unproductive approach at this point.
LikeLike
You’re turning the table here. The burden of proof is on you. I’ve never claimed there’s any novel particle being a reason for a new set of symptoms / disease. It was you, remember? That was the reason I asked you to show me the research paper where it is shown, undoubtedly.
No, isolation has only one meaning except in virology. Virologists have made another definition of isolation, where this particular noun defines creating a mixture (!) of several different organic samples and other chemicals and claiming to have isolated a specific particle with such process. It defies logic and reason and make everyone else look stupid for denying the true meaning of separating different items from one another. It’s the actual smoking gun of a DECEPTION.
I’ve never said I have all the answers. But I don’t get fooled by word massage either
LikeLike
In the comment sections of various sites I visit, people often refer to this CDC link as conclusive proof of SARS-Cov-2 isolation:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
“Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
I’m no virologist, but it looks like a toxic soup to me….
LikeLike
Toxic soup indeed, chock full of what? Genetic material of many kinds, starting with the cell culture “additives” (bovine serum, etc.), plus all of the naturally occurring (within the context of an unnatural cell culture) genetic expressions of the cells in the culture, the fragments of nucleic acid as the cell dies and breaks down, and also genetic material from extracellular vesicles present in the “soup”. (I did a breakdown of this CDC paper referenced by Kevin in this comment: *https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-58/#comment-86801).
From this vast quantity of nucleic acid fragments, PCR swoops in to provide the proof wanted by the virology boys and girls, and Voila!, a positive case!…but further elucidation of the factors at play show that PCR as a “test” in this context has absolute zero meaning, other than to give (for the sake of the virus narrative) the illusion of a virus infecting people.
There are many angles of research that point to the truth of the statement just made. Perhaps the most conclusive is found in this document: http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf. First of all, pages 3-6 voids the claim of “isolation” of every previous coronavirus, including the original Sars. Secondly, in pages 9-12, one of the many computer modeling programs (in this case Blast) that virology used to construct the fraudulent sars-cov2 “genome” is used to show that the sequences looked for, that are supposed to be specific to sars-cov2, are part of the human genome and also of microbial genomes. (for a broader discussion of the above, see this article from the Offguardian: *https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/.
PCR, used as a test for any virus, is FALSE, FAKE. Every “positive” test result is a false positive. The deceit involved in the use of this PCR machinery accurately reflects the deceit of the virus narrative as a whole.
LikeLike
@Kevin
My goodness, yes, that’s the issue right there – the soup made of vero cells (monkey kidney cells), bovine cells and antibiotics. Torturing of cells in many ways then claiming it is the virus that killed them. When they proceed to preparation of such samples for electron microscopy, it represents further cells torture by exposing them to parafomaldehyde, vaccum, resin and coloring – the part which is missing from your quoted text.
Anyway, if this is what isolation represents to them, no wonder these guys are deluded beyond understanding.
LikeLike
“You’re turning the table here. The burden of proof is on you. I’ve never claimed there’s any novel particle being a reason for a new set of symptoms / disease. It was you, remember?”
Its the mainstream making that claim, not me. So stop bringing other conversations into this one unless you can quote me exactly. ok?
I’m looking for YOUR definition of isolate and trying to get an example from YOU where its been done properly in the past.
Instead I get huge posts from Kevin and OregonnMatt about a mainstream experiment on Sars-cov-2. But I’m not talking about that experiment, its offtopic. Stop trying to just bring argumens that are not relevent. This is a prime example where there is bad faith to debate anything in this thead. No rules of debate are even possible when anybody can gum up the conversation with a particular mainstream example of isolation, I already know you guys won’t accept that, thats why I didn’t present that information.
“Isolate” does not have only one meaning, and I can show that. What is an experiment or experimenter that defines isolate as you do? The burden of proof here is on you guys. Stop giving me “wrong” isoaltion, and give me “corrent” isolation.
LikeLike
@3rd Doorman:
“I’m looking for YOUR definition of isolate and trying to get an example from YOU where its been done properly in the past…”
Unless I’m mistaken, Vexman and oregonmatt are suggesting that a virus has never been “properly isolated” such that it can provably be linked to disease causation.
““Isolate” does not have only one meaning, and I can show that. What is an experiment or experimenter that defines isolate as you do?”‘
Jim West discusses what mainstream virologists claim “isolation” means “in practice” here (I believe this has also been posted at CTTF some time back):
“https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/08/viriso.html”
Warping the original meaning of “isolation” is just part of their propaganda campaign, and they’ve done the same with “vaccine” and “pandemic”.
LikeLike
@3Rd door
An example of isolation. I just went through my sock and undies draw and put my socks in one draw and undies in another. They are now isolated from each other. If I had instead added jumpers t shirts and jeans to that draw I would call that adding in a whole bunch of other shit not isolation. Although if I was a virologist………
Don’t pretend you don’t get this isolation bs by now. The experiment at high school where we separated water into Hydrogen and Oxygen would be a classic example of isolation of 2 elements. If you are after an example in virology good luck, I suspect you will find a unicorn first.
LikeLike
Ha, spelling error. “correct isolation”. give me “correct” isolation.
When you say isolate, does that mean a particle of a certain type, suspended in distilled water? Nothing else can be in there? That “isolate” will be different from an isolate that permits distilled water and a little bit of salt. That will be a less concentrated “isolate”.
LikeLike
Kevin your harvoa link is ontopic. But insufficient. Jim West himself proves my point that there is ambiguity when using the word “isolate”.
“The term “isolation” is derived from the true success of inorganic chemistry” Then he moves to “Clever virologists faked this method and its terminology. They did this by (in practice) redefining the word “isolate” to mean “mixture”, the opposite of its actual meaning.”
So there we go. We have more than one definition of isolate, in the context of inorganic chemistry its used differently. But what level of purity is not yet defined.
Concerning electrolysis – https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/alkaline-water-electrolysis – “This technique is very clean and produces more than 99.989% purity of hydrogen gas”
Oh! so close, but still not pure hydrogen gas, not an “isolate”. Sorry, try harder next time. NO, I won’t discuss how many 9’s I require to call it an “isolate”.
AlexRimmer, thanks for mentioning that underwear in a drawer are not isolated by electrolysis. Please document and seek a publisher for your keen scientific insights, I have faith you can achieve 99.989% purity from air, dust, soap and uuum, metabolic residues.
LikeLike
3Rd door
Again you are trying to play games to avoid the idiocy of the experiments. The claim that mixing extra things with something is isolation is completely absurd. Claiming that any of the virus isolation experiments show evidence of a virus is just as absurd (if not more so) than the sink or float test for witches.
If you are isolating a prisoner from other prisoners he would be separated from other prisoners. If you were isolating your a machine from the electricity grid it would be separated from the before mentioned. If you were isolating the genetic material of a virus from other genetic material it would be separated from other genetic material. It is an extremely straight forward concept.
You seem to think you are some sort of debating wizard by arguing complete bs, knowing you are absolutely wrong and trying to direct a conversation about a lack of evidence about the existence of a virus into a definition of what isolation means to a single person . That is not the case. The whole idea of points scoring debating is idiotic. Intelligent people try to see their mistakes and admit to their errors and learn knew things. They do not push ideas they know are wrong by making stupid arguments. I once went to school with a boy who did that (his name was Alex) much better than you yet no one thought he was clever and he only ever won any of his stupid debates in his own mind.
Obviously it could be argued that the ‘virus'(genetic material said to be a virus)is indeed isolated from the living human host (because it is) but that ‘virus’ is not isolated from other genetic material (in fact more is mixed in with it for some reason). I assume this is your point.
So to then go and conduct genetic testing on that material and suggest it is isolated is deceptive although technically correct as it is isolated as there is no claim as to what it is isolated from. This is an easy point to make without wasting other people’s time pretending this process is actually legitimate science.
I have successfully argued your point for you in one sentence so now there is no need for your point scoring debating. Read the experiment and see how ridiculous it is as an attempt to show evidence of a contagious pathogenic virus. Many of your insights are worth while don’t get caught on trying to argue for things that you know are wrong just to try to win an argument.
LikeLike
Doorman, if you want to know how proper isolation is done in a lab, look up ultracentrifugation techniques. Basically, because particles have different sizes and densities, they can be arrayed within one or more density gradients (of sucrose, cesium chloride, etc) until the target particle occupies a unique band. The band is extracted with a syringe and inspected with an electron micrograph. If the particles have consistent size and appearance and no other particle types can be seen, the isolation is considered successful.
To ME however, isolation is a more general concept. It is the absence of confounding influences in an experiment. If you minimize or account for all confounders (of which there are a godawful lot in living things) then you generally have sound science.
In the electrolysis example, isolation is successful if it permits inferences about the separate elements (their density, etc) with reasonable accuracy. The purity need not be absolute, only sufficient to minimize confounding influences on experimental results.
LikeLike
Thanks Ben, I’m aware. But your isolation thats “considered successful” is still a “soup” as OregonMatt says. I think Vexman and Jim West will agree with me, it ain’t 99.989% pure virus, thats for sure. Lets start at ultra purity and work toward “soup”. Somewhere in that range, I am concluding, is a level of isolation that is considered successful for all parties to this debate.
LikeLike
Super, thank you, i started reading Bechamp 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, it’s like a GTSM (General Theory for Stellar Metomorphosis) for microbes!
Thanks for the encouragement, Vexman. I was on that path but got lost, stopped. I even started believing Gaston Naessen was a spook. I must have been reading too much CTTF. And true, I found only books about Naessens, not written by himself.
LikeLike
Grant Genereux:
“I’ve spent a lot of time this year learning about so-called viruses. I say so-called, because I quickly concluded that they are not even really “viruses” at all. At least not in the sense of the accepted definition of that term. I see the science of virology as being as dodgy and on par with that of so-called vitamin A science. Vitamin A is not a “vitamin” and “viruses” are not really viruses. I’ll try to write more about this topic in the new year.” – no comment (yet)
LikeLike
@Mantalo and everyone
“Everything else falls off if the virus can’t get into the cell.
no need to worry anymore”
Let’s take another perspective.
A virus that doesn’t metabolise is like a robot without a program and without an energy supply.
Both at the same time.
If a robot is supplied in energy, you would have to program it also if you expect it to execute a task.
If a robot is programmed, it has to get access to an energy supply first in order to led well its task.
Since a virus doesn’t metabolise even if it get into a cell, nothing will happen because it has no internal energy supply to exploit.
In fact a virus will rather be influenced by a cell not the reverse, if it miraculously ‘penetrate’ into it.
We shouldn’t reverse Cause and effects here.
To guide you more on this and to see where i’m going at.
Let’s take from the french wikipedia version of viruses, an interesting point about the dispute raised on the living/dead nature of viruses. : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
It is admitted by virologists : (See the quote in the Nature Section)
“Le débat sur le caractère vivant ou inerte des virus reste encore aujourd’hui ouvert. Répondre à cette question exige de répondre au préalable à une autre : qu’est-ce que la vie ? D’après Ali Saïb, « la notion du vivant est une notion dynamique, évoluant en fonction de nos connaissances. En conséquence, la frontière entre la matière inerte et le vivant est tout aussi instable ». L’existence ou non d’un métabolisme, c’est-à-dire d’un ensemble cohérent de processus chimiques (l’homéostasie et non la reproduction), constitue un discriminant possible, en tout cas commode, mais qui semble réducteur.”
Which could be translated as :
“THE DEBATES ON THE LIVING OR INERT NATURE OF VIRUSES IS STILL OPEN TODAY. Answering this question requires first answering another: what is life? According to Ali Saïb, “the notion of living things is a dynamic notion, evolving according to our knowledge. As a result, the border between inert matter and living things is just as unstable ”. THE EXISTENCE OR NOT OF A METABOLISM, THAT IS TO SAY OF A COHERENT SET OF CHEMICAL PROCESSES(homeostasis and not reproduction), CONSTITUTES A POSSIBLE DISCRIMINANT, in any case convenient, but which seems reducing.
So metabolic processes could be take as a discriminant to settle the matter on the very nature of viruses.
Another point which confirm my vision of what metabolism can allow and therefore doesn’t allow in its absence is(from the same wikipédia page on viruses) :
” François Jacob insiste aussi sur cette caractéristique des virus : « Placés en suspension dans un milieu de culture, ils ne peuvent ni métaboliser, ni produire ou utiliser de l’énergie, ni croître, ni se multiplier, toutes fonctions communes aux êtres vivants. » Les virus n’ont pas leur propre machinerie enzymatique, ne peuvent se multiplier qu’en utilisant celle d’une cellule qu’ils infectent.”
Which could be translated as :
“François JACOB also INSISTS ON THIS CHARACTERISTIC OF VIRUSES : “PLACED IN SUPENSION IN A CULTURE MEDIUM, THEY CANNOT METABOLIZE, NOR PRODUCE OR USE ENERGY, NOR GROW, NOR MULTIPLY, ALL FUNCTIONS COMMON TO LIVING BEINGS. VIRUSES DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN ENZYMATIC MACHINERY, CAN ONLY MULTIPLY BY USING THAT OF A CELL THEY INFECT.
What i’m implying here is that viruses can’t produce and use energy like dead machines.
Also even if they have physical means they can’t use these in the first place.
So first what i’m trying to explain here, is that whether viruses exist or not, you can explain what cause diseases WITHOUT THEIR INFLUENCE by focusing on metabolic processes matters solely.
Secondly you can also shows that the influence of viruses on cell is NULL whether they exist or not.
Finally by merging these two premises, we can conclude that viruses are IRRELEVANT in explaining what cause diseases.
Some will say they dont’ exist but i think saying they’re irrelevant at explaining life processes and their influence is null on living things is an even stronger premise.
LikeLike
correct, a “being” without agency can not act.
LikeLike
dingue qu’ils aient eu besoin de sortir un “Ali Saib”… ils n’avaient personne d’autre pour discuter du vivant ?
pas de Paul Durant ni de Jacques Dupont… seulement
When we try to find out who Ali Saib is, we come across a “pistonné” who goes straight from rector to director, then advisor … but always close to politics … so we know where he comes from, this Beautiful Ali …
I’m sure that if we dig a little deeper, we will find Jewish origins in this irreproachable Arabic name.
Consequently, what he has to tell us is halfway between lying and shit.
Another appointment is announced by the order of May 4, 2020, that of Ali Saib, who becomes chief of staff of Frédérique Vidal, replacing Nicolas Castoldi. This virology specialist, former rector of the Aix-Marseille Academy (2013-2014) and former director of research at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts (2009-2012), was a master advisor at the Court of Auditors since February 2017.
https://www.healthandtech.eu/fr/tour/news/10915/cabinet-frederique-vidal-nicolas-castoldi-nomme-conseiller-covid-19-ali.html
Ali, reassure me …. iyour name isn’t Saib?
