I read a local news story that yesterday a 56-year-old woman died 1 month after being bitten by a marmoset and the doctors said it was her fault for not continuing treatment and getting vaccinated.
If it is not a virus, what causes the neurological symptoms days or weeks (the supposed incubation time) after a bite?
Good example...that and STD's seems to stump the terrain theory thumpers..
I notice how you didn't address my comment, in spite of it being here first. Of course you didn't. As your blanket dismissal doesn't work against it, does it?
Clearly there are only 2 types of people in the world. Those who categorize things into 2 categories, and the other 4 billion people on the planet that are not that simple.
U weirdo, my comment was here first which u can tell by the time stamp. Lol
Nice try tho.
Now I feel silly. I thought I had refreshed the page for some reason. You posted 1 minute 38 seconds before me in a thread that had sat idle for 3 hours.
It's all good...I was taken a back cause I enjoy your posts and comments.
I'm just always on edge now days. Can't tell how much of the internet is genuine anymore.
I hear ya, this platform still seems pretty solid although there seems to be a few sketchy users.
It's why I can't handle sites like fb, x, peddit anymore cause of the volume of fake ai accounts and bots. It's getting outta hand now
I personally look at it as being an 80/20 split between terrain theory and germ theory, and that neither theory is 100% correct.
Maybe. Rabies cases catch my attention because, unlike many flu-like illnesses, they seem to be consistent in their neurological symptoms and the time they take to appear, as well as reports of animals that have bitten people also presenting paralysis.
Frist thing you you need to realize is that terrain theory is a misused of the word.
That's just like saying that not believing that it's a virus means you have your own theory. It's just calling out the shitty science that supposedly explains rabies .
Now, it's not a virus. But does that mean we know what it because we can tell it's NOT a virus? No.
I suggest reading books and content by Dr. Stefan Lanka or find a book called What really makes us ill. Good luck
Thanks for your answer, I'll search for his books. I read "What really makes us ill", but unfortunately all it does is talk about the flaws of conventional science, focusing on the non-existence of a virus. It suggests that some cases may be malnutrition or even a consequence of the vaccine, but it doesn't seem to explain the cases I've read about.
In the case I reported above, the woman was 56 years old, apparently healthy, did not return to get vaccinated after receiving treatment for the wound, then the paralysis hit weeks later. I have read other similar cases where patients died and doctors were accused of negligence for not thinking the vaccine was necessary.
Also, being that I know for a fact that the establishment that report science and media is corrupt, and I know germ theory is a poorly understood pseudoscience that can't even pass it's own standards for defining a virus, (Koch's postulate).
I can see the motive to fool us about rabbies and that a vaccine will save you.
Two things. You dont know what the rabbies vaccine is, it might just be some anecdote and rabbies is caused by some man made Poison. Seriously, all you know Is what you choose to believe. I choose not to believe in germ theory anymore, but it also means I have studied what does harm you. And ya, I'm a carnivore, only eat wild fish, organic or wild meats and eggs. Animal products only. (Except some citrus.) I'm able to stay much healthier, knowing why I'm actually sick, instead of being stupid and believing it's some invisible unproven virus.
How do you explain rabbies? It's a fun thing to research, because you quickly learn how little is known and see how easily everyone is controlled to think with just a little fear.
The other think, you don't know how true this story is. The facts around it could be mis represented to make vaccines look more important. The world is a stage, the narrative is their most valuable asset, vaccine messaging and programming is not just left to chance.
Disprove viruses and you automatically discard the need for all vaccines. You'll realize every time that you have ever been sick, was because of diet, toxins, environment, parasites. And you start to really explore and relearn health
Understand what causes a bacterial infection.
These basics will change your life and you'll stop being sick.
You've read that whole book? It's dry. It's like a text book. But super resourceful.
Ya, in the authors also voice their frustration with the term Terrain Theory. It causes so many people to come to erroronius conclusion that not believing the virus theory therefore means you are automatically in some other theory called terrain. It's misleading and a clue to how they control multiple narratives, to keep the waters muddy.
Anyway, you're on the right path. First, test the theories being presented. And in the case of "what really makes you Ill". It goes into great lengths about what aspects about Illness, such as rabies, are unproven pseudoscience.
But you know how science actually works. Just because you disprove something doesn't mean you have a new theory. It's just that germ theory doesn't hold water. And that's the point of the book. That and reminding everyone that the science behind what is bad for us is actually pretty well established. We are just the idiots who think we caught a cold, when we've been eating fast food or smoking, being lethargic, living two lives or living a lie, stress...there are plenty of explainatations for why people get sick without needing to consider viruses
Oh, the book convinced me that germ theory doesn't hold water, it's just that not having definitive answers to explain the symptoms of rabies makes me uneasy about the deadly nature of the supposed disease and not being able to counter-argue with people who use this example to say that vaccines work.
It's covered pretty well from pages 168 to 171.
Rabbies is a myth going back to the lying sack of shit, Louis Pateur. It's so rare anyway, most doctors have never seen it. And the ones who have basically heard there was an animal bite and automatically it's rabies. Not like they have time to identify the virus, and they couldn't even if they tried because the fact the supposed virus has never been isolated and the process to match a virus to an isolated standard is also retarded because the world of virology says you only need to match like 15% of hypothetical virus.
Virology is lunacy. You don't sound well versed, I wouldn't try to convince people, they are hopeless even with the best person explaining because they are programmed to not listen and reason, rather to judge and believe in the person, their stature and authority, not the content.
This doesn’t mean that rabies is a “virus”. As you mentioned, bacteria and parasites have an incubation period before symptoms become evident. Check out “Goodbye, Germ Theory” by Dr. Trebing if you haven’t already.
It could be bacteria, but wouldn't it be easy to identify in this case? I didn't find anything about anyone stating that they found a cause of the disease other than a virus.
Yes, since it’s a saliva-based disease then I would lean towards a bacteria or parasite. People lump all sorts of things into the “virus” bucket, like they did with covid, when they are not. No one has found proof of a naturally-occurring “virus” out in nature, so take that for what it’s worth. Scientists observe “viruses” in animals and people but never out in the open, alone.
Pretty simple. Rabies is a parasite, not a "virus" (hoax). They intentionally mislabel many parasites as "viruses" to mislead. For example, look at the picture of the "ebola virus" on wikipedia. Does that look like a "virus" to you?
Introduced into a weak Terrain, the parasite will proliferate. The rabies parasite takes hold in the brain, hence neurological symptoms.
a) Germ sprouts; terrain dries...both imply within the procession of water.
b) Ones consent to suggested theorism establishes a conflict of reason (germ theory vs terrain theory) within which one HOLDS to a side, which imbalances ones choice.
Choice (matter) can only exist within balance (momentum) of motion aka the procession that allows sprouting and drying. Holding onto by giving consent to a suggested -ism tempts one to ignore this process.