Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich

[Joe]

How They Find Viruses - explained in 1 minute:

Virology in a nutshell.

Let's say we can't prove by the "isolation" method that viruses exist. We can't, however, prove that they do not. In addition, non "isolation" methods argue in favor of something like viruses existing. So overall, while the "isolation" issue is a problem, the overall evidence argues for the existence of something that fits the description and behavior of what we call a virus.

 

[Seamus]

So far I have avoided engaging in this thread because I find this debate to be kind of pointless. I don't mean that in an argumentative or agressive way, rather I wonder what the point of it is on a practical level. Going back to the first post:

In simple terms, the Germ Theory states that disease comes from germs. The Terrain Theory states that germs are the result of a disease, not the cause.

According to my training and my expereince as a clinician BOTH the terrain (ie the health of the individual and community) AND the pathogen (virus, bacteria, pollen, weticko mind sickness, whatever you want to call it) are important. Maybe I'm being overly pragmatic as a clinician (and I'm playing devil's advocate here to some extent) but does it really matter? It feels like we're going down a rabbit hole with no end with this discussion.

Disease is caused largely by bad nutrition, toxicity, and stress.

I think this is true but I can also tell you that everyone gets sick sometimes, even the healthiest of people with the very best diet, sleep hygene, supplement regimines, etc, etc, and I'm sure nature and Gaby and anyone else who is not a doctor will confirm this. Everyone gets sick sometimes. Maybe it is all in the "terrain" and everyone gets sick because their body is "too damp" or "too cold" or "not enough heat" or whatever we want to call it, but to some extent we're just arguing about semantics. At the end of the day these arguments only have value if they help us understand how to keep ourselves healthy and how to help other people.

By the way, flat earth was an established, untouchable mainstream dogma, just like Darwinism and virology are today, which required a lot of effort of true scientists to be overcome, just like these two things will require.

That's a good point and no doubt there will be new theories that will replace germ theory in the future because it is overly simplistic IMO. I think that comment was made because the flavor of this thread is starting to feel a bit like the flat earth debate. You are asking for evidence that viruses exist and folks are presenting electron microscope scans, which you are arguing are not good enough for various reasons. That's a fair point, germ theory is a theory after all, like so many things. The theory only has value in its application and clinically viral theory is useful because it can guide us to treat patients with medicines that help them to get better.

So I'll end with a couple of questions: what evidence would need to be presented to convince y'all that viruses exist and cause disease? At this point is there anything that anyone could say to convince you? Why does it matter if viruses exist or not?

 

[aimarok]

When I saw how long the article is and with how many pictures, I thought, cool, maybe there will be something interesting there. Sadly, the article is so bad it's embarrassing.

Also, "doing its thing"? It's not doing anything. It's still images. Of "small, round things".

The article actually names two of the four studies that Kaufman showed didn't isolate the virus, which the authors of one of them even openly admitted. Yet the author of this article cites them as proof that the virus has been isolated. So the author is either lying or a moron.

The rest of the article is all based on all the flawed and meaningless methods of orthodox virologists. Same old garbage of very bad science. The author is a mainstream virologist who just believes in the virologist dogma without questioning it. This is regular poor mainstream science, as represented by people like Fauci. Lots of authoritarianism, little science.

And if anybody gets fooled by a still image of a circle to which somebody draws an arrow and says "that's a virus", well, they're probably a lost cause. As has been said, it could be anything, and nothing was done in those studies to determine what it actually is. Without isolation of the virus, which clearly has not been done, none of the claims in the article have any value. It's all make-believe.

I mean, they even use cancer cells, get toxic effects, and determine from that there's a virus involved.

Then they describe an image with the words "isolation of nCoV-2019" and in the next sentence say it's an image of Vero cells, which means NOT an isolated virus.

This is exactly the kind of anti-scientific dogmatic rubbish like Darwinism. All of it is built on foundations that have been demonstrated to be false. They don't have an isolated virus, yet they act as if they do, and everything else they do is built on that false claim.



By the way, flat earth was an established, untouchable mainstream dogma, just like Darwinism and virology are today, which required a lot of effort of true scientists to be overcome, just like these two things will require.

Let's assume EM images above show "something" that was labeled as a virus. Did you see images of Pithovirus sibericum, the biggest known virus? It looks pretty specific to me with definite features.

 

[Wandering Star]

I think the C's say viruses exist. In the next paragraph they speak specifically of an RNA virus.

Now, how this whole Virus thing works is what this thread is trying to solve and the ground theory may be very important.