LikeLike
mantalo
“When we try to find out who Ali Saib is, we come across a “pistonné” who goes straight from rector to director, then advisor …”
You know what is funny about him ?
His biography, see it here :
http://www.savoirs.essonne.fr/sections/ressources/portraits-dexperts/ali-saib-un-nouveau-regard-sur-les-virus/
Severals things to be mention about his :
“Il a suivi une licence de sanskrit en même temps qu’il préparait sa thèse.”
“He took a license in Sanskrit at the same time as he was preparing his thesis.”
Sanskrit (?)
Hmm..
“Le secret de ce qu’on pourrait qualifier de réussite ? “Du travail et des rencontres”, analyse Ali Saïb.”
“The secret to what could be called success? “Work and meetings”, analyzes Ali Saïb.”
Oh what a surprise, i didn’t think about that !
I thought i could became a virologist too if i worked hard, the usual narative ^^
“Ali, reassure me …. iyour name isn’t Saib?”
I saw that i wasn’t quite clear in my last comment so i will tell you this.
No, i’m not him, rest assure.
It would be really dumb that my identity unveil like that 🙂
You said :
“I’m sure that if we dig a little deeper, we will find Jewish origins in this irreproachable Arabic name.”
I completely agree with you and i think that if we dig a little more deeper, we will find that the Jewish origin is a facade for another one.
Virology and India seems to match pretty well..
Maybe he comes from the famous caste(?)
Maybe one who comes from a kshatriyas or a vaishyas level (?)
Also i’ve talked to Josh, he told me that he sent my email to the email you usually use to post a comment here.
See if you have received it in your email box.
LikeLike
I made a nice comment about ali saib… but it disappeared
Sad I am
LikeLike
I am doing research on Rabies. It looks like it might be ‘just a parasite’, it is a nasty critter but so far not a virus. Anyone know more about this? i am lazy, i still have to read most of the papers…ie the negri bodies etc
LikeLike
Better if you showed us where you were getting your info from.
I don’t mean to pick on you by pointing out above you said there was zero evidence of viruses and then claimed you had not researched Herpes. You came back some minutes later saying “I found out” meaning you went and read something. What? Where?
Look at what you wrote concerning its cause BEFORE you went and researched it, and compare it to what you brought back, arginine levels and bad diets. I can measure your learning process and even time it, in this case.
That isn’t going to work against in a debate, you will be pushed aside in many discussions.
Now we find you have not researched rabies. I think its worth noting we want to know where your information comes from, its not an unreasonable request. The mainstream is going to ask, know this place is safe and secluded by comparison to what you may find out there. I’m not asking you to go back and provide links, I’m saying people will ask, and its actually helpful to you to provide corroboration if you have it, also it will give people a chance to see your process and to experience the data you relate first hand, closer to the source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
making demands are we now… (this was a longer rant, but i cut it, ha)
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what it is… but it’s not healthy.
LikeLike
If viruses are dead and can’t replicate on their own then how do they come about in the first place??
LikeLike
“According to some expert experts, there are ~40 trillion bacteria in the typical human body, and as many as ~400 trillion viruses. Inside you. On your skin, in your blood, all through you including incorporated into your DNA. Right now. Bunches of em. Doing stuff.
There are ~30 trillion cells in the human body, so there are more bacteria and 10 times as many viruses as there are cells. In effect, you are a bag of viruses and bacteria. Your virome and microbiome are more you than you are, in some respects.”
So it is likely that these small critters, along with our cells, are part of a colony (our bodies), where each discrete element has a specific role in making sure the colony thrives and survives. This leads to many questions to which mainstream medical theory has few answers, and the vested interests of big pharma will try to prevent research into a better understanding of what is actually going on.
My best guess on viruses specifically is that they are created by bacteria or human cells, and act as messenger DNA of RNA, both within the body and, because we are social animals, externally. I’m still uncertain about what the messages contain and am trying to find evidence they play a part in ow the human body adapts to changes in the environment.
LikeLike
they have no origin….it is magic!
LikeLike
Anything is possible when you combine appeal to authority with the fear of being publicly ridiculed/condemned in case you dare to question such authority.
The Middle Ages never ended, they just substituted scientific for religious dogma.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do the germs come about? I won’t use the v-word, as it defines a poisonous element. It’s ridiculous to define any stage of a pleomorphic circle as some kind of a venom without any evidence or reason.
So, to answer the question – the most fundamental particle to all germs are protits or colloids of life or microzymas. Depending on which pioneering author you’re referring to in such theory, these all point to the same experimental findings – the lifecycle of germs. Yes, these little creatures can evolve from being just a few protein acids big, to funghi and vice versa, depending on the environment they’re living in, i.e. the human body. That’s the most significant difference between what you’ve been taught for your entire life and the alternative theory, well hidden from anybody for the same reason.
LikeLike
Then we have this odd fact about bacteria and viruses…
“Downward Virus Flux in Earth’s Atmosphere Is Over Three Billion Viruses Per Square Meter Per Day”
Published paper available here…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-017-0042-4
Don’t know what to make of this, sounds like an hellish Earth-bound version of panspermia theory
https://i.imgur.com/Qv3O8fo.png.
LikeLike
This Nature.com paper is nonsense, and deceitful nonsense at that. These people claim to be detecting viruses, but are doing nothing of the sort. If we choose to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are actually detecting and cataloging bacteria and “other things” coming down from above, then it is clear (and almost hidden in the paper) that what they are dishonestly calling viruses are merely tiny fragments of nucleic acid. A tiny piece of some genome somewhere that once belonged to a life form somewhere on earth.
From where, what source? All life forms on the planet contain dna and rna. Where do these fragments come from? There is no way to know their source (they could be coming from the bacteria they say they are detecting), and the claim that they are “virus” is gross dishonesty, and this assertion is clearly intended to further push the viral narrative even into “outer space”.
A quote from the paper: “The daily deposition rates of viruses associated with aerosols <0.7 μm in size explains observations that identical viral sequences occur at geographically distant locations and in very different environments [4, 5], likely as a consequence of long persistence and dispersal in the atmosphere. This provides a mechanism for maintaining the very high diversity of viruses, as well as bacteria observed at a local level but constrained globally, consistent with a seed-bank model.” (my italics)
Here they lie outright (of course they have been trained to call any genetic pieces virus), calling the detected sequences viral, and they then compound the lie by speculating that the atmospheric dispersal helps maintain a “high diversity of viruses”.
From the introduction: “Viruses are by far the most abundant microbes on the planet, with estimated 1030 virus particles in the oceans alone [1]”, and “the observation has been repeatedly made that identical or nearly identical virus sequences can be found in widely separated environments that are environmentally very different”.
We see the same dishonesty in these quotes, but the tell is in the wording. “Virus particles”, which really means “particles” or fragments of something (in this case fragments of nucleic acid), and then “nearly identical virus sequences”, where again they magically turn little unidentifiable genetic pieces into their coveted and promoted virus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t know where you guys are getting “outer space” or panspermia.
“atmospheric boundary layer” is referring to the lowest layer of the atmosphere, closest to earth. I think you guys are misinterpreting this technical jargon.
Its a good idea to search up definitons for technical jargon when reading science papers. Here is what I did:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=atmospheric+boundary+layer&ia=web
LikeLike
Thanks for the lecture, but I got my “outer space” reference straight from the sarcasm 101 handbook. You should read it sometime, it’ll help you discern the nuances of expression that are in play during communication.
And I don’t think Boris was misinterpreting either, as panspermia is the next logical step in the atmospheric dispersion being promoted in the cited paper. It’s the next logical step if you are intent on expanding the scope of a fiction, that is. The fiction of course being the virus narrative.
LikeLike
Your sarcasm manual is a myth. Go read their hypothesis of soil and sea spray becoming airborn, they go into it extensively.
LikeLike
@Chris Ryska
“If viruses are dead and can’t replicate on their own then how do they come about in the first place??”
You need a clear answer, right ?
Actually if you are interested, i’ve already posted a comment regarding this matter in the current events discussion thread.
I’ll repost it here and re-arranged it since the timing is good :
A very interesiting book can lead you to a satisfying answer : 1988. Immunization-The Reality Behind the Myth. Walene James
You can find this book, here : https://books.google.fr/books?id=EQHPoGs6CvIC&pg=PA76&hl=fr&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Let me quote a relevant part of this book, page 80 :
“RIFE was dedicated to cancer cells research and here’s what he BELIEVED to be true after years of experimentation: “In reality, IT IS not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon THE UNBALANCED CELL METABOLISM of the human body THAT IN ACTUALITY PRODUCE THE DISEASE. We also believe IF THE METABOLISM of the human body IS PERFECTLY BALANCED OR POISED,IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NO DISEASE.”
On this topic, i may add that the same RIFE also stated, just after this quote, that :
“WE HAVE IN MANY INSTANCES PRODUCE ALL THE SYMPTOMS OF A DISEASE CHEMICALLY in experimental animals WITHOUT THE INOCULATION OF ANY VIRUS OR BACTERIA INTO THEIR TISSUES”
So it is admitted here that it is possible to produce the symptoms of a disease without introducing any external elements such as viruses or bacteria and that any disease is linked to an imbalanced metabolism.
In the same book, page 81, Dr Bisking precise his thought on viruses saying :
“I would carry this thought one step further TO DESCRIBE VIRUSES AS ABERRANT NUCLEOPROTEINS WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE CHEMICALLY OR PHYSICALLY DAMAGED CELL..”
So a virus in our modern world is simply the process in which the metabolism of a cell has been impaired, more precisely we should talk about the poisoning of the cell.
The virologist reverse its interpretation of the process and the result of what he had conducted by simply equating the intentional poisoning of a cell to a presumed virus.
My assertion is that : a virus does equate to a fragmented cell nucleus/membrane or a fragmented bacteria
For instance let’s compare the structure of a virus and a cell nucleus/membrane in order to confirm or deny this assertion :
Let’s begin with virus structure elements, here : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virus
“ANY of a large group of submicroscopic INFECTIOUS AGENTS that are usually REGARDED AS NONLIVING extremely complex molecules, THAT typically CONTAIN A PROTEIN COAT SURROUNDING AN RNA OR DNA CORE OF GENETIC MATERIAL BUT NO SEMIPERMEABLE MEMBRANE, THAT ARE CAPABLE OF GROWTH AND MULTIPLICATION ONLY IN LIVING CELLS, and that cause various important diseases in humans, animals, and plants.”
An interesting element of a virus structure to mention(in the structure section) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
“VIRUSES CAN HAVE A LIPID “ENVELOPE” DERIVED FROM THE HOST CELL MEMBRANE.”
See here that they almost admit that a virus can take its envelope from a damaged cell membrane..
Let’s move on to a cell nucleus structure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29
“A cell’s information center, THE CELL NUCLEUS is the most conspicuous organelle found in a eukaryotic cell. It HOUSES the cell’s CHROMOSOMES, AND IS THE PLACE WHERE ALMOST ALL DNA REPLICATION AND RNA SYNTHESIS(transcription) OCCUR.”
Another quote here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus#Nuclear_envelope_and_pores
“THE NUCLEUS CONTAINS NEARLY ALL of the CELL’S DNA, surrounded by a network of fibrous intermediate filaments and ENVELOPED IN A DOUBLE MEMBRANE(the semipermeable membrane) called the “nuclear envelope”.”
Someone really want to attack your cell vital force(metabolism)..
To resume the comparison :
A virus has a simple envelope or a capsid and it consists of nucleoproteins(proteins associated with nucleic acid which are DNA or RNA) which contains long chains of DNA OR RNA seen as simple helix structures
A cell/cell nucleus has a double membrane which consists of long chains of DNA AND RNA which are seen as double helix structures
One has two strand of DNA or RNA while the other has (lost) one..
A virus is a damaged cell/bacteria that has lost genetic materials or more precisely a virus is a damaged cell that has been poisoned..
As a virus influence has been observed directly only when a cell or a bacteria has been fragmented in the final step of the cellular/bacterial poisoning process, a virus is the final poisoning step of a cell or a bacteria that has been damaged and has lost pieces of itself(genetic materials such as nucléotides or DNA/RNA Strand).
More simply put :
Like before the 30s of the last century, when a virus was not designed still in plural as viruses, we can confirm through these clues this very definition of a virus, here : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus
I quote : “From Middle English virus, from Latin vīrus (“poison, slime, venom”), via rhotacism from Proto-Italic *weizos, from Proto-Indo-European *wisós (“fluidity, slime, poison”)”
So the influence of a virus does equate the influence of a poison since it is poison in the first place..
N.B : To be clear i may also add that since viruses can’t metabolise and need a cell that do so for functioning, it confirms that any photo of any viruses doesn’t constitute at all a proof that they indeed exist outside the observation field.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Edit 1 :
“A virus has a simple envelope or a capsid and it consists of nucleoproteins(proteins associated with nucleic acid which are DNA or RNA) which contains long chains of DNA OR RNA seen as simple helix structures”
Replace it by :
A virus has a simple envelope (membrane) or a capsid (protein coat) which consists of nucleoproteins(proteins associated with nucleic acid which formed by association a DNA or a RNA).
A virus contains ONE long chains of DNA or RNA and they can be seen as simple helix structures.
Edit 2 :
“A cell/cell nucleus has a double membrane which consists of long chains of DNA AND RNA which are seen as double helix structures”
Replace it by :
A cell/cell nucleus has a double membrane which consists of long chains of DNA and RNA.
A cell/cell nucleus contains long chains of DNA and RNA(BOTH OF THEM) which can be seen as double helix structures.
Edit 3 :
“One has two strand of DNA or RNA while the other has (lost) one.”
Replace it by :
Within a cell you can find a DNA and a RNA, both with a double helix structure, while within a virus only one of those(DNA or RNA) can be find with only a simple helix structure..
Sorry for the misunderstanding, i hope i’m more clear on this.
LikeLike
Are you ali saib ?
The super biologist ?
LikeLike
Haha 🙂
You took me by surprise here..
I’m just someone passing by, curious on the matter since its scale is massive.
Neither super nor biologist since i’m no expert to be both ^^
Do you really think a virologist would risk his career, showing his true identity by using his name as a pseudonyme while literally exposing that his expertise domain is a fraud ?
It would be like cutting the tree’s branch where you’re sitting at.
To be honest, when i had thought of this pseudo, it was solely to make a tribute to a certain deity..
If you want to find what deity i’m referring to, try searching a norse one, my pseudo is one of its names.
