Even if they stole all the best designs in the world, they would just pillage their own production process to the point where everything is broken right off the factory line, or worse functions just long enough to blow up in their soldiers faces.
In these construction project videos they are building skyscrapers, and the workers can just grab inch thick rebar and break it in half with their bare hands.
Cause I guess someone somewhere down the line is watering down the metal to skim the difference in cost. Then they do it with the concrete where it crumbles like dry mud. Everywhere..
By the end of the project it looks nice for a month, collapses and kills a thousand people, and then the same company gets the contract to rebuild it and start the skim all over again.
Serpentaz calls it "destructive construction" and that's exactly what it is. Everyone but maybe 1 guy at the top would be better off just leaving the lot empty and building nothing at all.
That is not trivial at all. That is life and death. lol.
They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist.
When you say they haven't been isolated, do you actually mean they haven't removed from their natural environment, killed on a petri dish, brought back to life, and re-establish in living cells once more?
Gee.... I wonder why that hasn't happened.
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
Then explain why they see DIFFERENT tiny little things coming out of those cells depending on which disease the person is manifesting?
Why do cells from people with HIV produce different tiny little things than cells from people with the flu?
Bro.... If i thought you were a stupid retarded idiot, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you. I know I've told many others that before.
I'm not here saying everything modern science thinks about viruses is true. I'm not even gonna pretend that I sit around reading books and doing studies on viruses. I'm sure a lot of new discoveries will get made that change a lot about what we think we know. I hope so at least.
But with this virus denial argument, I'm just going off some common sense that everyone knows contagious diseases are real.
In order for this argument to have merit, they shouldn't be real.... But they are.....
And until someone explains to me how a disease can still be contagious without a self replicating pathogen causing it, common sense is gonna tell me to just trust medical science on this one, because your explanations are severely lacking.
I'm starting to understand what people mean when they call it a "paper tiger".....
Their whole society is just like their skyscrapers. Big, imposing, and modern looking, but cannibalized from corruption to the point where it will crumble under your feet at the slightest push.
When world war 3 finally pops off, China's gonna nuke themselves because someone skimmed all the missile fuel for a little bit of extra profit, and they only have a range of 20 miles. Just enough to fly over the horizon and fool the inspector who certifies them.
Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
Okay bro... Again not wanting to sound like a broken record, but please study epistemology.
Go to youtube and just watch some videos on "street epistemology" and "the Socratic method"... That's a good place to start. Pretty entertaining too most of the time.
One of the first topics you'll come across is how to accurately assign the burden of proof and what it really means when it's not met.
Your statement here is an inversion of the burden of proof.
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
Yes... The viral model gets replicated every time you go to costco healthy, and get sick 3 days later because one of the 2,000 people you were around sneezed near you.
Yes.... It's totally trivial and easy to prove that a viral infection can pass from person to person. You can deny it's a virus causing the illness, but you can not deny that the illness is contagious.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
I have.... Turns out it's bad for your health to receive HIV blood...
Who would've thought?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
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.
Don't flatter yourself. I regularly purge my comment history every few weeks because there are people out there way smarter than you that I'm concerned about.
And honestly, I don't even remember you personally. I just know I've had this debate before.
And as I've said many times before all you gotta do is prove you can be injected with HIV blood without catching any disease.
Your Nobel prize and 1 million dollars is waiting for you.... Git 'r done.
However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't.
So you're saying nobody replicated these findings on the spanish flu?
(and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
So what? In like 2010 there was a very detailed and highly complex experiment preformed at the LHC where they claimed to have measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
The claim went viral. It was all over the internet for an entire news cycle. Years later anyone who was aware enough to seek out an update to that story would have seen it turns out they actually were using faulty math to calibrate their sensors. But that story never went viral.
An experiment or being extremely detailed and thorough is not a substitute for independently replicating the findings.
So again.... Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
There are.... There absolutely are...
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
Then I'll take 50 sane people, and inject them with blood from a person who is HIV negative.
Then 10 years later I'll measure how many from each group are still alive, and do an analysis on the cause of death for the ones who aren't.
BOOM!!!!! There ya go...
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science.
You can take it as an ad-hom if you want... But I'm still gonna stand by my point that it seems like you haven't studied epistemology at all, and doing so will greatly benefit you in many areas of your life, not just your ability to win internet debates.
If "asymptomatic carrier" does not get disease, then, there is obviously a reason for that. Just like there is a reason why others get disease.