A crazy idea... and if the virus in its initial form is "information" that somehow enters the patient or zero patients, in which it "creates" something that then infects the body and can then be transmitted or infected to others people. What doctors recognize is, let's say colloquially, "the bug" already working and this is what the laboratories then work with, changing it, making it worse, etc.

(Gaby) In a prior session, they were saying it was not mostly the US experiments that were a threat to humanity, but instead a space virus. So, if that's the case, in theory if there's a 4th density STS virus coming up, will it be a DNA or an RNA virus?

A: RNA.

Q: (Gaby) And what kind of disease will it produce?

A: Most likely to be similar to primitive smallpox.

Q: (Pierre) Primitive smallpox is nasty. It's a descendant of the Black Death.

(L) I think we decided that primitive smallpox was the Black Death.

(Gaby) Smallpox is a DNA virus. So if this is an RNA virus, it could be nastier I suppose.

(Pierre) With 79% death rate, it's nasty.

(Joe) What kind of treatments would be effective against such a critter?

A: Vit C and oxygen.

 

[Wandering Star]

And thinking about what I just wrote, I thought of a cell and its antennas receiving information, after which the cell initiates a process that would be what is later identified as the virus.

Those special cells spread to the person next door and if "the floor" of that person is receptive, she gets infected.

Like I said, crazy idea.

 

[Persej]

You do realize that modern scientists are using modified viruses to change the genes of animals in their experiments in order to prove that certain genes do some things? How are they doing that if viruses do not exist? How are they doing that if they cannot isolate the viruses?

 

[Chu]

There is zero evidence that anything seen under the microscope is actually a virus. None of these particles have been isolated. None of them have been proven to cause any disease.

And I'm not trying to prove viruses don't exist. (You can't even prove that.) I'm actually trying to find evidence that they do. But I'm realising that no such evidence seems to be available because it finally became clear to me that ALL the stuff they claim to be evidence is just wishful thinking with no science to back it up.

So I'm asking seriously, actually - does anyone have anything that can be considered evidence of a virus?

Well, maybe it helps if you compare it with to things.

One could ask practically all the same questions about the concept of a soul, or consciousness. There is no real evidence that they exist. Yet, there must be SOMETHING akin to souls and consciousness from all we observe, right? The extreme materialists deny them both because they can't find tangible evidence.

Virology is still in diapers, and it may be that down the road a lot more is understood. We can call them chunks of DNA, or pieces of information, if you wish. But "something is there". Something reacts and a patient heals with antivirals. "Something" weird was going on with that "something" that made very clever scientists suspect that the Covid "virus" had been tweaked.

The whole thing is SO complex (like fascia, if you want to look into that), that we can only glimpse at the result of a great Intelligent Designer, like you yourself pointed out in your good articles. I know, it's not very satisfactory to inquiring minds, but don't let that influence you like all the bogus stuff did about UFOs, for example. (That's another case of "something" is there, with very little proof, and a lot of lies to confuse the issue. Denying the whole paranormal phenomenon is not the solution either.)

So, just because the evidence seems flimsy or not what we'd like, I think denying the existence of viruses is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. FWIW!

And that's not even mentioning something the Cs said, if it was ever proven to be scientifically true: "Viruses are thoughts made manifest". Well, go prove that one right now! It doesn't mean there isn't truth in it. But it may give us a clue of how complex the entire issue is. Personally, I find it quite fascinating just thinking of possibilities and implications.

ADDED: But the way, souls and consciousness also cannot be "isolated". The person dies, and there go all hints of there even have been a soul or consciousness. That's not enough reason to say that they don't exist. I know it's not that simple, but maybe in a sense, it is.

As for concrete evidence that viruses do exist, I would say there is enough circumstantial evidence, as in the example above (covid and antivirals), perhaps even more concrete than in the case of souls, for example.

 

[nature]

I think this is true but I can also tell you that everyone gets sick sometimes, even the healthiest of people with the very best diet, sleep hygene, supplement regimines, etc, etc, and I'm sure nature and Gaby and anyone else who is not a doctor will confirm this.

Do you mean that in this case, if this individual (the healthiest with good hygiene) gets sick, it's due to a viral infection? If yes, then I'm not convinced, given that our Earth is so polluted. Just an example: in the region where I live, the landscape is magnific (rivers, little mountains, forests, lakes), but water is polluted because of ancient mines. there is this interesting article for curious french readers: Exclusif : la liste des sites miniers empoisonnés que l’État dissimule
Mines pollute the environment deeply and for centuries, even after they are no more used. The technical procedures to extract rare metals uses very pollutant chemicals, aluminium and who knows what. these pollutants flow to springs, groundwaters, rivers, lakes, seas, thus in our water and food.
Plus other types of unvisible pollution like radiowaves, 5G, microparticules in the air. It's too much for the body.
Add to this our emotional state (as explained in NGM), and the healthiest will not excape to diseases. No need to virus, the scapegoat.