Also, i’ve noticed that you seem to mention a lot about France.
Maybe i should speak to you about the virus matter in french, it would be more easier for both of us.
I admit that i feel a little uneasy trying to convey my reasonings through a language which i’ve had not a lot of opportunities to practice in a while..
If you want better explanations on what i’m getting at, i could express myself clearer in french.
I don’t know if i can post my mail adress.
I will have to ask the moderator first, i think.
Then it’s up to you if you feel the need.
LikeLike
i write about france because i’m french… the only one (except hélios who comes sometimes) on this forum… i miss compatriots to speak with about our country because i can’t feel concerned with what happens in USA or Australia… since i’m 100% concerned with what is happening in france.
But i don’t think Josh will allow us to write here in french….
let’s ask 🙂
LikeLike
@ Mantalo: “i miss compatriots” How about ‘Laurence’ & ‘t0clock’?
And what’s going on at Bistro Bar Blog & Canularism? (for me it’s kind of hard work to follow the French)
LikeLike
Gijs :
T0clock didn’t say he was french, when i asked
BBB goes many ways that i don’t like and Helios doesn’t translate Miles anymore, and doesn’t come here a lot
Canularism is stopped, no news from him
and Laurence…. hum…. it’s me 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@mantalo
Since my reply was posted amongst others posts and that you may have not seen it, i will re-post it here for lisibity purpose.
Here’s my message :
“Also i’ve talked to Josh, he told me that he sent my email to the email you usually use to post a comment here.
See if you have received it in your email box.”
Since i don’t think you’ve received it since and also no rules bind me to not post my e-mail here, if you haven’t received my e-mail, feel free to contact me at :
PsychoDard@protonmail.com
Send me a message and i’ll reply to it.
À une prochaine et éventuelle discussion 🙂
LikeLike
Discussions around viruses are sterile, because it’s an excuse, the real goal is to kill people with ALL vaccines containing GO and other unknown substances. And look at the new babies born from vaxxed parents :
https://www.orwell.city/2021/09/black-eyed-babies.html
LikeLike
Apolline, je lis vos articles sur BBB et je crois que la 5ème colonne, comme les autres, c’est du flan, de la désinformation, encore tout un tas de trucs pour nous faire peur et nous faire perdre notre temps à lire des articles flippants.
Tout ce temps perdu à se faire peur !
A croire qu’on est une espèce complètement droguée à l’adrénaline 😦
Ces enfants retardés aux yeux noirs me font penser aux bébés Zika à tête plate…
Rien de tel pour effrayer des gens que leur faire croire que les bébés sont mal formés…
Et cette affaire d’oxyde de grave-haine, c’est pareil… ça sort du chapeau du magicien, comme ça, juste pour la sonorité de ce nouveau mot qu’on introduit dans notre langage. Avant, dans les vaccins, il y avait du squalène, puis il y a eu aluminium et maintenant c’est graphène… et demain quoi d’autre ?
En plus, un site qui s’appelle orwell-city, rien que le nom sonne propagande…
A votre place, je fuirais ce genre de site …
LikeLike
Would appreciate an English translation, if you don’t mind, as I’m not fluent in this particular dialect. Thanks!
LikeLike
so you understand what i feel when i have to translate all the posts here because i’m not fluent in your particular dialect…
I was sure that when i will start to write french, someone will not appreciate.
So google translate my words as :
Apolline, I read your articles on BBB and I believe that the 5th column, like the others, is custard, disinformation, still a whole bunch of things to scare us and make us waste our time reading articles creepy.
All this time wasted scaring ourselves!
To believe that we are a species completely addicted to adrenaline 😦
These retarded children with black eyes remind me of Zika babies with flat heads …
Nothing better to frighten people than to make them believe the babies are badly formed …
And this matter of oxide of grave-haine, it’s the same … it comes out of the magician’s hat, like that, just for the sound of this new word that we are introducing into our language. Before, in vaccines, there was squalene, then there was aluminum and now it’s graphene … and tomorrow what else?
Besides, a site called orwell-city, just the name sounds propaganda …
In your place, I would flee this kind of site …
LikeLiked by 1 person
orwell.city is as problematic as ever. I like the part about “pinch of salt”. What exactly am I adding salt to? Is there some evidence presented I’m just not seeing?
Help me Apolline. What exactly is even worth seeing here. Tell me the best part, for you, of this slice of LaQuintaColumna translated for us by Orwell.city. I read it all, I watched the vid, but I have not gone and watched the whole LaQuintaColumna video, I’m willing to, but everything at this point tells me it will be hours of spanish I will have trouble even translating.
A written report would be SO much more useful than a video. Even in Spanish.
LikeLike
I am yet to see anything useful from Orwell City, I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. Wow babies walking at 10 months. It must be the vaccines because that only happens millions of times every year normally. And I don’t have the patience to read any further let alone watch a video.
LikeLike
Et salut à mes compatriotes 🙂
LikeLike
Hello World,
It’s me again saying nothing worth your time..
Passing by on wikipedia, i found some passages which are alluding to DNA/RNA observation processes, validating my intuition on the matter :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid(Occurrence and nomenclature section)
In my opinion, some interesting facts about DNA and RNA observations that virologists don’t want to argue on a lot can be raised and linked to viruses, i quote :
“ALL LIVING CELLS CONTAIN BOTH DNA AND RNA (except some cells such as mature red blood cells), WHILE VIRUSES CONTAIN EITHER DNA OR RNA, BUT USUALLY NOT BOTH.[11]
The basic component of biological nucleic acids is the nucleotide, each of which contains a pentose sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), a phosphate group, and a nucleobase.[12]
NUCLEIC ACIDS are also GENERATED WITHIN the LABORATORY, THROUGH the use of ENZYMES[13] (DNA and RNA polymerases) AND BY solid-phase CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS.
THE CHEMICAL METHODS also ENABLE the GENERATION OF ALTERED NUCLEIC ACIDS that are NOT FOUND IN NATURE,[14] FOR EXAMPLE PEPTIDE nucleic acids.”
Also from the same page(molecular composition and size section) :
“IN MOST CASES, naturally occurring DNA MOLECULES ARE DOUBLE-STRANDED and RNA MOLECULES ARE SINGLE-STRANDED.[16] THERE ARE numerous EXCEPTIONS, however—SOME VIRUSES HAVE GENOMES MADE OF DOUBLE-STRANDED RNA AND OTHER VIRUSES HAVE SINGLE-STRANDED DNA GENOMES,[17] AND, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, NUCLEIC ACIDS STRUCTURE WITH THREE OR FOUR STRANDS CAN FORM.[18]”
So what can we make of all of this ?
Firstly :
My claim is that different states of cell’s fragmentation can be linked to different type of viruses, for example :
-A cell that has lost one or more DNA strand may tell you that a virus has gained his materials thus this virus will be call a DNA Virus with one or more DNA strand.
-A cell that has lost its RNA strand may tell you that a virus has gained his materials and thus this virus will be called an RNA virus with one RNA strand for instance.
-For viruses that have three or four strands of nucleic acids structure, we can presume that it took its materials from multiple cells.
Anyway, notice that no viruses with both DNA and RNA have been seen since.
Thus my premise is that the viral structure conditions is simply that of fragmented cells in multiple ways.
Secondly, not that it is worth it but :
Notice that nucleic acids can be synthesized and produce within a laboratory, also peptides and so do the proteins.
Finally, i wonder what all of that mean but it may be that all of these observed molecules are poison in the first place since nucleic acids are obviously ACIDS..
But well it may be that i’m getting too far strecth on the matter..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keep working at it Ali at some stage you should attempt to put all of your theory together. But before you do. Is there any evidence that ‘virus DNA or rna’ is more likely to be found around damaged cells. For example are sick people more likely to test positive or with lower pcr thresholds to certain pcr tests.
Are certain DNA fragments more likely to be found near certain types of cells.
Also for my own interests how did the current mainstream DNA theory come about and how much of it fits actual data and how much is just a story. I now want to look into this along with everything else. Any good source (particularly a contrarian view) is appreciated.
LikeLike
Is there any evidence that ‘virus DNA or rna’ is more likely to be found around damaged cells.”
I think evidence is a bad wording for the matter at hand.
What interests me here is the methodology, the process, the meaning and where it leads us to.
Anyway before answering to your question, i’m going to try to make you focus on the methodology first before getting you to the ‘evidence part’ :
So you asked me a question, i will answer it by another :
To this date, is there just one technic which could be used to identify any viruses outside of any cell or bacteria influence in the process ?
Well, the simple answer is no.
All the technics used by the virologists are with the presence of a cell or a bacteria in the process.
For example the technic called a viral culture is to identify different specimens of these, and as you can guess it necessarily imply the cell/bacteria presence.
See it on wikipedia : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_culture
I quote :
“Viral culture is a laboratory technique[1] in which samples of a virus are placed to different cell lines which the virus being tested for its able to infect. If the cells show changes, known as cytopathic effects, then the culture is positive.[2]”
Notice that it is the cell change that show if the result is positive or not.
Not the virus particulate presence in itself.
The pcr technic which involved directly the detection of the virus itself already assume that the infected person has been or not in the presence of any virus without identifying it before so your question is thus irrelevant to me.
Let’s take an example with the Sars-Cov-2 one, see it in here : http://laboratorytests.org/covid-19-rt-pcr/
1st quote :
“There are 2 main kinds of tests for SARS-CoV-2. One type involves detection of the virus itself (viral RNA or antigen) and the other type involves detection of the human immune response to infection (antibodies or other biomarkers).”
2nd one :
“In this method, A sample is collected from the parts of the body where the COVID-19 virus gathers, such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. RNA is extracted removing undesired components by chemical treatment. This extracted RNA is a mix of the person’s own genetic material and, if present, the virus’s RNA.”
So they assume here that an RNA sample has to be collected without proceding to a viral culture of the so-called Sars-Cov2 first.
The person conducting these process simply trust that the virus has been identified and that it is an RNA one..
Notice also that the sample must be collected from the presumed body part in which it is presumably residing.
Body part ?
Maybe cells or bacterias just saying..
For all viruses the pcr technic detect a virus assuming it has been identified before.
Another question to make you focus more on my methodology :
Are there any viruses that contains both DNA and RNA materials ?
If you show me just one evidence of these, i may reconsider my premise..
If not, well it is logic because as my premise said, viruses could only arise and be observed from manipulated/damaged cells or bacterias ‘induced by poisoning processes’ and since cells usually have both DNA and RNA materials while bacterias has RNA material, it is a reasonable inference.
In any case to answer broadly, i would say that any viruses are spotted depending on the technics used to find these and also the criterias whose ‘person in charged’ of the study is determining the result with.
Let’s say, if a virus has been spotted with electron microscopy then the preparation process and what it induced to the overall properties of a cell is as important as the methodology used for it.
It is the case for all the previous technics i mentioned.
Also i mentioned it to Jared before but here i go again.
As Dr Harold Hilmann stated when using electron microscopy on cells, since electrons must pass through a cell sample, the medium in which the cell sample is maintain is covered with conductive materials in order to allow for these electrons a passage through the cell.
So a cell targeted by a beam of electrons has to sustains directly within, a rise in temperature and Hilmann allegedly said that it was of hundreds of degrees for TEMs (Transmission Electron Microscope).
I think from this, it is reasonable to infer that this rise of temperature alone is powerful enough for a cell to get fragmented in multiple pieces as a result.
It is also the case for a bacteria.
About the pcr protocol in particular :
I saw that the way to determine if a virus is present or not in a solution always refers to a volume, a sequence or a viral charge(cycle threshold), not to a particulate.
So it is not the presence of the viral molecule that is checked but one of its many ‘properties’.
Also the person determining the presumed sequence has to be take into account here.
Why this sequence and not another ?
Why a cycle cutoff point for a positive result of 38 and not 39 or 37 ?
Why amplyfing a DNA sequence a million times while they already had collected a sample in the first place ?
Does these sound like convincing evidences to you ?
In any case, the process seems fishy to me and if a change of color in a solution is induced by some chemical reactions, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are actually molecules interacting in the ways intended by the virologists, that there are any molecules at all in the first place or that these chemical reactions are happening in your body.
Remember that depending on how Light is channeled by any materials, it will definitely spins in multiple ways.
So if i’m understanding clearly Miles’s view on it, Light will let on its path differents coloring trails depending on how it had been spinned/channeled by the material encountered.
I suggest that it is what the chemists are actually observing using all of these technics including the one called the pcr test..
“Also for my own interests how did the current mainstream DNA theory come about and how much of it fits actual data and how much is just a story.”
For the DNA/RNA story, i will add a post later.
You will see where i’m going at and if it interests you, feel free to challenge my view again.
We need challenge and the more we will reconsider things, the more we will advance on the subject.
Tell me if you see any problems in my reasoning.
LikeLike
@Ali
I am aware viruses are fictional. I was wondering if sick people get more positive PCR tests (possibly due to damaged cells emitting the DNA or Rna strands being tested for) I’m also interested if different diseases will have more or less of the certain stands being tested for and I guess the same applies to different body parts. Basically my question is did the leaders of virology have bother to look this far into things or didn’t even bother.
LikeLike
@3rd doorman
“I want a clear term for this, the false dichotomy, and another term for the thirdDoor interpretation.”
May i suggest for the thirdDoor interpretation these terms :
Cellular/Bacterial fragmenting poisoning theory
Intentional acidification of the cell/bacteria pH
Cellular/Bacterial metabolism imbalancing
Choose the one you prefer or feel free to claim a better one.
“It could be both, germs+terrain, but are bad” to “body needs certain things to run disease free” and we polarize a bit on that.”
For me it is neither one.
I suggest you replace these theories by this simple one :
An intentional acidification of any cell/bacteria pH cause the body metabolism to get into an imbalanced functioning mode which results in the manifestation of all the ‘symptoms’ known of any disease you want to name at.
If you think my claim is unreasonable, i’m open to debate it.
Also for the isolate debate, you said :
“When you say isolate, does that mean a particle of a certain type, suspended in distilled water? Nothing else can be in there? That “isolate” will be different from an isolate that permits distilled water and a little bit of salt. That will be a less concentrated “isolate”.
I completely agree with you here.
There are severals definitions that could be claim to be reasonable enough to respond to the virus isolation matter.
We know that since viruses are association of molecules and that molecules are what constitutes matter, it could be said that the viruses influence could never be completely dissociate from their environment since molecules could be consider as matter properties.
I agree with you here and that is a reasonable claim.
But since Viruses are pH sensitive, their cases must be separated from any common molecules at all and i think it is impossible to isolate any of them at all in a particle form.