For sure.... Nobody that I'm aware of is downplaying the importance of many other factors that go into determining your health.
But the fact still remains the asymptomatic carrier can pass the disease to other people, despite not having symptoms themselves.
That proves that whatever causes the disease is still inside their body, even though it's not affecting them the way it does other people.
But my overall point is that this claim that viruses aren't real NECESSARIALY requires that diseases defined as "viral" not be contagious.
If "terrain makes you sick, not viruses", then someone who lives in healthy terrain should be able to inject HIV blood and be totally fine because they are safe from the root cause of the disease....
Why don't virus deniers just prove contagiousness isn't real? They can inject HIV blood, swap cotton swabs with herpes patients, and inhale water droplets from sick people sneezing.
And they should be totally fine provided they keep their terrain healthy, whatever that means.
Should be totally trivial and easy to prove that contagiousness isn't a thing, but yet they don't.
There are people who does not get illness having presumable pathogen
Except they are "carriers" because they still have the ability to transmit the disease to other people despite not having symptoms of said disease.
It does not. It just proves that illness where could be "asymptomatic carriers" is not caused by presumed pathogen, and that's all.
It most certainly does invalidate all the postulates because it ends with the assumption that reinfection will cause disease in a healthy animal, which is not the case with asymptomatic carriers.
And it begins with the assumption that there are no pathogens to culture from a healthy animal.
So really you could just eliminate all the postulates and replace them with one single postulate.... "Healthy animals do not contain pathogens".
There ya go.... All of them boiled down to 1.
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.
Okay, but we've all caught the flu, a cold, or covid from other people without having needles stuck into our brains right?
This postulate proves nothing and not evidence of anything. This postulate should be checked against reality. If every time somebody get a virus and become ill with that disease, than postulate is correct. If somebody have virus but doesn't get ill, then postulate is wrong and whole theory based on that postulate should be discarded.
Which by the way is exactly what happened with Koch's postulates, where he abandoned #1 after the discovery of asymptomatic carriers, thus invalidating every single other postulate that comes after that, because they all rely on the validity of the first one.
This person responded by telling me "Koch was studying bacteria, it doesn't apply to viruses!"
Okay so then why the fuck is he using it as evidence there are no viruses?! No answer of course. Just moved the goal posts again and told me nobody could prove spanish flu was contagious.
Still waiting for him to present anything more recent than 100+ years old, which of course I know won't happen.
The sophistry is unreal.
I'm currently having a debate on another thread where someone has been saying viruses aren't real and citing "Koch's Postulates" as evidence.
I made this graphic to demonstrate why it's silly to present "postulates" as evidence, and posting it to this sub because A.) It's the relevant community to the debate I'm having. and B.) I needed the image to be linkable.
By the way..... This is HIGHLY RELEVANT to everything you've been trying to say.
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/17t1RNvHC2/viruses-arent-real-because-nobod/c
You're begging the question. How does witnessing lots of people in close proximity getting sick inform you it's a microscopic contagious pathogen causing the disease and not other environmental factors?
Idiot.... I said you start by proving CONTAGIOUSNESS.... I didn't say you start by assuming a microscopic pathogen that only lives in human cells.
You are lying through your fucking teeth when you say the flu is not contagious.
You didn't even engage with the proof I presented.
What proof?! You presented "Koch's Assumptions" and called that proof.
Then you changed the goal posts and said they couldn't get Spanish flu to spread with a citation of "trust me bro".
Well forgive me for POSTULATING that your argument about the Spanish flu will turn out to be just as stupid and hollow as your argument about Koch's Postulates.
I just told you they failed with the flu - what makes you think they will not fail with those others viruses?
Okay so now we're just going to pretend that neither of us have ever first hand witnessed a single flu case spread through an entire office, school, or home? We're going to pretend like neither of us have been personally infected in such a way?
bro I'm so done with these novels. You're clearly not worth my time, and you're clearly moving the goal posts after basing your ENTIRE ARGUMENT on "Koch's Assumptions".
Are you aware that all such trivial and easy experiments during the Spanish flu and later during the polio epidemic failed?
are you aware that such trivial and easy experiments with COVID-19, the flu, the common cold, gential herpes, and HIV will not fail?
bro I'm honestly done debating primitive 1800s borderline pseudoscience with you.
Do yourself a favor and try to learn some science from the last hundred years.