So I'll end with a couple of questions: what evidence would need to be presented to convince y'all that viruses exist and cause disease? At this point is there anything that anyone could say to convince you? Why does it matter if viruses exist or not?

It's not if viruses exist or not. They exist; Cs said it. The point is that they don't give the disease they are accused of. Bacterias and fungus can, I've been able to see it in my practice. Whereas I've never seen an evident proof that viruses had been the culprit.
I've been told that that shingle on the skin of that patient is due to zona (just an example), but no proof, neither evidence of cause-effect relation in practice, just the symptomatology teachings from generation to generation.
Are measles due to a virus? Is flu due to influenzae virus? is zona due to VZV virus? is AIDS due to HIV? etc...

Viruses exist. I'm not convinced they exist in the form provided by medicine books, nor by controversial "proofs" (PCR, microscope images). I'm not convinced they have been isolated, nor are able to be isolated.
I'm not conviced they create disease. Thanks to this forum and to SOTT, we know there are lots of created "viruses" injected to guinea pigs and people and these ones (human created "viruses" or "something") creates diseases, serious diseases (not a simple flu).
At the end, I agree with MI: virus story is a hoax. Viruses are the scape goat, as always. To divert us from the real culprit of our ilnesses and disabilities.

 

[Seamus]

Do you mean that in this case, if this individual (the healthiest with good hygiene) gets sick, it's due to a viral infection? If yes, then I'm not convinced, given that our Earth is so polluted.

No I am simply referring to acute illness. I certainly agree with you that pollution, poisoning, toxins, EMFs, malnutrition, parasites and toxic thoughts and emotions play a role, but I usually think of those things as contributors to chronic conditions and things that weaken us and make us more suseptible to acute infectious disease.

Setting the virus debate aside, surely we can agree that there is a difference between chronic illness and acute illness?

 

[Seamus]

I was just thinking about this while I did the dishes and this discussion reminds me of some of the debates we had in Chinese medicine school only in reverse. The basic disease model theorizes that there are internal and external causes of disease. External causes include "the 6 climates" ie "Heat, Wind, Summer Heat, Dryness, Dampness and Cold". The internal causes of disease are the 7 emotions: Anger, Joy, Pensiveness, Worry, Sadness, Fear and Shock. There are also "Neutral causes" like dietary irregularities, taxing fatigue (mental or physical overexertion), sexual intemperance, external injuries and parasites, although those are sometimes split into internal or external.

At the end of the day its just a theoretical model, just like the germ and terrain theories that are being debated here. These models are not the truth and no theoretical model ever will be "the truth". They might be more or less true, but their value is in their practical application, at least IMO.

The external causes of disease are would often cause problems for people who were raised with a strong biomedical background. It was like this debate in reverse. You all are arguing that there's no evidence that viruses cause disease and its all about the terrain. The TCM model uses the language of "climates" like the terrain model and my classmates would get hung up on the idea that "dampness can't cause arthritis, its caused by mechanical overuse, its not true" or "wind doesn't cause infectious disease, that's preposterous, acute resperiatory illness is caused by viruses". One of my classmates quit because he just couldn't accept it enough to get to clinic to see how well the actual medicine works.

I think y'all are really getting caught up in binary thinking, ie there's only one right answer and only one model can be true. You're missing the third element - the individual circumstances. Maybe either model can be "correct" in a certain circumstance and neither one is "the truth". Maybe the answer to "is germ theory or terrain theory true" is "neither and both". Just my two cents.

 

[luc]

Do you mean that in this case, if this individual (the healthiest with good hygiene) gets sick, it's due to a viral infection?

Plus other types of unvisible pollution like radiowaves, 5G, microparticules in the air. It's too much for the body.

Wait, are you saying that there is no such thing as transmission of disease? If so, this strikes me as very strange indeed. I mean, we all experienced child's diseases spreading among groups of friends, classes, etc., like chicken pox and what have you. Measles parties anyone? That much seems obvious. And people in the past clearly understood that too, even though they didn't have any germ theory. Now, how exactly that works is a different question.

I'm not convinced they have been isolated, nor are able to be isolated.