See this article : https://drsircus.com/general/viruses-are-ph-sensitive/
So we can only assume their presumed influences by showing their properties.(volume, chemical concentration, cofactors).
And this is not because an isolation of these has been conducted that it really means that their influences/functions are as such in any given environments.
In fact, the isolation debate is irrelevant to me.
It does not show anything, it only shows that any viral influence can be induce chemically.
It is just that the virologists call this chemical process a virus while i call it an acidification process.
See this interesting article on it : https://www.nature.com/articles/ncb2678/
I’m quoting the essentials parts :
” When Erik Fries and I were discussing the conference in the laboratory the following week, he made a remark that changed everything. He simply asked, “COULD pH HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT?” Suddenly, all the pieces of the puzzle fell into a coherent picture. WE REALIZED THAT THE ACIDIC pH in lysosomes and other endocytic vacuoles was not only required to optimize the degradative action of acid hydrolases, but COULD ALSO SERVE AS A ‘CUE’ FOR VIRUSES TO ACTIVATE THEIR PENETRATION MECHANISM. Exposure to low pH ‘told’ the viruses that they had entered a cell and reached the endocytic pathway, and that it was time to activate the penetration machinery. We speculated that LOW pH INDUCED A CHANGE IN THE SPIKE GLYCOPROTEINS PRESENT ON THE VIRUS ENVELOPE THAT ALLOWED FUSION OF THE VIRAL ENVELOPE from the lumenal side WITH THE LIMITING MEMBRANE OF THE VACUOLE. As a result, the viral capsid was released into the cytosol without itself having to cross the hydrophobic barriers formed by a membrane.”
“Over the following months, we validated all the predictions of our pH HYPOTHESIS. For example, WE COULD DEMONSTRATE A MEMBRANE FUSION REACTION IN VITRO BY simply MIXING LIPOSOMES AND SFV, AND briefly DROPPING THE pH TO 6 OR BELOW. Moreover, when we added acidic medium to cells, WE COULD ‘FOOL’ SURFACE-BOUND VIRUSES INTO FUSING WITH THE PLASMA MEMBRANE; the entry block caused by weak bases was bypassed and the cells became infected.”
All of these elements increase my claim that isolating a virus or not is irrelevant since they are pH sensitive and so do their influence..
Also since you know Miles work there is a data, a propertie that could be set as a possible discriminant for any molecules influences in any environment normally.
The photons or more precisely in Biology we could talk about the pH gradient or the concentration of Hydrogen ions carrying protons present in any given volume.
We can clearly differentiate/isolate the presence of any given molecules from its environment by looking at its pH gradient data except as you can guess viruses since these ones are ‘pH sensitive’.
Anything that moves must contain an energy to do so, photons or in this case when we’re talking about molecules, protons.
Viruses don’t metabolise so they can’t move by giving Hydrogen ions(dissipate heat) or absorbing one(producing heat) and since they are pH sensitive, they can’t maintain their structure at all outside of the observation field.
I hope that my response to you is clear.
LikeLike
I’ve left links above, about the lifecycle of germs. What I miss from your otherwise sound line of thought is pleomorphic attribute of ALL germs. Yes, depending on the environment, germs evolve. For instance, acidic pH makes it appropriate for specific germs to thrive. Injuries sustained by the cell are also environmental impact due to organic debris, which allow development of another kind of germs. Etc.
What Raymond Rife did is ingenious. He took the end form of germ Cyclogenie , a fungus, and experimented with the environment of the host, where he was able to observe the same result on each and every attempt – the fungus was morphing into its most fundamental “ancestor”, within inoculated host and producing the same symptoms IF the terrain composition was matched to allow it.
The dynamic attribute of this phenomenon is also very important. TEM or SEM are taking pictures at a certain moment in time, which disregards the pleomorphic ability of germs (besides being an extremely invasive method of observation). This also implies that if germs have RNA or DNA, their genetic codes are changing. It’s fascinating to think about this fact from the viewpoint of life – germs’ ability to promptly respond to the environment is what essentially enables their survival.
If you’ll search for videos on darkfield microscopy, you’ll be able to see these germs are quite easily noticeable once you learn about their appearance. Many practitioners have been making the same observations for quite a long time now, confirming the germ cyclogenie with it. There’s certainly no virus in this lifecycle to be found, but a myriad of simplest life forms. Their ability to morph and change is their giveaway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
About the Ivermectin…
… here’s one handy table I found on the web. Since it’s official .gov NIH source, I’m not vouching for its accuracy. However, as much as I could check, they were accurate in assesing the studies on Ivermectin in the cases, where PCR method showed a positive result for, ahmm…, Sars-Cov2. So whatever that means, you’ll find what symptoms were treated with IVM vs other drugs and placebo. As noticed, more research is needed – in some of the trials, IVM showed no statistically significant difference, while in some trials there was a difference.
Here’s the link:
*https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/
Here’s the paper itself, containing the above table:
*https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
In the references tab, you can find the links to studies, as listed in the table from the first link above.
If you’re wondering which chemical within IVM is possibly having some beneficial effect while trying to treat any respiratory issues, I’d suggest you once again turn to mother Nature for a remedy. Here’s a short list of known anti-inflammatory agents, taken from food items:
– Vit C
– Quercetin
– NAC: N-Acetyl Cystiene
These are working against any inflammation by stimulating your own immune system and providing it with essentials. That’s what I’d take as supplements in addition to massive amounts of organic fruits and vegetables.
Since this gives another opportunity to bring forward the terrain theory: all these minor symptoms, like coughing, stuffed nose, sore throat, etc., are the sign of your body’s immune system working. You’re probably detoxifying your body from some chemical, so you don’t want to add unknown chemicals into your system. The only chemicals needed are proper nutrients and immune system boosters – vitamins and minerals. Flush your body with a lot of liquid, water or even better with herbal tea, like thyme or sage, to help accelerate detoxification and balance your body’s pH. Since disease is shown to thrive and prosper in acidic environment, take care of hydration and your food intake. All this should minimize the intake of toxins, in short and long-term, and help you recover if you’re sick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
a very good gift from nature is :
Reine des prés or meadowsweet
in the tea, every morning, some flowers.
LikeLike
Nice pics of the “meadowsweet” at that link. I am moved to share a few of the pictures I have taken (mostly plants), hosted on an Italian photo site. https://www.juzaphoto.com/me.php?p=124645&pg=allphotos&l=en#top
LikeLike
I often see this one…
But never enough quiet and close to me to take such a picture…
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=en&t=2687186
Nature is the only virus I believe in 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@alexrimmer0973
I can’t respond below your post.
Nonetheless, i hope that my answer will reach you.
“I am aware viruses are fictional.”
I am aware you do think they are fiction.
“I was wondering if sick people get more positive PCR tests (possibly due to damaged cells emitting the DNA or Rna strands being tested for)..”
And let me repeat to you, this.
My simple anwser is no.
More precisely, whether the result is positive or negative and that it affect more the ‘sicks’ than the healthy persons, you cannot conclude anything from any PCR tests.
You assume that the body part gene sequence they extract from the persons taking these tests is relevant at explaining and showing disease but it is obviously wrong for several reasons :
For instance the RT-PCR protocol can be conducted in two-ways :
1) A one step protocol in which the components of RT and PCR are mixed in a single tube at the same time.
2) A two-step protocol which can be done with the reverse transcription and then
the PCR.
Depending, on the prefer result they can induce by a set of predetermined chemical conditions, by playing with temperature, pressure, desired enzymes and others molecules, the modification of any substracted genes.
See an example of it in this paper : http://bibliomer.ifremer.fr/documents/fiches/fiche_ensavoirplus_lien_PCR_vf.pdf
They can also certainly choose to pitch a prefer sequence to a set of prerequisite conditions as a positive result or as a negative result, the only thing they have to do is to change the prerequisite chemical reactions or choose a protocol or another.
My assertion is that PCR tests results deduction will lead you to nothing,
“I’m also interested if different diseases will have more or less of the certain stands being tested for and I guess the same applies to different body parts.”
When you’re talking about ‘diseases’ and mentioning strands or sequences, you’re only refering to results you know.
A disease would be the cause, the condition in which those strands do manifest(temperature, pression, pH, chemical compositions etc..)
Don’t forget that behind these sequences there are molecules.
So before searching for disease, you would have to define its frame adequately and that is another debate.
“Basically my question is did the leaders of virology have bother to look this far into things or didn’t even bother.”
Again my answer is yes, since they can achieve all the possible results depending on chemical processes, they had to look this far in order to not easily attract suspicion from others colleagues coming from close domain of expertise.
This post is just a little brieve but i will drop from here.
Also, i think i’ve at last find the truth on viruses’s nature !!
Yes !!
I fully confirm that i know the answer to the question : do viruses exist or no ?
If one is interested, i will post my answer here soon ^^
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may find this explanation on PCR method very useful. This is from Karry Mullis, the inventor of PCR method:
*https://youtu.be/9vuxibKj4z8?t=2946
“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in sort of Budhist notion that everything is contained in everything else.”
This speach he gave was on the topic of HIV. There is a grave similarity between the HIV hoax and COVID hoax – the PCR was abused to “prove” the virus, which made it “real”.
LikeLike
he said “budhist”, i read bullshit….
this changes a little bit the message :
It starts making you believe in sort of Bullshit notion
LikeLike
@Ali thanks mate. I have watched that video before. It is kind of useful. From memory I believe his suggestion is still that the pcr is finding molecules that are there only it amplifies them many times over. My understanding is if it’s not run properly it can also find molecules that aren’t there.
Every time I see Mullis all I can think of is Heath Ledgers Joker character. Same mannerisms and even his face looks the same. Surely that’s not a coincidence perhaps he was a favourite of some one involved in the movie.
LikeLike
Sorry Ali I may have been replying to vex
LikeLike
“not isolated” as an argument has failed at this point. If nobody wants to specify what is a proper isolation, then it seems there is no way to satisfy their request for it. unfalsifiable = not scientific.
At this point, any argument that no “virus” was “isolated” can be considered a psyop. Its not some debate tactic, its literally just a request to define a scientific term.
Look at all the logical fallacies I got! False equivalence, strawman arguments, It seems my question to Vexman was joined by Kevin, OregonMatt, AlexRimmer, Ali, and even Ben.
Like I can have a debate with that many people at one time! give it a rest, stop throwing mere opinions around, that isn’t going to work.
Why does a particle need to be isolated to some mysterious purity, to characterize it? I see no authority, no expert, no explanation despite all these people writing quite a lot of text.
I see no reason to believe a particle need be isolated, and I’m going to continue talking about that.
LikeLike
@3Rd door
You definitely won that one in your own mind. This is the type of childish point scoring arguments I was talking about. You picked a wording you didn’t like and went after it as if it was a valid point. The fact is the experiments that ‘prove viruses exist ‘ and are pathogenic and contagious make zero sense as experiments to prove the afore mentioned.
Rather than look at the experiments and go oh yeah that is pretty stupid. You ask someone to define what they want isolation to mean and ignore the experiments.
That would be like me arguing terrorism is real by getting someone to define the word fake and then saying I didn’t get a satisfactory answer (the person may say that a fake bombing involves a fake bomb) since these attacks use real people and real bombs therefore the attacks are not fake. Where I could actually look at a fake attack where the bomb goes off and then the van drives in and the victims proceed to exit the van and roll around on the floor and clearly see it was faked but it didn’t meet the definition I got so I won the argument (only in my own mind obviously). Yea the bomb was ‘real’ in the sense there was a bomb but the bombing was still faked.
Yea ‘viruses (or the rna associated with them) are separated (isolated) from the human body but they are not separated from other rna so that any rna found can be said to be from a virus rather than something else. As is obviously the case with the ‘real’ bombing the virus has been ‘really’ isolated but for the purpose of the experiment or the terror attack neither is in actual reality real at all.
Absolute waste of every ones time. Why? Surely you don’t think it impresses anyone. Give it up please. I certainly will not be wasting any more time with your little games (if I can help myself).
LikeLike
And you’re the authority to say anything or what? I couldn’t stomach your babbling before when talking about most rudimentary, elementary logic of separating items from one another. You can’t even comprehend what an effing purity means and now you’re going to talk about a psyop? You’ve been gaslighting this entire thread with your derailed topic, that’s the only psyop going on around here.
You’re inciting division, lowering the quality of a discussion, derailing the topic and now even trying to blackwash anybody standing against your inability to comprehend the obvious. I saw right through you long time ago, dude, you can’t fool me. I’m surprised Josh was ignoring you until now, let’s see what happens next.
LikeLike
“And you’re the authority to say anything or what?”
Vex, are you challenging my authority to even say things?
LikeLike
“babbling” is just an insult. Do please indicate where I was babbling.
“talking about most rudimentary, elementary logic of separating items from one another.”
See thats just it, its not rudimentary and elementary logic I’m using, why would I limit myself to rudimentary logic? Doesn’t it seem kind of insulting to say I can’t understand the dictionary definition of “isolation”?
“You can’t even comprehend what an effing purity means and now you’re going to talk about a psyop?”
Do you really think I am that stupid? Ha! Well sorry to dissappoint you Vexman, words and language are subject of study of mine, and they DO NOT have rigid, dictionary defined meanings except in some elementary and rudimentary logics.
This is the fallacy being clung to, that words have some kind of inherent meaning and that one can define and nail down and then defend critically when anybody diverges from your acceptable meaning. This is naive.
“You’ve been gaslighting this entire thread with your derailed topic, that’s the only psyop going on around here.”
So when I called it a “tactic” you were using on me, you think it was some slip of the tonque? Where was this gaslighting? I’d like you to quote me since thats a pretty serious charge.
Please also quote me when I am “inciting division”, and “lowering the quality of a discussion”, and “derailing the topic”.
“now even trying to blackwash anybody standing against your inability to comprehend the obvious.” Well, all I asked for was to get a more precise definition of “isolation”, why insist that tiny particles being separated from a biological soup is “obvious”?
What do you claim now? To see right through me? That I’m trying to fool you? Can you explain your thinking here? It seems a bit magical, like you are able to read people, like you can tell over the internet when they are so stupid they need to be shown how to separate socks from underwear in as drawer. Is that the kind of insight you are referencing?
By the way, Josh isn’t ignoring me. He and I actually agree that debates around virus existence do not often lead to productive activity. What happens next, I think, is people will see much of your arguments here, specifically to insist on a seminal paper of virus isolation for sars-cov-2, were all documented by Jim West at the link referenced by Kevin above and again by me below. My approach is to focus on this demand for “isolation” and show that in a rudimentary logic, it makes sense, but that it is entirely scientific to discuss HOW it was isolated, and WHY isolation is necessary.
