Crazy: The tobacco mosaic virus study is also quite fraudulent. The 'isolated pathogen' was introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
Does not matter. Cause and effect connection was established. Scratching or rubbing without pathogen does not cause illness. At the time people knew about control experiments and all that stuff.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
Now they just do some random and senseless shit, they don't care about anything except money.
Crazy: to your first point... no... When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
That was not about ways of transmission. That was about unknown pathogen that could not be seen with microscope and pass finest filters they have at the time.
There could be tons of hypothesis about ways of transmission, from rain with wind to insects or animals that obviously was not studied in that research.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
That's not the reason to deny any respect for those who tried to bring some science into that discipline.
Throwing out babies with the water is not a good way to change things. Medicine could and should become real science, but mocking over past attempts to do that does not help. Imagine if modern medics, on suspicion of some new pathogen, do the same things as Ivanovsky did with tobacco mosaic disease - could all that swine flu hoax, corona hoax and all other shit be possible at all?
Dude did everything he could at the time as real scientist. He did pretty logical and scientific experiments. But instead of making him an example for discipline, you just making things easier for modern swindlers.
Crazy: But... he didn't! Well, okay, he did, and for that he should be lauded. But the experiments that he did, which would have established, almost incontrovertibly, viruses/viral transmission... failed! This is really the issue.
Look: I literally remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 'no virus' hypothesis. I thought it was crazy. And then... it just turns out that no experiments ever have demonstrated viral transmission of disease.
I don't think of Ivanovsky (the tobacco-virus guy) as intellectually bankrupt. It's the people ((())) who ran with his work without verifying basic details who are... well, enemies of humanity.
The methodology of the study wasn't designed to test transmission methods. They needed a 100% transmission rate because the experiment was testing if a substance caused a disease. Can't test effect without limiting variables, transmission rate being a major factor to CONTROL, not TEST.
Nose: Honestly, the best source on all of this is Sam Bailey -- just type 'sam bailey odysee' into your search engine.
Background: Sam and her husband, Mark, are both medical doctors, but became suspicious of the pharma model. Mark explicitly stopped practicing. Sam was 'let go' when she was too open about not vaccinating her children.
In the last 4-5 years they have done constant and extensive literature searches to see the foundations of 'virology'... and it's everywhere lacking. Sam has beautiful videos that answer the usual questions -- what about polio, rabies, measles, smallpox etc.
If you prefer reading, then the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianik is magnificent. The book presents what I call 'the most important graph in the world' which, using freely available public health data, demonstrates that all 'communicable' diseases had largely vanished before vaccination.
And if you want a real trip, Peter Duesberg's 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' is shocking... He outlines how many normal diseases, like Pellagra, were initially thought to be infectious. And, of course, he demolishes the HIV myth. Both books are 'available' on 'z-library.se'.
Nose: Unfortunately, there's no compact answer to this question. All that you can hope is that your friends are capable of adjudicating information.
Consider: I spent almost a decade in Toronto, so I was constantly in contact with sick people on the subway, bars, work, etc... and yet I was rarely sick. So, imagine that one day I became sick -- well, there are sick people everywhere, so 'obviously' I picked it up from them... but what about the other 359 days of the year!!!
Okay: so it's my 'immune system'... But consider: cold viruses, although they mutate, are, by and large, quite similar. So why would my 'immune system' flush out hundreds of cold viruses... and then have an absolutely catastrophic failure on the 101st virus? And why have I, personally, never had 'the flu'? Am I superhuman?!?
And, ultimately, the real truth is that 'colds/flus' have never been shown as transmissible in scientific experiments -- so the virus hypothesis has to be discarded.
An aside: Marek's disease in farmed chickens is often quoted as a 'proof' of viruses. But farmed chickens literally defecate on each other! Wild chickens, like the ones I see here in Cambodia, are never sick.
Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
Yes I have and am quite familiar. Polio is the reason why I no longer think viruses are real: it was purely a chemical contamination of the spinal cord
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen?
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
And the same goes for viruses. They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist. All virology is doing is taking snot, blood, shit, piss, spinal fluid, and purifying it, then putting it in a toxic bath of antibiotics, industrial chemicals, monkey or bovid kidney cells, then watching what happens. They see that the cells start to die and these tiny little things start coming out of them. News flash sweetheart: all of that stuff was already in the cell, and the cell died. It was not hijacked by a microscopic boogeyman, it was inside of a DNA soup with no food and toxic chemicals floating around. No shit it’s going to die. The kicker? Those tiny little particles that you claim are the viruses have never been isolated or shown to cause illness.
It doesn’t matter how many papers are published or fancy CGI microscopy videos come out, it’s all bullshit based on bullshit foundations. It is a pseudoscience invented by people who wanted to sell you something and keep you from knowing what actually can make you sick.
Your comment about getting a Nobel is rich, as now I am not sure if you are sarcastic or actually retarded: I would have assumed you know that any scientific fact that goes against the mainstream gets shut down, but clearly, you drink the Kool Aid. Let me spell it out for you; any fact, regardless of how how well-researched it is, that goes against modern pharma, gets buried.
The mantra of virology: Monkey see, monkey do, follow along, and you’re a monkey to.
Crazy: The tobacco mosaic virus study is also quite fraudulent. The 'isolated pathogen' was introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
Does not matter. Cause and effect connection was established. Scratching or rubbing without pathogen does not cause illness. At the time people knew about control experiments and all that stuff.
