I've often wondered about Virii. The last time I went to the doctor, they drew blood and checked it. From the doc's own mouth. "We think you've caught the latest virus, but we aren't sure which it is. It's either RSV or the new one. If it's the new one, you'll probably be in the hospital in a week. Until then, have this anti-biotic."
My old family doc used to say, "You've got the cold or flu bug. Get plenty of sleep, get vitamin C, and get some sunlight." He didn't prescribe anti-biotics all the time.
From what I recall, Anti-biotics are used against bacteria.
There's a significant difference between believing in Sasquatch and believing in viruses: the virus narrative has been and is continuing to be used to cause tremendous harm to people and, less directly, to earth. It is a narrative of disempowerment and control. It was the entire foundation of the recent plandemic and a major factor in the efforts to establish a digital prison and herd us all into it. It's also the basis of the childhood vaccine schedule that has killed and maimed countless babies and children. Of course, people believe what they will--but believing in Sasquatch or flat earth or fairies is personal and affects no one else. Viruses are an entirely different kind of false narrative that needs to be understood for what it is. (My Substack, This Changes Everything, deals with the reasons why I think it's important that people know viruses do not exist. I invite you to check it out.)
Once it was empirically established that washing hands prevented infection, the search was on for "contagious pathogenic entities" that might possibly explain the observation. The reason for this is obvious: no other possible explanation fit the observed data. The standard of proof in this instance was repeatability over thousands of cases where hand washing demonstrably reduced infection. Actually identifying the responsible pathogens came later as result of their existence being inferred from observation and various experiments being devised to isolate those pathogens.
"…one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception: In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. "
I could say the same thing about Physics. Dalton postulated the existence of atoms before they were observed. Thompson and Rutherford constructed experiments to test Dalton's theory, the important point being that the theory preceded the experiments. How could it be otherwise, and where's the evidence that suggests virology didn't follow the same method?
That said, no one has ever seen an atom, so why should I believe they exist?
"Pay special attention to the terms dependent variable, independent variable and control which are all necessary and required under international standards of science for all scientific experiments."
No they're not, in fact control groups are in some cases highly unethical in clinical trials. That's why Dr. Didier Raoult broke his HCQ trial and administered to the entire group, because the effectiveness of HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin was empirically established and some patients in the control group would have otherwise died. You don't let your subjects die just to prove a point, but he was actually criticized for not doing that!
"necessary and required under international standards of science"
Where? Show me where these 'international standards" are codified. Plenty of scientific work lacks one or another of the conditions mentioned. Much of modern physics in fact. This fixation on 'control' is an artifact of medical research, not a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. Sheldon Cooper postulates the Coopertron and Leonard Hofstadter wrangles some time at CERN and sets up an experiment to test the hypothesis. He finds the Coopertron in the mass and energy range predicted, and repeats the experiment multiple times with the same result each time, thus validating the hypothesis. Where's the control in that situation? There isn't one. You either find the predicted particle or you don't.
I wander the net like a Bedouin on a camel, stopping now and then to observe and occasionally join the conversation. One thing I've noticed on over a dozen sites that deal with the 'pandemic' is that whenever the subject of viruses comes up, there's always someone who'll make the claim that they don't exist, and if you challenge them, they often become hostile and even accuse you of being 'controlled opposition.' Not saying that's the case here, but the topic has been raised and it's still early:)
I find this curious. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, but what stands out about it is that the debate is always framed as a Hegelian dialectic, i.e. a choice between one or the other, but never both. Why can't it be both though? Why can't both theories be valid in certain circumstances? I don't see anything about them that makes them mutually exclusive, and yet the debate always degenerates into a polemic, pitting one camp against the other.
This to me looks like yet another control mechanism to keep us spinning our wheels so we never get up enough tour de force to actually do anything. I see the same thing with these endless conferences that Sen. Ron Johnson sponsors. Everybody gets to give wonderful talks and feel important, and they all have their photos taken with the Great Man (hello Jessica) but nothing ever comes of it. Where are the indictments? Where's the Grand Jury? It's been three f'n years already. Not enough evidence? A senior senator can't pass a recommendation to the Attorney General? Come on people. Where's the beef?