People can believe what they want. They can ridicule me like Chris Ryska does here https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2021/09/11/this-post-is-going-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-156813
You can treat me like a stupid little child like AlexRimmer does above, moving on from socks and underwear separation to “If you are isolating a prisoner from other prisoners he would be separated from other prisoners. If you were isolating your a machine from the electricity grid it would be separated from the before mentioned.”
But what does such abuse of my basic intelligence serve? Are you guys trying to “isolate” me from my fellow forum members?
LikeLike
Here’s a short part deux in rudimentary logic:
Why is isolation important? In order to reach certainty in scientific terms, where isolation of the contagious particle means you’re able to PROVE correlation and causation between a PARTICLE and DISEASE. How would one know with certainty about the contagion if he didn’t separate the possible suspects before injecting them into the host? Of course or logically, in order to claim contagion, isolation of the contagious particle before inoculation is imposed by the process.
How is isolation in virology being done? It is not being done. For them, isolation means separating an allegedly contagious particle from its host – meaning a human body. But they’re not doing this properly, as they usually take a sample from a human and then inoculate another set of human lab cells (usually cancer tissue cells) with that sample or even worse, they inoculate monkey kidney cells. What is NOT being done here, is any separation of the contagious particle from the host, right? If they’re adding a sample to other cells, then they have FAILED at isolating a contagious sample from its host, didn’t they? Even according to their own definition of what isolation means, they’ve failed.
I didn’t invent these procedures. I’m refuting their thesis about the contagion for failing to follow their own procedures. Their theory is wrong in my understanding, therefore all hypothesis will fail to prove that particular theory.
This is my stance on the subject. I haven’t seen your beliefs stated anywhere on this thread or elsewhere. The only thing I’m seeing here is you arguing me and a few other people, who have managed to see through the deception within virology.
You’ve charged me with pushing a psyop for arguing there’s no isolation going on in the virology as science. Are you really able to comprehend what my argument is about? Not if you ask me. You’re being either deliberately dense or deliberately trying to do everything I noticed and wrote about above. And you know damn well what I think is true in your case.
LikeLike
Once again, NOT limiting myself to rudimentary logic! Why would I accept that condition? You want to tell me I’m dense, I’m babbling, I’m gaslighting. Ad hominem attacks, You are attacking the messenger not the message.
A viral sized particle to be in isolation from the HOST, isolation from other molecules, isolation from other types of biological particles, all describe very different processes! As soon as you take a sample from a sick lifeform, all three come into play! Isolation begins before you even take a sample, you use sterilzed equipment, isolated from microbes in the air, rudimentary logic is not sufficient.
A slide into topics of contagion, pathogenicity, disease, or virus cultivation, discussing them all at once with 5 separate people, is an unreasonable expectation. My original question: https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2021/09/11/this-post-is-going-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-155648
LikeLike
@ 3rd doorman, If anyone is actually mocking you it’s because you’re practically begging for it. The whole thing with the Ivermectin is a false dichotomy in the first place. One could easily intuit that it is a complete waste of time talking about treating flu or cold with an insecticide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you mock people because you think they are begging for mockery, then a troll in not an unfounded interpretation. Thanks for indicating you have no other backup for your “just an insecticide” argument.
LikeLike
Once again,
I’m not making a claim that viruses exist.
I’m not making a claim of pathogenicity, These are strawmen arguments you are falsly attributing to me, as well as others.
That 5 people now argue that a particle can, or should be isolated. Where are “the experiments”? List one!
You can’t can you! Hahahahahaha, list it out and stop embarrassing yourself already!!
LikeLike
Here is Jim West again:
https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/08/viriso.html
“How to argue “no virus”
Keep the burden of proof on the claimers (of virus existence).
They claim to know, and perhaps (unlikely) they do.
Therefore, respect their wisdom then ask one question and two followups.
1) What seminal study describes the discovery of said virus? The first, original study which describes discovery. (The earlier the study, the less complicated the BS. Later studies are often based on the original study, so nip it all at the root, the original study.)
a) What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus? (This is to ensure that they have read more than just the title, and to save yourself reading time.)
b) What text in this study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors? (See Lanka above on this.)
The claimers should balk. End of confrontation.
Likely they have not read the content of their prized study, and they are assuming you will be bluffed and in awe, like them.
It may be inconceivable to them that such sophisticated tech and writing could be misleading. Often they are in love with the semantic and tech sophistication for which money has paid, and they might not realize this.
In a sense, logic is the ultimate power, but no matter how eloquent, it requires valid data. It is not without political hazards. Logic can only be presented at diplomatically safe times and places. Diplomacy is superior, and another area of logic.”
So here we have a guide on how to argue. It uses logic, much of it I can appreciate. Jim West is known to me for his toxicological work. He says it should always be assumed, especially in our modern lives, are we might be poisoned. Thus every biological experiment must have a toxicological analysis! Well, maybe not every one, but he makes the point that we have to take steps to rule it out. And that its not just a flaw in the science, but a whole trend of flaws, a wrong interpretation of what the scientists themselves are doing! They make all these “conclusions” and yet they forget to take measures to rule out simple poisoning. Who can argue? Not me, it sounds plausible.
In general I have respect for him on this. Toxicology is an achilles heel in much biological science. So up above, his b) I have no argument with in general.
What I do have an argument with is a)
He writes “What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus?”
Ok, so right there he uses the word isolation. Its not clear, but it sounds like a noun. In practice it would be a process of isolation.
So right there is the language I hear from other sources. Namely Steven Lanka, and it seems from OregonMatt, vexman, kevin in this thread.
So Jim West then says “The claimers should balk. End of confrontation.”
So lets say I’m trying not to balk 🙂 I have looked into these examples of isolation. I have spent time trying to understand what it means to have a biological sample and isolate a virus from it.
And yeah, I want to know why he thinks isolation should be the go to way to argue about the “existence” of a virus. For sure he seems to know what he is talking about, but what about this isolation, why is it necessary?
The answer Jim West gives in other parts of this page is about how we need only the virus, and an intact non destroyed or distressed or otherwise contaminated sample of the virus. There are a bunch of things that can stand in the way of having a viable sample and we have not even begun to talk about how to analyze the sample.
All this is so complicated. And I want to say, it has very little in common from separating socks from underwear in a drawer. Even electrolysis is a process far different than anything like virological sample isolation.
Here is an ref
“In 1943, Pickels was the first to employ a sucrose-based density gradient to measure particle sedimentation rates. Density gradient centrifugation was further refined in the 1950s by Brakke, who applied the concept to purification and characterization of viruses, and by Anderson and co-workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who designed a series of zonal centrifuge rotors for separation of subcellular particles and viruses”
From here:https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/centrifugation
So it says in this encyclopedia Brakke and Anderson at Oak Ridge national laboratory. Spoooky!
But I want to not balk at Jim West when he says that isolation has not been carried out. I want to not be in awe and get bluffed.
So now I’m going to search for the original, Seminal paper, where Brakke and Anderson first demonstrated Density gradient centrifugation as applied to the purification and characterization of virues.
Wish me luck! there is a good chance I need to buy a book or pay to view it, but I’m going to see what I can find nonetheless.
LikeLike
M. K. Brakke or Myron Kendall Brakke. He invented density gradient centrifugation.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja01148a508#
only has the first page but this is the first example.
This one is available, and I read it.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1160&context=plantpathpapers
It suffers from the blending technique. It suspends a blended leaf mixture in a solvent. They use a process that never isolates the virus, but it still leads to a case where they can innoculate a leaf and see if particles in a solvent, from the blended/centrifuged samples cause the lesions associated with a diseased plant, or don’t cause the lesions. This controls somewhat for toxicology. The same solvent is used with undiseased plant leaves, and diseased plant leaves, and it appears the solvent is not what is causing the lesions in plants.
“Pure preparations of this virus have not been made. Because of its instability, centrifugation at or near 0degrees C is the only technique which has given promising results in the preparation of concentrates. However, due to the many impurities in unfrozen plant juice that are nearly the same size as the virus, and due to the progressive denaturation of the virus even at low termperatures, it has not proved worthwhile to make more than two cycles of centrifugation. Because concentrates prepared in this manner are relatively impure, it was desirable to use a technique whereby infectivity combined with electron microscopy could be used to follow the sedimenation rate of the virus.”
So it never proves anything, but it has a bit of evidence that sedimentation during density grade centrifugation, can be correlated to blips on a electron micrograph, a size comparison is made, since both have a way of estimating size of a particle. And also at the same time correlated to infectivity when innoculating/wiping a “concentrate” onto a leaf.
“Potato yellow-dwarf virus is the easiest member of this group to work with because it is the only one that has been readily transmitted mechanically from plant to plant, it produces many primary lesions on inoculated susceptible leaves of N. rustica and, therefore, unlike the other viruses of the group, can be subjected to a convenient and roughly quantitative bioassay.”
LikeLike
@3rd doorman
“not isolated” as an argument has failed at this point. If nobody wants to specify what is a proper isolation, then it seems there is no way to satisfy their request for it. unfalsifiable = not scientific.”
It is not a problem considering we are talking about viruses.
They have the specificity to be pH sensitive so we simply measure where the pH gradient in solution had been modified and we find these.
And i’ve talked to you about Ph Gradient, protons, photons.
Aren’t these scientific terms to you ?
Since any molecule bind to other thanks to protons, aren’t these great datas to focus on(?)
Maybe it has to be Miles that must tell you that a photon is a particle and that everything derives from it, including chemical concentrations and that you can find these everywhere.
Also i’ve already said to you that since viruses are ‘Ph sensitive’, it means that they can be pretty much isolated in everything 😉
What’s your point then ?
“At this point, any argument that no “virus” was “isolated” can be considered a psyop. Its not some debate tactic, its literally just a request to define a scientific term.”
Not a problem for me again.
I do agree that the thing which had been isolated had been branded as ‘a virus’ but i will prove to you soon that there are other molecules that responds and behave exactly like viruses and that you can find these occurences in certain circumstances..
Don’t be impatient..
“Why does a particle need to be isolated to some mysterious purity, to characterize it? I see no authority, no expert, no explanation despite all these people writing quite a lot of text.”
Could you quote where you find that claim in my comment ?
“I see no reason to believe a particle need be isolated, and I’m going to continue talking about that.”
It is not true when we talk about viruses and since you need a reason for that, let me tell you :
It is not me, it is the virologists that claim that viruses had been isolated as particles.
So the burden of proof is on them not on us.
An handful of articles to remind you on this :
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1999.0404
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC224528/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30616980/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_culture
And as they claim first to have seen those particles thanks to electron microscopy since the 30s, i think i can brought what you’re asking for.
A reasonable definition matching the criterias related to viruses isolation.
Here is my definition :
An isolated virus must be so that it can only be seen through a photo took on electron microscopy.
This photo has to be in black and white, dating from the 30s.
This photo must show only one particle which is presumably a virus, not severals.
The virus must be isolated in a cell.
The cell in which the virus had been isolated on, must not be altered in its metabolic functions even a
little since it will produce molecules when being so.
It also means that the cell pH gradient(7.5), the cell temperature(37°C), the cell osmotic pressure(at equilibrium) and the cell chemical composition must be respectively and strictly equivalent to that of cells in a human body especially in blood.
So it precludes any processes that modify these parameters, for example purification process 😉
We also want to isolate a virus in a cell that match the purity of a cell find in a human body at 100% not 99.998%, 100 %
An isolated virus that match all these criterias could be consider as being successfully isolated.
And before you say, it is impossible to get a 100% purity of a cell, remember it is the virologists that had been claiming to have been able to isolate a virus particle and as such this is on them to clarify the particle isolation meaning matter.
If not, we are much obliged to strictly consider that viruses do not exist.
I hope that my definition is clear.
You can also improve it if you want.
LikeLike
Ali I like your comments. For me it is a yes or no answer. Does Covid19 sars virus exist, yes or no? Are people passing away specifically from “only” this Covid19 sars virus yes or no?
LikeLike
No, people are passing away from gunshot wounds and all variety of illnesses, but the hospitals get paid to say it’s C19.
LikeLike
Me “I see no reason to believe a particle need be isolated, and I’m going to continue talking about that.”
Ali “It is not true when we talk about viruses and since you need a reason for that, let me tell you :”
Thats just it, Ali, you are merely “telling”. When I say isolated above, I mean anything like 99.989% purity, separated from even distilled water, salt water, air, or anything that is “not virus”. Ultra purity, is what I find no clear reason for. If a lesser purity is OK, nobody seems interested in discussing it but you.
“It is not me, it is the virologists that claim that viruses had been isolated as particles.”
But that is just it, they never claim 100% purity, you have to look at what they claim to have achieved.
“So the burden of proof is on them not on us.”
Indeed, and some will accept their proof and some will not.
“An handful of articles to remind you on this :”
“remind” me? Ali, let me remind YOU, this is just you “telling” so go ahead and point to where I was first “told” and now “reminded” if you would be so kind.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1999.0404
No paper available, no isolation is claimed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30616980/
Claims of “separation” and “purification” NOT isolation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_culture
I searched for “isolat” and got zero hits.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC224528/
“Isolation of noninfectious particles containing Rous sarcoma virus RNA from the medium of Rous sarcoma virus-transformed nonproducer cells.”
Searching on “isolat” I find:
“The methods used in virus purification and in isolation and characterization of viral RNA are those described by Robinson et al. for RSV + RAVY. 7”
“7. Robinson, W. S., A. Pitkanen, and H. Rubin, these PROCEEDINGS, 54, 137 (1965).” is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC285811/
I found isolation described in NONE of your links, just a “reminder”.
Hope my message is clear, sorry I cannot guarantee to read your reply or take note of your efforts in the future.
LikeLike
3rd doorman : “Thats just it, Ali, you are merely “telling”.
You’ve cut opportunately my comment here, fragmenting my reasoning.
Let me restore it for you :
Yes i maintain that since we are dealing with ‘an entity'(a virus) that have the specificity to be pH sensitive, we must separate its influence from the environmental pH conditions.
3rd doorman : “When I say isolated above, I mean anything like 99.989% purity, separated from even distilled water, salt water, air, or anything that is “not virus”.”
And i’m saying that since a viral entity is pH sensitive, it is even sensible to temperature, ionic pressure, pH gradient and that there is no other choice but to consider other options than purification processes.
Isolation processes here are simply irrelevant at explaining viruses functions in a cell.
Simply speaking, a virus isolate must be seen only in a functioning cell.
A virus isolate must be a particle, distinguishable in its structure and in its influence.