Now they just do some random and senseless shit, they don't care about anything except money.
Crazy: to your first point... no... When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
That was not about ways of transmission. That was about unknown pathogen that could not be seen with microscope and pass finest filters they have at the time.
There could be tons of hypothesis about ways of transmission, from rain with wind to insects or animals that obviously was not studied in that research.
That's not the reason to deny any respect for those who tried to bring some science into that discipline.
Throwing out babies with the water is not a good way to change things. Medicine could and should become real science, but mocking over past attempts to do that does not help. Imagine if modern medics, on suspicion of some new pathogen, do the same things as Ivanovsky did with tobacco mosaic disease - could all that swine flu hoax, corona hoax and all other shit be possible at all?
Dude did everything he could at the time as real scientist. He did pretty logical and scientific experiments. But instead of making him an example for discipline, you just making things easier for modern swindlers.
Crazy: But... he didn't! Well, okay, he did, and for that he should be lauded. But the experiments that he did, which would have established, almost incontrovertibly, viruses/viral transmission... failed! This is really the issue.
Look: I literally remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 'no virus' hypothesis. I thought it was crazy. And then... it just turns out that no experiments ever have demonstrated viral transmission of disease.
I don't think of Ivanovsky (the tobacco-virus guy) as intellectually bankrupt. It's the people ((())) who ran with his work without verifying basic details who are... well, enemies of humanity.
The methodology of the study wasn't designed to test transmission methods. They needed a 100% transmission rate because the experiment was testing if a substance caused a disease. Can't test effect without limiting variables, transmission rate being a major factor to CONTROL, not TEST.
There's a good doc on this that I forgot to save. Do you have any good links to check out? Germ vs terrain theory, viruses and disease?
It was like 7hrs long. I can't find it now.
Nose: Honestly, the best source on all of this is Sam Bailey -- just type 'sam bailey odysee' into your search engine.
Background: Sam and her husband, Mark, are both medical doctors, but became suspicious of the pharma model. Mark explicitly stopped practicing. Sam was 'let go' when she was too open about not vaccinating her children.
In the last 4-5 years they have done constant and extensive literature searches to see the foundations of 'virology'... and it's everywhere lacking. Sam has beautiful videos that answer the usual questions -- what about polio, rabies, measles, smallpox etc.
If you prefer reading, then the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianik is magnificent. The book presents what I call 'the most important graph in the world' which, using freely available public health data, demonstrates that all 'communicable' diseases had largely vanished before vaccination.
And if you want a real trip, Peter Duesberg's 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' is shocking... He outlines how many normal diseases, like Pellagra, were initially thought to be infectious. And, of course, he demolishes the HIV myth. Both books are 'available' on 'z-library.se'.
Thanks so much for the info.
I'm going to look into all you've posted. What is the simple response to why people think they "catch a cold" when someone in school is sick?
Nose: Unfortunately, there's no compact answer to this question. All that you can hope is that your friends are capable of adjudicating information.
Consider: I spent almost a decade in Toronto, so I was constantly in contact with sick people on the subway, bars, work, etc... and yet I was rarely sick. So, imagine that one day I became sick -- well, there are sick people everywhere, so 'obviously' I picked it up from them... but what about the other 359 days of the year!!!
Okay: so it's my 'immune system'... But consider: cold viruses, although they mutate, are, by and large, quite similar. So why would my 'immune system' flush out hundreds of cold viruses... and then have an absolutely catastrophic failure on the 101st virus? And why have I, personally, never had 'the flu'? Am I superhuman?!?
And, ultimately, the real truth is that 'colds/flus' have never been shown as transmissible in scientific experiments -- so the virus hypothesis has to be discarded.
An aside: Marek's disease in farmed chickens is often quoted as a 'proof' of viruses. But farmed chickens literally defecate on each other! Wild chickens, like the ones I see here in Cambodia, are never sick.
Okay, but we've all caught the flu, a cold, or covid from other people without having needles stuck into our brains right?
Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
Filled: I don't know if you've looked into the curious case of Polio... if you do, you'll see it's even more cynical/evil than you've outlined.
Yes I have and am quite familiar. Polio is the reason why I no longer think viruses are real: it was purely a chemical contamination of the spinal cord
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
And the same goes for viruses. They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist. All virology is doing is taking snot, blood, shit, piss, spinal fluid, and purifying it, then putting it in a toxic bath of antibiotics, industrial chemicals, monkey or bovid kidney cells, then watching what happens. They see that the cells start to die and these tiny little things start coming out of them. News flash sweetheart: all of that stuff was already in the cell, and the cell died. It was not hijacked by a microscopic boogeyman, it was inside of a DNA soup with no food and toxic chemicals floating around. No shit it’s going to die. The kicker? Those tiny little particles that you claim are the viruses have never been isolated or shown to cause illness.
It doesn’t matter how many papers are published or fancy CGI microscopy videos come out, it’s all bullshit based on bullshit foundations. It is a pseudoscience invented by people who wanted to sell you something and keep you from knowing what actually can make you sick.
Your comment about getting a Nobel is rich, as now I am not sure if you are sarcastic or actually retarded: I would have assumed you know that any scientific fact that goes against the mainstream gets shut down, but clearly, you drink the Kool Aid. Let me spell it out for you; any fact, regardless of how how well-researched it is, that goes against modern pharma, gets buried.
The mantra of virology: Monkey see, monkey do, follow along, and you’re a monkey to.