Also, when I point out that the guy sponsoring these events is a big supporter of Ukraine and a dyed in the wool Israeli Firster, all I hear is crickets. Same goes for RFK. I guess even scientists need their heroes, but my God, you'd think they could make better choices.
Fear is the mind-killer and taking refuge in logical fallacies to cover up for lack of actually studying a subject and just reading about it, then drawing lots of confirmation biases from followers a sign of societal collapse and a wee bit dunning-kruger.
Something made me produce flu-like symptoms a day after I went to a party where, unknown to me at the time, someone was showing the same symptoms. I am willing to bet that it wasn't meteorites, aluminium foil, wifi or bad hummous that caused it...
I haven't read the article yet but I shall do then probably comment again tomorrow, as I'm tired and about to go to bed.
But for now I'll just say two things.
1/ The entire 'terrain theory' or 'viruses & germs don't exist' is another psyop. Designed to cause distrust in genuine science and associate the 'anti-establishment movement' (i.e. the resistance) with lunatic theories (a bit like flat earth) - thus turning people off the resistance. This is a seriously important point and you seriously shouldn't fall for it. It also applies to other shit and nasty ideas that only serve to discredit the resistance.
2/ The one and only counter-argument you need to know, which the 'no germs' people can't possibly explain is the simple fucking existence of something called the 'adaptive immune system'. If there were no germs/viruses/etc. then there wouldn't be an adaptive immune system. It's something called 'evolution'.
I have been a professional medical translator for over 20 years so let's just say I understand medical fucking science here. Look up 'memory B cells' as a starting point.
I'm tired and I need to go to bed, so I'm not even going to elaborate on this right now. I call psyop on this one.
I've often wondered about Virii. The last time I went to the doctor, they drew blood and checked it. From the doc's own mouth. "We think you've caught the latest virus, but we aren't sure which it is. It's either RSV or the new one. If it's the new one, you'll probably be in the hospital in a week. Until then, have this anti-biotic."
My old family doc used to say, "You've got the cold or flu bug. Get plenty of sleep, get vitamin C, and get some sunlight." He didn't prescribe anti-biotics all the time.
From what I recall, Anti-biotics are used against bacteria.
How do you go about establishing that something doesn't exist? What's the methodology?
There's a significant difference between believing in Sasquatch and believing in viruses: the virus narrative has been and is continuing to be used to cause tremendous harm to people and, less directly, to earth. It is a narrative of disempowerment and control. It was the entire foundation of the recent plandemic and a major factor in the efforts to establish a digital prison and herd us all into it. It's also the basis of the childhood vaccine schedule that has killed and maimed countless babies and children. Of course, people believe what they will--but believing in Sasquatch or flat earth or fairies is personal and affects no one else. Viruses are an entirely different kind of false narrative that needs to be understood for what it is. (My Substack, This Changes Everything, deals with the reasons why I think it's important that people know viruses do not exist. I invite you to check it out.)
"Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities…"
Indeed they were, and for good reason.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144018/
Once it was empirically established that washing hands prevented infection, the search was on for "contagious pathogenic entities" that might possibly explain the observation. The reason for this is obvious: no other possible explanation fit the observed data. The standard of proof in this instance was repeatability over thousands of cases where hand washing demonstrably reduced infection. Actually identifying the responsible pathogens came later as result of their existence being inferred from observation and various experiments being devised to isolate those pathogens.
"…one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception: In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. "
I could say the same thing about Physics. Dalton postulated the existence of atoms before they were observed. Thompson and Rutherford constructed experiments to test Dalton's theory, the important point being that the theory preceded the experiments. How could it be otherwise, and where's the evidence that suggests virology didn't follow the same method?
That said, no one has ever seen an atom, so why should I believe they exist?
"Pay special attention to the terms dependent variable, independent variable and control which are all necessary and required under international standards of science for all scientific experiments."
