Does spoiled food have a virus in it? Does snake venom have to self-replicate in order to kill you? It could be a parasite, a fungus or a toxic bacterial waste. I have no clue what it is contaminated with but something is causing the disease so it could be in the blood also.
I have no clue what it is contaminated with but something is causing the disease so it could be in the blood also.
Kind of stupid to call a virus fake, acknowledge the disease is real, and then say you have no idea what's causing it. Obviously you know what's causing it, that's why you won't take the blood.
As every other possible contaminate is something that's within your power to control for and eliminate from the experiment, yet you still won't do it.
The point retard, was it doesn't have to be "a self replicating virus" in the blood to pose danger because there are other toxic or poisonous compounds that cause pathology without replicating.
How do you know what's in the blood? We're once again at square one - you can't demonstrate there is a virus because you can't properly isolate it. It's either cultured or diagnosed via PCR. What if you can't detect the actual pathogen in the blood? I'm not taking blood from any person who's sick regardless of what's causing the disease. I'd go with the old wisdom, call it "bad blood" and pass.
I don't expect anything. I wouldn't inject blood of someone who's sick with the flu either. But I don't pretend to know exactly what's causing those diseases.
If it were caused by a transmissible virus via blood or close contact with a patient they would have managed to get at least one person sick out of the hundreds who took part in the experiments.
Does spoiled food have a virus in it? Does snake venom have to self-replicate in order to kill you? It could be a parasite, a fungus or a toxic bacterial waste. I have no clue what it is contaminated with but something is causing the disease so it could be in the blood also.
Does a bullet kill you? Herpa durr....
Kind of stupid to call a virus fake, acknowledge the disease is real, and then say you have no idea what's causing it. Obviously you know what's causing it, that's why you won't take the blood.
As every other possible contaminate is something that's within your power to control for and eliminate from the experiment, yet you still won't do it.
The point retard, was it doesn't have to be "a self replicating virus" in the blood to pose danger because there are other toxic or poisonous compounds that cause pathology without replicating.
How do you know what's in the blood? We're once again at square one - you can't demonstrate there is a virus because you can't properly isolate it. It's either cultured or diagnosed via PCR. What if you can't detect the actual pathogen in the blood? I'm not taking blood from any person who's sick regardless of what's causing the disease. I'd go with the old wisdom, call it "bad blood" and pass.
Strange that you don't expect Spanish flu patients to transmit a contagious poison that will give you Spanish flu.
But yet you do expect to an HIV patient to transmit a contagious poison that will give you HIV.... But definitely not a virus...
Just a contagious poison moving from one person's body to another causing a specific disease.... 🤣
I don't expect anything. I wouldn't inject blood of someone who's sick with the flu either. But I don't pretend to know exactly what's causing those diseases.
If it were caused by a transmissible virus via blood or close contact with a patient they would have managed to get at least one person sick out of the hundreds who took part in the experiments.