A virus isolate influence must be separated from the cell influence it is infecting.
Preferably we need a video that show how a virus penetrate the cell membrane in order to infect its nucleus.
In fact, i claim that it is impossible to isolate a virus without affecting its environmental conditions and so to speak that there is a link between the environmental conditions and the functions of viruses inside and outside any cell since they are pH sensitive.
I’m repeating myself with that term(pH sensitivity) and it is intentional.
If we neglect the environmental parameters, we can isolate a virus in pretty much everything thanks to nature always wanting to restore its pH gradient equilibrium.
Also the virologists claim that viruses can contaminate through the air and that we can find these in the atmosphere so it means that they can maintain their structures in air, in normal environmental conditions.
So it shouldn’t be difficult to find these entities proliferating like bacterias on animals, vegetals simply by looking outdoor since they can replicate themselves but we still haven’t seen these phenomenons, why ?
3rd doorman : “But that is just it, they never claim 100% purity, you have to look at what they claim to have achieved.”
Show me where in my previous comment i had been claiming that virologists had claimed to isolate virus particle AT 100% PURITY(?)
Also i’m just saying that it is their problem to clarify the HOW not mine since they are using this term : ‘PARTICLES’.
Ali : ” “An handful of articles to remind you on this :””
3rd doorman : ““remind” me? Ali, let me remind YOU, this is just you “telling” so go ahead and point to where I was first “told” and now “reminded” if you would be so kind.””
In your previous comments, i found that you packed me with the others with their claims :
3rd doorman : “Once again,
I’m not making a claim that viruses exist.
I’m not making a claim of pathogenicity, These are strawmen arguments you are falsly attributing to me, as well as others.”
I may add that i didn’t even attribute those claims to you before and if you feel that i’m wrong, show me the text in my previous comment(?)
And since you’ve linked my claims with the others claims, i thought that you were pretty bold to tell that i’m “telling” while you were already doing so on several occasions before..
3rd doorman : “That 5 people now argue that a particle can, or should be isolated. Where are “the experiments”? List one!”
I said that it is not true, i didn’t say that it should.
Again, show me where did i claim this in my previous comment(?)
Speaking of viruses, it depends :
Firstly :
If you take the perspective of virologists that claims that they have seen virus PARTICLES, we must request from them the PROCESS and how it truly affects the apparition of a viral particle in its elaboration.
We must see a particle with a structure in the end.
We also must see how the particle properties does elaborate in its milieu without the environmental properties or the virologists affecting it by the observation process in the first place.
In any case, a virus isolation should necessarily lead to a viral particle even if it is not the case in virology, that is what i’m saying in this exceptional case.
Secondly :
If we take a broader perspective and see that viruses are actually macromolecules, we see that their functions can never be strictly separated from the environmental factors.
That is true for every molecule in fact.
Thirdly :
We know that viruses are pH sensitive, so depending on the environmental pH, they can or cannot be isolated.
So isolation process does and does not mean much.
Finally, to give you an element to work on :
I would say that we must isolate them at enthalpy-entropy/pH equilibrium in a cell.
We must see a viral structure that store an internal energy and acts by it in a cell because remember virologists claim that viruses are particles seen in a cell and that they infect autonomously their hosts using their metabolisms.
3rd doorman : “I found isolation described in NONE of your links, just a “reminder”.”
It doesn’t matter, i’m only talking about a specific term ‘PARTICLES’ and in the people mind, particles intuitively do translate to isolation.
You also said that you saw no reason to believe a particle need be isolated.
3rd doorman : ““I see no reason to believe a particle need be isolated, and I’m going to continue talking about that.””
I’m just remembering you that to this day, scientific studies or reference to viruses are entitled with these two keywords : ‘VIRAL’ and ‘PARTICLES’
Also in those articles, you only need to read a little to see the virologists claims, shall i quote them now :
1)”The tobacco mosaic VIRUS PARTICLE: structure and assembly”
2)”Separation of VIRUS-LIKE PARTICLES and extracellular vesicles by flow-through and heparin affinity chromatography”
3)In wikipedia it says : “In addition, the centrifugation step in shell vial culture enhances the sensitivity of this method because after centrifugation, the VIRAL PARTICLES of the sample are in close proximity to the cells.”
4)”Isolation of NONINFECTIOUS PARTICLES containing Rous sarcoma virus RNA from the medium of Rous sarcoma virus-transformed nonproducer cells.”
It is not my fault if i see that as a confirmation that viruses have been successfully isolated.
“If a lesser purity is OK, nobody seems interested in discussing it but you.”
I saw that, maybe it is a misunderstanding matter since your claims haven’t been took at fair value and others claims have been attributed to your query.
So you may have thought that i was associating myself with the others by the way.
In the end, everyone can make mistakes including myself, we only need to acknowledge that and to advance from it.
If we can favorably solve this quiproquo, i’d be looking forward to it.
LikeLike
Not reading that, sorry
LikeLike
I found this interesting.
The Primary Cause of:
https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A988519888321704%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&refsrc=deprecated&_rdr
I especially like this quote from the paper:
“If the Germ Theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.” — B.J. Palmer, D.C.
LikeLike
My preference goes to this one :
“You’re working under a wrong premise to begin with and you’re never going to find the answer if you do that. Viruses have no nucleus. There’s no respiratory system. There’s no circulatory system. There’s no digestive system. VIRUSES ARE NOT ALIVE. THAT’S LIKE SAYING SOAP IS ALIVE. They’re not alive. THEY ARE SOLVENTS. They are soaps. However, more accurately, THEY ARE ENZYMES to fractionate tissue for waste elimination.” — Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Aajonus here leaks some interesting informations :
He says that viruses are not alive confirming that since viruses don’t metabolise, there is no life without metabolism.
He also says that viruses are solvents, soaps.
These informations indicate that there is more to the viral process than simply nature doing its things..
The keyword ‘solvent’ which is synonymous to substance, pretty much contradicts the narrative that viruses are actually particles coming from nature with a stable structure using their tissues to pierce a cell membrane and penetrate it.
I may say that they are more like mud absorbing pollutants coming from the close environment.
I wonder how do they come from point A to point B in the air ?
How do they maintain their structures doing so ?
How do they preserve their internal energy in the air ?
How do they exchange their energy with the air ?
Oh but they can’t.
Metabolism is required for doing so.
By the way it implies that viruses shouldn’t be able to penetrate the skin since the skin is designed to keep things out of the body.
Thus they can only make harm when injected in the blood, maybe that is why vaccines are used..
He then says that they are enzymes(?)
Here is the catch, they don’t metabolise so they can inhibate or activate energy reactions.
It means that they can’t act as enzymes, it is impossible.
Something doesn’t match in here ?
So viruses are conveniently put as a lot of things.
They act like decoys for a lot of closed-door processes.
I won’t develop this premise any further.
I’m going to put all the pieces together before doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patrick says:
“Where does monoclonal antibody therapy fit into the Covid Psyop? ….snip
Other reported cures are off limits in the US.”
SunTzuFighting replies:
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-120/#comment-153574
“First off, cure for what? Since you call it a psyop, does it not follow that any cure is also psyop? It sounds reasonable if you mean it is a PR stunt for MAT.”
What I am saying is that no, if Patrick calls it “the covid psyop”, it does NOT follow that any cure is also a psyop. It all depends on how you define “the covid psyop”.
People are touting therapies as “cures”, I don’t think asking Patrick to explain WHAT is being cured, is logical or reasonable. SunTzu is just asking rhetorical questions, not presenting an argument or evidence.
LikeLike
Well, hey; at least it sounded good.
LikeLike
@ 3rd door, Okay, it may have been a simple rhetorical question, but it sure is an easy answer.
LikeLike
The psyop is that people are pushed to believe that there is a strange virus going about, which is simply false.
ALL talk of cures is therefore nonsense. The punies do not want us healing ourselves. And i am pretty sure they would promote fake “cures” as well just for some extra dough, or sow confusion. The only real “cure” is eating our natural diet and getting enough charge. Ra Eka.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, by my reading of this post:
Psyop=”people are pushed to believe” you seem to say that is true.
strange virus going around=simply false seems to be your intended meaning.
But your statement can still be interpreted as there is a virus going around, its just not strange.
Or, that there is a strange virus, but it is not going around.
Or, that there can be no such thing as a virus, nor a strange virus, so the idea it is going around is impossible. From your other posts, this is my guess on your intended meaning.
I’m not trying to misinterpret or massage the words around, I’m saying unless somebody already read your posts, they wouldn’t be able to pin down a precise meaning from your statement, it is still vague on some parts. Thats OK, I wouldn’t ask you to write a long essay with all the details. Just note, we have a statement from you that doesn’t pin down all the various details of what is “the covid psyop” and that somebody might vary in how they define it.
So in a sense, anybody who is not pushing “eating our natural diet and getting enough charge.” could be considered at least a little bit, a part of “the covid psyop”?
LikeLike
no virus is going around/ better? – and yes, anybody that does not deny a virus and is not promoting the power of nature can be part of the psy-op. Only trust yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t agree with your logic. The “existence of a virus” debate is certainly up for grabs, but SOMETHING which appears to be contagious is causing sickness. I don’t believe it can simply be attributed to toxins in the environment, as often it’s passed within a family rapidly – though not always among all members.
Therefore there may be some cures, and whether they’re successfully combating viruses, germs, or other “no see’ems” or they’re alleviating symptoms by some other chemical based reaction or some other mechanism becomes irrelevant – IF the cure is working and repeatable.
I do whole-heartedly agree that “natural” cures and healing via diet, charge, herbs, salves, etc., are in general a better path and the P-Navy is staunchly against those as they reduce profits. And they are certainly guilty of keeping the confusion level high to push other less effective, but profitable treatments.
But there are times when going the commercial pharma route is needed. I’ve had two times in my life I got a prescription of Levaquin which knocked a sinus infection I was having right down in a few hours. Quite a relief.
PS – @AlexR – did you state above you were from South Australia, where there were no Covid deaths during this plandemic, but plenty of visitors from all over the world? The news flow here in the states points to Australia being one of the most locked-down countries on the planet. Is that not true?
LikeLike
@Sven
It is sad that we can’t all agree on a truth as simple as this ‘virus’ one. Like the ‘lift of a plane’. We all know it ain’t what they say it is. Why? Because of Miles and his charge theory.
What I know comes from Aajonus Vonderplanitz. He was a genius like Miles. Maybe more so. He spent his time figuring out nutrition. He trumps all in his field like Miles trumps in physics. He says:
Virus is created by your own cells. It is simply a solvent to clean your poisonous or dead stuff up. Can not ‘catch’ a virus. Not physically possible.
Folks in a family get sick together entirely due to our bodies talking with one another when in close proximity. Just like gals who begin to live with one another begin to have their periods at the same time. That’s what chicken pox parties are all about. If you don’t need the self-detox, you won’t develop it.
Going the commercial route is indeed needed at times. That may be what killed him. he did not want to be treated by western medicine doctors after he fell off his balcony due to crappy railing.
Jeff G. does a great job, is still living, and is spot on in this field. But he is no Aajonus. His website is https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
My take since end last year is that the “something” is psychosomatic illness. When fully half of our staff contracted(and tested positive for) covid I had to re-assess my thesis that the pandemic is a hoax. If a hoax then the only explanation that fits is the psychosomatic hypothesys.
The culture surrounding covid has the hallmarks of mass mania. A subset of this is the voodooesque spreading of the ailment. The common cold is quite another experience in a full spectrum propaganda-saturated world. See “first year medical student syndrome” as a pointer. And yes again, people died under the impression that they had the dread disease. An anxiety attack may look like respiratory problems if the psychological aspect is discounted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
drugs from pharma is NEVER needed / nothing is passed down within family, that is a fallacy/myth, nothing of that sort has ever been scientifically established. More likely is that all the sick people eat the same crap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to be claiming ultimate knowledge over pharmacy, heredity, health, and nutrition, for billions upon billions of different people.
Why would anybody believe that unlikely scenario?
LikeLike
People can breathe in toxins too. We used to have the flu (welders lung) go around when we welded more galvanised steel at work. It always appeared as if we were catching the flu from each other and I assumed that was what it was until I learned otherwise. Not all doctors are completely incompetent just most.
LikeLike
all of them, if they had any sense they would not call themselves doctors.
LikeLike
@ Sven, Almost the same situation happened to me when I was sick and thought that I was going to die. It was accidental in that I had no clue that it would be a huge relief. 10 mgs of oxycodone from a prescription for pain remedied the situation. But only for a day. There are different manufacturers which means that you’d be better off not using oxys if they’re of a lesser grade. The ones that I got from Costco are a better grade and are, most likely, free of contaminants, and won’t kill you compared to the ones you would get from CVS {they’ll even admit that they buy them from the cheapest distributor}.
LikeLike
What is Levaquin?
Levaquin (levofloxacin) is a fluoroquinolone (flor-o-KWIN-o-lone) antibiotic that fights bacteria in the body.
Levaquin is used to treat different types of bacterial infections. Levofloxacin is also used to treat people who have been exposed to anthrax or certain types of plague.
Fluoroquinolone antibiotics can cause serious or disabling side effects.
Levaquin should be used only for infections that cannot be treated with a safer antibiotic.
Oxycodone is an opioid pain medication sometimes called a narcotic.
is used to treat moderate to severe pain.
MISUSE OF OPIOID MEDICINE CAN CAUSE ADDICTION, OVERDOSE, OR DEATH, Fatal side effects can occur if you use opioid medicine with alcohol, or with other drugs that cause drowsiness or slow your breathing.
Avoid if you have:
severe asthma or breathing problems
a blockage in your stomach or intestines.
breathing problems, sleep apnea
a head injury, brain tumor, or seizures
drug or alcohol addiction, or mental illness
lung disease
liver or kidney disease
thyroid disorder
adrenal disease (such as Addison’s disease
urination problems
problems with your gallbladder or pancreas
Do not use this medicine if you have used a MAO inhibitor in the past 14 days, such as isocarboxazid, linezolid, phenelzine, rasagiline, selegiline, or tranylcypromine or have received a methylene blue injection.
Why advocate a big pharma pain med for a cold here in the CTTF virus thread?
LikeLike
@ 3rd door, I was simply sharing an experience I had while I was using a big pharma product. Not advocating it’s usage, no. But it would sure beat Ivermectin as a remedy with a big stick!!
LikeLike
@3rd Doorman – I’m not advocating Levaquin for Covid – I took it for a sinus infection. It’s also unsafe as hell, and I don’t think it’s on the market any longer. I’ve seen the late night commercials from lawyers about nasty cartilage damage. But it worked.