No they're not, in fact control groups are in some cases highly unethical in clinical trials. That's why Dr. Didier Raoult broke his HCQ trial and administered to the entire group, because the effectiveness of HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin was empirically established and some patients in the control group would have otherwise died. You don't let your subjects die just to prove a point, but he was actually criticized for not doing that!
"necessary and required under international standards of science"
Where? Show me where these 'international standards" are codified. Plenty of scientific work lacks one or another of the conditions mentioned. Much of modern physics in fact. This fixation on 'control' is an artifact of medical research, not a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. Sheldon Cooper postulates the Coopertron and Leonard Hofstadter wrangles some time at CERN and sets up an experiment to test the hypothesis. He finds the Coopertron in the mass and energy range predicted, and repeats the experiment multiple times with the same result each time, thus validating the hypothesis. Where's the control in that situation? There isn't one. You either find the predicted particle or you don't.
I wander the net like a Bedouin on a camel, stopping now and then to observe and occasionally join the conversation. One thing I've noticed on over a dozen sites that deal with the 'pandemic' is that whenever the subject of viruses comes up, there's always someone who'll make the claim that they don't exist, and if you challenge them, they often become hostile and even accuse you of being 'controlled opposition.' Not saying that's the case here, but the topic has been raised and it's still early:)
I find this curious. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, but what stands out about it is that the debate is always framed as a Hegelian dialectic, i.e. a choice between one or the other, but never both. Why can't it be both though? Why can't both theories be valid in certain circumstances? I don't see anything about them that makes them mutually exclusive, and yet the debate always degenerates into a polemic, pitting one camp against the other.
This to me looks like yet another control mechanism to keep us spinning our wheels so we never get up enough tour de force to actually do anything. I see the same thing with these endless conferences that Sen. Ron Johnson sponsors. Everybody gets to give wonderful talks and feel important, and they all have their photos taken with the Great Man (hello Jessica) but nothing ever comes of it. Where are the indictments? Where's the Grand Jury? It's been three f'n years already. Not enough evidence? A senior senator can't pass a recommendation to the Attorney General? Come on people. Where's the beef?
Also, when I point out that the guy sponsoring these events is a big supporter of Ukraine and a dyed in the wool Israeli Firster, all I hear is crickets. Same goes for RFK. I guess even scientists need their heroes, but my God, you'd think they could make better choices.
Found this, for what it's worth. Author seems to have her own axe to grind, but her critique is accurate as far as I can tell:
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2021/04/sam-bailey-on-isolating-viruses-and-why-she-is-wrong/
Fear is the mind-killer and taking refuge in logical fallacies to cover up for lack of actually studying a subject and just reading about it, then drawing lots of confirmation biases from followers a sign of societal collapse and a wee bit dunning-kruger.
Something made me produce flu-like symptoms a day after I went to a party where, unknown to me at the time, someone was showing the same symptoms. I am willing to bet that it wasn't meteorites, aluminium foil, wifi or bad hummous that caused it...
I haven't read the article yet but I shall do then probably comment again tomorrow, as I'm tired and about to go to bed.
But for now I'll just say two things.
1/ The entire 'terrain theory' or 'viruses & germs don't exist' is another psyop. Designed to cause distrust in genuine science and associate the 'anti-establishment movement' (i.e. the resistance) with lunatic theories (a bit like flat earth) - thus turning people off the resistance. This is a seriously important point and you seriously shouldn't fall for it. It also applies to other shit and nasty ideas that only serve to discredit the resistance.
2/ The one and only counter-argument you need to know, which the 'no germs' people can't possibly explain is the simple fucking existence of something called the 'adaptive immune system'. If there were no germs/viruses/etc. then there wouldn't be an adaptive immune system. It's something called 'evolution'.
I have been a professional medical translator for over 20 years so let's just say I understand medical fucking science here. Look up 'memory B cells' as a starting point.
I'm tired and I need to go to bed, so I'm not even going to elaborate on this right now. I call psyop on this one.
Learn some basic fucking science.