From 1933 to present day, virologists have been unable to present any experimental study proving that influenza spreads through normal contact between people.
Now reevaluate the truth of that statement without the arbitrary and undefined modifier "normal contact".
are you saying the disease cannot spread to anybody under any circumstances? No, once again you're cherry picking arbitrary criteria.
"Nobody has proven the cold is contagious.......Over a radio broadcast."
"nobody has ever proven HIV is transmissible..... from a wink and a nod."
"No one has ever proven a virus can infect people.... After being removed from all living cells and killed on a petrie dish."
Give me a break, you clown.
no bro... you put relevant comments underneath the posts they are relevant to. you don't start new posts for that.
her family named her Lucy. her family were Christians.
That's some pretty good evidence that her name is not some satanic anagram.
Of course it is. The experiment is whether a sample from a healthy animal, lacking the suspected pathogen will give the same result as the sample from the infected animal when cultured.
Then explain to me why it doesn't involve actually putting samples from healthy animals through the same exact process it says should be done to samples from sick animals?
If It did involve that, Koch would have discovered asymptomatic carriers decades before Typhoid Mary.
Here we go again - Koch didn't work with viruses, but with bacteria he could observe.
Here we go again, confirming that this entire topic is not relevant to your claim that viruses aren't real.
Since Koch was fake and gay also, let's put him and his postulates aside. How does one go about proving a hypothesized pathogen caused the symptoms or the disease observed to fulfil the scientific requirement for knowledge?
First off, I'll say the fact that it's called "Koch's postulates" and not "Koch's experiment" ought to be a very big clue to you that this isn't what you think it is.
19th century scientists did not choose their labels arbitrarily, and "postulate" means something very specific that totally undermines your attempt to use it as any kind of proof for anything.
Postulate means ASSUMPTION! And things are not proven with assumptions.
That being said here is the answer to your question....
You first start by devising an experiment that proves contagiousness, which is absolutely trivial and easy to do. You just start by recording the fact that the disease can be transmitted from person to person.
Then you continue demonstrating contagiousness over and over again, as you record the disease moving farther and farther away from patient zero.
Along with proper controls this will demonstrate that whatever causes the disease is self replicating, based on the simple fact that dilution would effect the concentrations of any poison or contaminate as it moves more and more steps away from patient zero.
However, if you can demonstrate that patient 1,000 is just as contagious as patient-zero, then you are at the same time establishing that whatever causes the disease replicates inside the body and isn't subject to being diluted as it's transmitted from person to person.
Okay, so now you've established that there is something self replicating and contagious that makes you sick.
Now you can devise other experiments that involve testing and culturing samples from the sick people to see if you can find any differences between their samples and that of a healthy person.
Before you know it you're discovering viruses and performing experiments to determine in what environments they can live and replicate.
This is how science works. You don't start off with 4 statements and base everything around merely assuming they are true.
You don't get to step #50 where you discover the virus can't live on it's own, and then assume that invalidates all the other 49 steps.
You start with the absolute most simple and basic things you can prove for a fact, which are NOT POSTULATES.... and you continue building new ideas that you can prove on top of that foundation.
Which by the way, is exactly how germ theory of disease was developed.
I guess "Lucyfer" didn't sound menacing enough to the OP, so they saw fit to just change her name to fit the theory.
Also interesting how her full name is included, but everyone else is just the initial, as necessitated by the theory.
I guess "LucyFredEthelRicky" didn't sound menacing enough either. Nor did "Lfer", "Lfreder", or "Lfericky".
The problem with just calling all of history a pack of lies, is that more often than not the alternative history put forward has no citations and is based mainly on personal incredulity towards the accepted narrative.
Okay... I agree... History can be and is manipulated for political purposes. One thing can be taught because it helps a certain agenda, while another thing can be berried because it hurts the agenda.
But both things can still be true at the same time. At least try to find and demonstrate the real truth with more than just "nuhh uhh, they're lying, I don't believe it."
You got an alternate theory for some historical event? Great. Sounds interesting. Please back it up with sources that positively confirm your claim, instead of just trying to poke holes in the other theory you don't agree with. That's all.
That would be a far more interesting conspiratorial topic than just blaming everything on jews all the time.
Reading your comment is like someone who believes that if you can't accurately count the number of dead in a continental wide genocide, then obviously the real death toll must be zero and the genocide never happened.