As for Ivermectin, I’m trying to figure out a course of action should I come down with an apparent respiratory “bug” this winter. Do I try to use “natural” remedies – it may be too late for that. Do I try to just ignore it, because it’s supposedly a non-existent virus? Should I go to a hospital and get put on a ventilator, where I know my chances of survival are awful (more info on that in the Spartacus paper that Miles posted). Or, like numerous people have posted online, do I take a “horse dewormer” that apparently CRUSHED the pandemic in a large state in India?
I’ll let you know if I get “The Bug”, and have to become the Black Stallion….:-)
LikeLike
Sven, I never said you were recommending levaquin for Covid.
I posted descriptions for both drugs you guys claim to have “experienced”. I posted 60 plus clinical trials for ivermectin against covid, which is BETTER than any news out of India. And now we are back to horse jokes?
LikeLike
“The global covid mania begun with an empty claim of a novel virus being discovered. This is simply not true as there’s no evidence of any new virus. Everything being discussed in that perspective is thus pure fiction. I wrote these words on my blog in the very first weeks of this global covid frenzy. Until this day, nobody claims to have a covid virus isolate / sample un their possession and nobody has yet managed to infect another healthy person by inoculating him/her with such isolate. No Koch / Rivers’ postulates were being met and they even admitted it in their research papers.”
the first sentence is untrue because before the claim of a novel virus, a long series of claims were made, in virology, that a covid virus isolate is not necessary to establish a novel virus discovery.
The claim its not necessasry started long before global covid mania.
Your second sentence basically re-states you reject all evidence of ANY “new virus. You then go on to make an even broader claim that “everything being discussed in that perspective is thus pure fiction.”
So If I say I have the tiniest bit of evidence, or anybody claims they have the tiniest bit of evidence, anywhere, of a new virus, it is a part of “everything being discussed in that perspective” and is a pure fiction.
But its clear you cannot review all the claims of evidence, there are too many claims, You certainty exceeds what one person, even a team of people can be certain about, I don’t even think you could review all the claims, much less have any certainty they are COMPLETE fictions.
You are unable even to read all the claims, from the perspective of “new virus.” Because you reject them all so completely and with such certainty, it lends weight to the supposition you didn’t even read them, much less review them, much less make a dertermination of certainty, and lastly, never was in the room when any of them were done and so have only a tenuous idea the purity of the fiction.
Isolate out that which is fiction, rather than claim %100 pure fiction, or I will have an easy logical case you exaggerate or overstate your case.
LikeLike
Ok…..pretty much silence in this thread. I’ll take on a question I had been hearing, but previously wanted to avoid.
How do viruses do their thing when they have no movement. No flagella tail to whip, no cillia to propel them. Along side this, is the the idea that viruses are not alive, have no metabolism.
Does anybody want to explore this further? I have no illusions I have answers that are authoritative or correct, but I do have an understanding, and I’m willing to go look for stuff to back up my understanding if it helps anyone. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong, or that I simply cannot back up my understanding, or that I cannot convince anyone. Those are the risks I take.
Its my idea that viruses as hypothesized do not need life, or movement, to do their thing. It may sound crazy to you, you can believe what you want, but I’m willing to share why I think that is to the best of my ability so you can review it at least.
The main idea is fluid flow, hydraulics and pneumatics, to provide movement. The next step is charge, chemistry, and then what is being called in this thread “metabolism”. My opening gambit is to say oxygen molecules in the air, do not need their own movement. Smoke, which is a much larger particle, also does not need its own movement. An airborn virus also does not need independent movement, or independent metabolism, in order to incorporate into our bodies in some way. They are like dust, they just get pulled and pushed around.
LikeLike
You are basically right, but smoke isn’t “much larger” – smoke aerosol particles are comparable in size to those said to bear viruses. The smaller particles can reach the alveoli (air sacs), and viruses could enter this way and infect the epithelium, since the lining fluid is very thin there. In the rest of the tract they have to pass through ~10 micron fluid, while being expelled by cilia, to reach the ACE2 receptors that welcome them with loving arms.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse asking for a physical theory of viruses, without first having a physical theory of CELLS. Read Pollack’s book on cells to start. One of the main findings, contrary to the textbooks, is that ATP does not store energy – it conforms proteins so that they channel charge (to use Mathisian terms) correctly. When a cell dies the proteins become cross-linked in a functionally inert conformation. So if you want to argue that viruses can hijack cells, reproduce, evade the immune system etc., you should study the viral proteins and explain how they exploit the charge field in the absence of ATP.
LikeLike
Please notice, I mentioned air, then I mentioned smoke particles as being much larger, I mean much larger than air, I did not say smoke particles were much larger than viruses.
I am aware that smoke particles can reach the aveoli, not sure how my analogy breaks for you. They are pulled in by the pneumatics of lungs and embed in the fluid lining, just like a virus could be, or a bacterium, or a fungal spore. From there I am less sure of what happens, but I imagine there is fluid flow in that fluid lining, and that alignment to a receptor could be possible. There are all sorts of structures in the nasal cavity I am less familiar with, I do not assume infection happens at the aveoli epithelium.
I am not asking for a physical theory of viruses. I explained my current understanding. How can I ever argue that viruses “can hijack cells, reproduce, evade the immune system etc.,” I’m not a primary researcher, not a secondary researcher, just a layman. As a layman, I directly reference the mainstream is the one making such arguments and claims.
My comment was about why a virus doesn’t need a tail or motility. You seem to agree, they do not. This is the theory of a transmissible infectious respiratory virus, I don’t claim to be clear on that whole process, but one thing is clear, viruses do not need to swim or walk around.
LikeLike
“My opening gambit is to say oxygen molecules in the air, do not need their own movement. Smoke, which is a much larger particle, also does not need its own movement. An airborn virus also does not need independent movement, or independent metabolism, in order to incorporate into our bodies in some way. They are like dust, they just get pulled and pushed around.”
Metabolism is synonymous to charge channeling.
You can’t get around that contrary to what virologists want to make to beLIEve.
This is especially true in biology, a domain which is not simply about mechanics.
In fact biology is strictly opposite to mechanics.
Biology is about living processes which means we are talking about opened-systems.
While in mechanics, you’re dealing with closed-systems.
An opened system will seek to produce heat while a closed system will seek to dissipate heat.
If you retrieve photons and anti-photons from the metabolic equations in biology, there will be no push and pull anymore since there will be nothing, no photons or anti-photons that will do the push and the pull either.
Also smoke and oxygen do channel charge since they maintain their structures relatively to photons and their counterparts, so they have their own internal movement which is charge channeling.
Viruses don’t metabolise so they can’t channel charge.
If they get pushed or pulled in an opened-system(in the air for instance), they will get obliterated by heat and they will return to valhalla as soon as they show up.
Which remind me, if you consider that viruses don’t need their own independent movement, could you explain your theory as to ‘how do they come in the first place’ (?)
But that is a question too hard for you to understand.
LikeLike
“Viruses don’t metabolise so they can’t channel charge.” another basic misunderstanding you present, why don’t you go read Miles Mathis, I did. He doesn’t use the word metabolism to describe the proton.
“I will show that in order to recycle charge through the
nucleus, the protons and alphas have to create charge channels”
Click to access nuclear.pdf
LikeLike
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-95/#comment-118190
This is a classic post for me here at CTTF. It highlighted how much disrespect I could be expected to recieve here. The post originally dealt with issues in the main forum I found problematic. People were suggesting that this electron micrograph, or that electron micrograph, were fake.
I went and did some reading on transmission electron microscopes, and the scanning version, called TEM and STEM. I was am am still curious how one scans over a sample, and how the electrons record a signal onto an image. I got as far as film, ccd sensors, cmos sensors, and realized I had a major research project to try and estimate if a computer was being used. The answer is yes, a ccd and a cmos sensor have an onboard computer, but… Whether a computer was being used to filter, alter, reconstruct, or otherwise manipulate and image that came in at a sensor, was not yet clarified to me. We know the image can be manipulated in real time AFTER the data comes in at the sensor, and in my experience IS manipulated before a final image is recorded onto digital media or even displayed on a screen. So in sensor image manipulation was unclear, and post sensor DEVICE image processing was also unclear
anyway, Jared ended up making his response about CGI, and how STEM, having a sensor, could never be CGI. He actually seems correct, but he made it also about his ego crushing my ego! This was not a search for truth anymore, but an ego battle!
Michael Deloatch then posted a new Coronald MacDonald music video, aaaaand discussion active, on a range of subjects many of which were offtopic. At one point food and karma as cause of disease. Sigh. . . .
I had quoted the wiki, including spectroscopy, but was ignored I guess. Recently I found this October 2013 J. of Biomedical Optics, 18(10), 100901 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.18.10.100901
“observe living organisms noninvasively” by taking spectrographic data and processing a spectral data cube to achieve a 3d dataset, and then an image. No isolation necessary, perhaps a less invasive sample preparation protocol.
I also found a different ref, for a so called “3-D image processing named C.A.V.U.M. for Computer Aided Volumic Ultra-Microscopy offers a new tool for the documentation and analysis of cell ultrastructure and for 3-D morphometric studies at EM magnifications.”
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/1245/1/Scanning-transmission-and-computer-aided-volumic-electron-microscopy–3/10.1117/12.19541.short?SSO=1
Perhaps my error was in using the term CGI. Still we are not necessarily getting a faithful representation of what arrives at a “sensor”. A TEM and STEM maybe non-cgi, but as new tech, as recent as 2013 is used, I still get a little mystified by how electrons end up as an image, and what processing is happening, and where. We know a pure CGI is used all over the place, but that is another topic to some extent.
LikeLike
@ 3rd door, I’m sorry that you got disrespected on that. It seems that Jared hit you pretty hard on the CGI question. Perhaps if he’d delved a little deeper he wouldn’t have disparaged you for bringing it up.
LikeLike
Exozomes, is that the right word? Here goes my hypothesys:
Let’s say a group of multicellular organisms get poisoned due to an environmental agent. The immune response is to expell the poison and sacrificed antibodies in a ‘packet’ that we call an exozome, they call a virus.
Since all these multicellular organisms are very similar in genetic makeup, these responses would be similar, and the genetic makeup of the detritus should also be similar. This may lead to the fallacious conclusion that the similarity in the detritus sequence implies that the detritus is an organism(virus).
Therefore dogmatic science can sequence the detritus and due to the shared genetic sequences declare that it has to be a virus, for: a virus has a distinct genetic sequence(or just a few markers), it was detected in a number of these multicellular organisms and of course we know that viruses cause disease.
What we have here is a circular argument with the prime mover the assumption that viruses exist. There is much invested in this tautological thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Plants are hypothesized to have viruses, as well as bacteria, so your theory falls short of accounting for viral type activity in those organisms.
Consider this plant virus study, using healthy and diseased leaves, that infect by simply rubbing against each other and produce visible lesions. He concentrated particles, and micrographed them, all without isolation, viral culturing, and with minimal solvents.
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2021/09/11/this-post-is-going-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-157925
LikeLike
Rubbing healthy leaves against diseased leaves(resulting in healthy leaves becoming diseased) does not prove infection, it proves that contact with whatever is on the surface of the diseased leave also affects healthy leaves. This begs the question: was that virus isolated to the exclusion of everything else? Was this isolate cultured and then introduced to the healthy leaves, in turn causing disease?
What we have is a paradigm which is kept afloat by ostensively logical reasoning. The gaps in the logic are not explored, because if a man’s job depends on not understanding something reason is to no avail. What Twain maybe meant is that rackets are underpinned by faulty logic, but there is too much lucre at stake to upset it for reasons of logical esthetics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No viral culture was implemented. You didn’t read the study did you. I also mentioned no “isolation” was conducted, so you don’t seem to have read my post either.
LikeLike
“it proves that contact with whatever is on the surface of the diseased leave also affects healthy leaves.” Can you post a study where somebody agrees with this assertion of “proof”?
LikeLike
i conclude that “scientists” studying the “potato yellow dwarf-virus” have no clue what they are talking about, at least the Agallia constricta looks cool, i guess. I think it is better to scrap the word “virus” all together… the biological sciences are in worse shape than fucking astronomy.
LikeLike
That doesn’t explain how they came upon the idea of asymptomatic carriers, though. If many perfectly healthy people test positive for viral sequences, an honest scientist would interpret that as evidence against the validity of the test and/or the viral hypothesis, but they flipped it and presented it as evidence that the virus was more dangerous, and as justification for masking and quarantining healthy people. That is not a scientific error, it is just straight propaganda.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SunTzu never specified Sars-cov-2. He did specify multicellular organisms, thus plants are included despite not producing exosomes.
LikeLike
Incorrect. They do.
LikeLike
@Ben, Correct! they are called plant exosomes, but do they actually share the same functions as mammalian exosomes?
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/69/1/59/4161912
“While exosomes are well described in mammals, and have been shown to play important roles in cell–cell communication regulating development and disease, their function is not well-known in plants.” Thats 2018,
also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31776666/ in 2019
“The contents of plant EVs and their biological functions are unclear.” For those reading along, exosomes are in the category extracellular vesicles, or EV’s. This article of 2019 “Exosomes Make Their Debut in Plant Research” https://www.the-scientist.com/features/exosomes-make-their-debut-in-plant-research-65336 has some interesting stuff, like how exosomes can enter fungal pathogens and serve an immune function. Not exactly mammalian, but I admit there could be overlap in function since we don’t know them very well yet, right?
Why consider viruses as extracellular vesicles though? And why focus on sars-cov-2? SunTsu doesn’t limit himself to sars-cov-2 and I think that is important. I don’t feel really confident I’ve seen any evidence yet that we should throw out the virus idea, but I’m certainly interested in finding any such evidence. Got any?
If we can find doubt in human viruses, and then plants, then the next step is bacteria, which is why I think this whole thread and any attempt to disprove virus existence is a diversionary psyop. We can’t do it, also we cam’t prove virus existence, its too complicated and time consuming.
Disproving a pandemic danger and a need for experimental vaccination mandates seems a much more useful direction, do you agree Ben? Do you think we can disprove viruses or seed enought doubt in the majority of the public’s conception, before we lose our ability to enter buildings or find employment? Before millions of children are experimented on? This is all a diversion. The idea that sars-cov-2 is fake, unproven, a hoax, is not about the existence or non-existence of viruses in general.
LikeLike
“Why consider viruses as extracellular vesicles though?”
I didn’t say that, so I don’t know. To be clear though, we can say with certainty that:
Viruses have the same size, origin, and structure as a subset of EVs
Viruses and EVs cannot reliably be separated using current techniques
Noninfectious/defective virus particles are EVs by definition
Whereas the following statements are very much contested:
Virus-like particles do not replicate in living creatures
Viruses are not a proven cause of disease
By strict definition, “all viruses are EVs” implies (4), which is a strong claim, and assumes the burden of proof. (5) is a weaker claim and places the burden of proof on virologists who claim to know the cause of disease.
At the risk of flogging a broken record – to mex a mitaphor – causation can only be established in accordance with the scientific method, viz.:
Vary the independent variable in isolation
Show a change in a valid dependent variable
“In isolation” here means that, if anything else could plausibly influence the DV, it must be controlled or fully accounted for. It does not refer to the purity of a sample – that is just means to the end of isolating the IV. “Valid” means that the DV accurately represents the real-world phenomenon under study. So if a virologist claims that cytopathic effects in vitro prove infectivity, pathogenicity or communicability in vivo, they should be asked to provide proof of that assumption – that is, to validate the chosen DV.
Now there will always be disagreement about what adheres to the scientific method. That is what scientific debate is for, and it can’t be reduced to a simple cookbook recipe. If you get into the philosophy of science you will find people arguing that true isolation is impossible, that no DV is ever valid (the problem of induction), that it all rests on fallible human judgments and so on.
But there is a much more basic problem, which occurs when people knowingly bypass the scientific method altogether. Everyone knows the DV is a function of the IV, so why use controls? So many studies employ a proxy DV, how can all that research and all those experts be wrong? And so standards of proof are abandoned in favor of consensus and received wisdom.
“I don’t feel really confident I’ve seen any evidence yet that we should throw out the virus idea, but I’m certainly interested in finding any such evidence. Got any?”
Well there is Lanka’s control experiment showing that yeast RNA causes CPEs similar to those usually blamed on viruses. If that can be replicated with various cell lines and other sources of genetic material then I believe a large body of results would be refuted.
I should add that, as with any guru, I trust Lanka as much as the goop from my neighborhood taco truck. And unlike some I am not against virology or germ theory, just bad science in any field.
“Disproving a pandemic danger and a need for experimental vaccination mandates seems a much more useful direction, do you agree Ben?”
Do you defend against an invasion with tanks or with fighter jets? The answer, as any military strategist will tell you, is both. When propaganda attacks on multiple fronts and using combined arms, the defense must likewise be widespread and multi-layered.
Obviously, if you try to talk to Joe Sixpack about science and experiments the response will be that of a deer in headlights. Since his understanding of the world comes from TV and Hollywood, you have to counter decades of programming about all-powerful, mind-controlling, zombie-spawning microbes. Reorienting him with reality is going to be a gradual process. You have to wean him off the tube, instill doubts about the good intentions of government and news media, and convince him of basic facts that he was taught once, but forgot or never really understood – such as that viruses can be harmless, and that medical tests and diagnoses can be wrong.
With more educated people you can bring up issues like PCR false positives, IFR data, iatrogenesis, etc. Only the most inquisitive will be open to a critical reading of virology papers – which is unfortunate since it is perhaps the most concise disproof of the pandemic narrative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WordPress ate my numbers there – brilliant as usual. Where would we be without web programmers? The “(4)” and “(5)” refer to the two statements immediately preceding.
LikeLike
Good comment, Ben. You sound like you read this paper: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291340/, or this one: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555775/, or this one: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995926/
LikeLike
All exosomes are Ev’s, SunTzu hypothesized viruses are actually exozomes. Its the first sentence of the wiki, it is not my claim, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)
I’ll let you believe what you want.
LikeLike
” Only the most inquisitive will be open to a critical reading of virology papers – which is unfortunate since it is perhaps the most concise disproof of the pandemic narrative.”
It is not concise, that is my point. Its a HUGE number of papers, unavailable for free, stretching back 100 years.
LikeLike
Can’t isolate COVID-19? I SMELL INFINITE GRANT MONEY! Here’s the Manhattan, Kansas, Level 4 lab studying animal disease as a threat to the nation, funded by Homeland Security. Fortunately, animal vectors for COVID-19 are in the mix, so Corona Virus research continues apace. This fancy “Wuhan-on-the-Prairie” Level 4 lab is to replace Plum Island, where animal diseases like Hoof & Mouth were studied with the ocean acting as moat to prevent escaped pathogens from being released. Not here in Manhattan, Kansas, hard by the original locus for the “Spanish Flu” pandemic originating at Fort RIley, Kansas, home of THE BIG RED ONE. Plum Island is falsely implicated in the release of Lyme Disease as near Lyme, Connecticut, but the release was via tainted Russian furs peddled by Stalin’s financier and Gore family fiend, Armand Hammer. Stevadores refused to off-load ships like the SS ELBRUS after suffering Lyme Disease symptoms. Take an online tour of Wuhan2, and you can get the very spooky Mengele et alii dossier LYME DISEASE & THE SS ELBRUS PDF online.
LikeLike
https://www.k-state.edu/nbaf/
WUHAN REDUX: KANSAS STATE LEVEL 4 LAB
LikeLike
To Ali: do you use machine translation to participate here?
You say I fragment your logic, but I don’t think you are saying clear statements.
“It is not a problem considering we are talking about viruses.”
What you seem to be missing here, is that I do not insist on complete isolation to prove a virus exists, but other’s DO.
Is this clear to you Ali?
I have to assume a language barrier is in effect Ali, and you write an enormous amount, change subjects often, ask us to take detours, and then make BASIC mistakes. I wrote 2 yes or no questions addressed directly to you, please don’t change the subject and write 100 words Ali. That will not work well for our exchange.
LikeLike
To 3rd doorman :
Since you’re no longer displaying any good will to continue our ‘discussion’ in a respecteful manner.
I’m going to post my version of the facts since i’m rightfully entitled to my vision like you.
Don’t act like an authority here.
Because your way of speaking reeks of spook’s agency and ‘noblesse’ codifications.
You’re imposing to the person you’re speaking with on a really complicated matter, to submit to your conditions unilaterally before letting him or her negociate these with you in the first place.( Answer by yes or no, not 100 words etc..)
We’re no longer discussing and you’re not making it easier.
It is like confusion is the seeking result.
You’re simply waiting me to derail from the topic or manifest mistakes so that you can exploit them.
Picking pieces of my comments and managing them to the wishing results.
Guiding the thread’s subject in the direction you’ve set.
And look, here is your 100 words !
Now you can mock me by stating my unability to speak in a concise manner and get the topic to another direction.
And before you say i don’t know, since there are no elements.
I’m only prejudging on you since you’re imposing your view by moral prejudice.
A prejudice for a predicament.
If you’re assuming what your perception only allow, you can only perceive what you’re already assuming.
Don’t expect others to change that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But I did read you four linked studies, which took time, though they didn’t remind me of anything.
You cannot even admit there is a language barrier between us.
Mais je vous ai lu quatre études liées, ce qui a pris du temps, bien qu’elles ne m’aient rien rappelé.
Vous ne pouvez même pas admettre qu’il y a une barrière linguistique entre nous.
LikeLike
If viruses do not exist, but we have an immune system based on antibodies, what is it for?
Bacteria, irritants and pollutants?
LikeLike
With substantial professional experience in the biological sciences but none in virology, I have been attempting to remedy that deficiency, but I am gaining the impression that the field is indeed an odorous swamp.
For a start- what is a so-called “virion” and how does it differ from a virus? Confusion reigns.
“https://duckduckgo.com/?q=virus+versus+virion&t=h_&ia=web”
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus”
Apparently a “virus” is the RNA or DNA entity purported to be inside a living cell having “infected” it and a “virion” is the active infectious form existing inside or outside the cell consisting of genetic material surrounded by a “capsid” consisting of stuff like protein, and maybe a further lipid layer. That is where the fancy icosahedral or spiral shapes come from:
“https://www.pnas.org/content/101/44/15556”
I encountered the term virion while literature-searching for the structure, function and mode of action of TBEV =tick-borne encephalitis virus (more on that in another comment), which is purported to be the cause of the human disease with that name that is endemic in Europe and parts of Asia, and for which vaccines are marketed.
That seemed like a smaller and more manageable field as a starting point compared to coronaviruses.
The fun really starts when one uses search terms in PubMed or a general engine such as “complete structure of virus X” (that would mean the entire molecular and spatial structure including all the RNA/DNA, protein and lipid components) “secondary, tertiary or quaternary structure of virus X” or “molecular mass of virus X”.
or “size of virus X”. The results are almost entirely obfuscation.
But there is no lack of fancy technicolor spiky blob or intriguing geometric shape illustrations that appear to have originated in the fertile imagination of the authors assisted by graphics software (“reconstructions”) with no reference to any rigorous experimental procedures as a basis for the artists’ pictures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
define ‘antibodies’
LikeLike
Antibodies: All of mom’s and dad’s sisters lived and mom’s brother’s wife yet lives inside of one of those. As a kid a thought one or two of them weren’t half bad put together either. Just all protoplasm and bones and sinews and stuff.
Anyway, DNA encoding and carbon based proteins are on the way out. It’s all about ones and zeroes, baby. You can put all your ones on one side of the world and zeroes on the other.
I was actually thinking about that last night as I fell asleep: as a very small kid I used to enjoy playing with the light switch on the wall to the annoyance of everyone else. Since digital data is all about switches going on and off, these moronic elite who think they are going to build a utopian simulacrum with AI and the like to replace reality are just idiots playing with switches like a two year old at the end of the day.
LikeLike
“just idiots playing with switches at the end of the day”
That also goes for gamers and web gazers and TV/movie watchers and even idiots who make satiric music videos. Yeah, I am l looking at you, old man in the analog silvered glass mirror…
LikeLike
The only thing I remember about the differences between viruses and bacteria is that antibiotics don’t work on viruses.
So if a doctor gives you antibiotics it’s useless for viruses and actually destroys the the good bacteria like the probiotics that help keep you healthy. Like Lactobacillus Acidophilus, Lactobacilli , Bifidobacterium Bifidum , Breve Streptococcus,Thermophilus and Salivarius. Etc.
And one way you could tell if it’s a bacteria or a virus is whether the mucus is brown…which means it’s a bacteria which can be helped by antibiotics.
But if the mucus is white it’s a virus and can’t be helped buy antibiotics but maybe some natural cures like garlic that kills everything… bacteria and viruses but not the good probiotics.
Garlic was called Russian Penicillin when they ran out of penicillin in the Second World War.
A garlic a day keeps the doctor away so take your garlic everyday.
LikeLike
From high school biology, the main differences are that viruses are much, much smaller than bacteria and are not considered “life” by most biological standards.
Also, viruses are reputed to have RNA and supposedly take over biological cells by hacking their DNA. Given this post and comment thread, I’m not entirely sure that’s all true.
For example, there has to be some mechanical explanation for triggering the insertion of the virus’s RNA into a cell. It’s not motile (can’t swim) so it’s not using some hunter-seeker instruction or something because it can’t “swim” to its target.
It has to float around at the whim of whatever fluid it’s in (usually blood plasma?) and then somehow detect that there is a cell nearby that is worth taking over so it can replicate.
THEN once this magic detection system kicks off, is there some mechanism that causes the virus to orient in the right way favorable to RNA insertion? For example the T4 phage is what we studied in high school biology and its shape looks very convincing in terms of docking on to a cell and injecting some overriding genetic code.
Let’s say it’s a brute-force flood, in that for every 100,000 viruses that invade a body, only 1 has the dumb luck of orienting in the right way and once it takes over a cell it makes many copies of itself.
OK, what next? There has to be some kind of mechanism that triggers the actual insertion, doesn’t it? Something has to penetrate the cell wall and something else has to transport and deliver the RNA in to the cell with enough force to get in.
And then what does that RNA do once it’s in? Does it just hang out until the nucleus is in the right alignment to “see” the RNA and think, oh, I should ingest this, it may be an important message?
By the way if you search for T4 phage images, you should get lots of “artist’s renditions” of it – looks… spooky, doesn’t it? Its very appearance and the fact that it is not visible to the naked eye is a bit fear-inducing by itself. I remember looking in awe at the thing when I first saw it, with the same fear and awe I had as a little kid when I’d run across snakes and spiders in the woods or bizarre-looking flying beetles while catching butterflies for my butterfly collection.
I think, now, that propaganda is by design. Once The Fear is invoked, it tends to override logical and rational thought.
A shark, as dumb as it is, has a very sensitive nervous system that can detect something moving from very far away. It also has a keen sense of smell so for example any blood in the water gets it very excited.
So, its nerves and olfactory smelling organs are the mechanism for how it detects bleeding, dying fish. We can observe and replicate this behavior very consistently.
I learned in marine biology about how jellyfish stingers (nematocysts) work and there is a start-to-finish explanation for the entire sequence.
What triggers an otherwise lifeless, albeit very symmetrical and geometric hunk of protein and amino acids to take over, say, a blood cell?
The explanation at places like “- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788752/ -” is hardly satisfying and creates far more questions than answers. Virion fusion? What the fuck? Rather than explain in simple language, they go and invent an entirely new particle that still doesn’t explain how a virus even knows its near a cell much less RNA insertion physics.
I’ll probably be told that I would need a molecular biology PhD and 10 years of virology research experience to begin to even understand. I can still “ELI5” (Explain like I am a 5-year old) DNS to my grandma, though. Why can’t they do the same here?
I was chasing an island girl some years back and when I ran out of savings I had to get a job. So I did, installing firewalls for companies on the island. I remember sitting in the office of the IT head for one client and on his wall he had a diagram that SANS (sans.org) had put out with a bunch of squiggly, organic-looking diagrams of computer viruses and I thought, who the fuck thought this bullshit up? “viruses” are just computer code you allowed on your computer (wittingly or no) doing things you probably don’t want.
This was about 20 years ago when the whole concept of cybersecurity was still being… invented, let’s say. Think about all the bullshit and fearmongering that goes on with biological viruses and it is thrice that with computer “viruses”. It’s just a marketron way of simplifying and objectifying something, a metalayer of crap.
It’s almost like the 2 industries are competing to see how thoroughly they can brainwash people. Competing arms of Operation Chaos.
Re: garlic – My Dad’s turned me on to this black garlic stuff. I haven’t done much research on it but it’s a lot easier to prepare and throw into a sauce, that’s for sure.
I stopped eating garlic because I’m lazy and busy and used to have this routine where I’d buy fresh organic garlic, peel and finely chop, then heat up some olive oil, add the chopped garlic then use that as a base for a sauce that’s usually some bastardized marinara derivative.
That takes a lot of time, though.
The eternal American problem – how to save time to make more time to waste.
LikeLike