Yes, this seems to me the crux of the matter. Mainstream science, because of ideology, wants to do something that can't be done in a straight-forward way, and then stretches things to convince us it can. The no-virus crowd then says "see, it can't be done, so you are entirely wrong!" But this presupposes the very same ideology: "if viruses exist, they can be isolated in a straight-forward way, but since this isn't possible, they don't exist."

Part of the confusion then seems to come from the materialist-reductionist assumptions that both camps accept. They view the body as a machine: you can "isolate" a virus just you can "isolate" a gear box in a car and study its function. Except that life, in many ways, is not at all like a machine: you rip something out of the body, and it stops working; and you can't put it back in. What's more, the moment you rip it out, it starts vanishing: it goes back to the endless cycle of life. Everything is connected.

While the machine analogy is useful in some ways, another way of looking at life is that it's one big cosmic process, of which certain parts are an aspect. So an organ, for example, is not a "stand-along thing", but must be seen in the context of an organism growing as a whole over its entire lifespan. It is not a gear box.

So, a virus is not a Darwinian survival machine, some sort of nanotech programmed to copy itself. It could be seen as part of the cosmic process: for example, it could be attracted to a certain organism, even over a long time span (teleology), to alter its internal information. And once in the organism, it might be connected to its information makeup in ways we don't fully understand, and change its very nature. No wonder then that we can't "isolate" it - it completely changes once we attempt to do that. It might even become unrecognizable, undetectable in a purely materialist sense. Or it might indeed become the "round thingy" we see on the microscope, whereas before it was something very different. It might even be that the question "is it part of the body, or not?" is simply unanswerable.

So I agree with Chu - something is there, something is going on. It's just that while the machine analogy often fails even on the macro level, it completely fails once we get to the level of viruses and all of that.

Again, mainstream science wants us to believe that a virus is like a gear box or a nano machine that we can rip out and put in a jar, because they can't think differently about life. The no-virus crowd also thinks that way and proclaims that if you can't rip it out and put it in a jar, it doesn't exist. Well, perhaps that's just not how things work.

 

[Chu]

Do you mean that in this case, if this individual (the healthiest with good hygiene) gets sick, it's due to a viral infection? If yes, then I'm not convinced, given that our Earth is so polluted. Just an example: in the region where I live, the landscape is magnific (rivers, little mountains, forests, lakes), but water is polluted because of ancient mines. there is this interesting article for curious french readers: Exclusif : la liste des sites miniers empoisonnés que l’État dissimule
Mines pollute the environment deeply and for centuries, even after they are no more used. The technical procedures to extract rare metals uses very pollutant chemicals, aluminium and who knows what. these pollutants flow to springs, groundwaters, rivers, lakes, seas, thus in our water and food.
Plus other types of unvisible pollution like radiowaves, 5G, microparticules in the air. It's too much for the body.
Add to this our emotional state (as explained in NGM), and the healthiest will not excape to diseases. No need to virus, the scapegoat.

I see your points, but also consider this: All the factors you listed above can weaken anybody's terrain: correct. BUT, some people in the same environment get sick, while other don't. Some people have crazy lifestyles (pollution, bad diet, etc) and they don't get sick. Some people with the minimum amount of pollution, toxins, etc. will catch the flu when a relative has it. So, terrain may not be everything either. Yes?

Another way to look at it: say you have a beautiful plot of land. You take care of the soil, rotate the crops, the ground is fertile (good terrain). A weather anomaly makes it so that the soil is weakened. The Sun starts burning too hot, and cosmic dust brings "pathogens" (or call it whatever you want) that make the soil "sick", because it was never before confronted with them. All of a sudden you have your crops dying or infested with something. Even a great terrain can be affected by new "attackers".

In the case of the human body, things are even more complicated than that. There may be viruses that enhance "evolution", others that cause or contribute to sickness. What matters is the whole, not whether viruses alone cause a disease. OSIT.

It's not if viruses exist or not. They exist; Cs said it. The point is that they don't give the disease they are accused of. Bacterias and fungus can, I've been able to see it in my practice. Whereas I've never seen an evident proof that viruses had been the culprit.
I've been told that that shingle on the skin of that patient is due to zona (just an example), but no proof, neither evidence of cause-effect relation in practice, just the symptomatology teachings from generation to generation.
Are measles due to a virus? Is flu due to influenzae virus? is zona due to VZV virus? is AIDS due to HIV? etc...

Viruses exist. I'm not convinced they exist in the form provided by medicine books, nor by controversial "proofs" (PCR, microscope images). I'm not convinced they have been isolated, nor are able to be isolated.

Okay, but that still doesn't mean that they don't contribute to diseases, just like pollution does, correct? The way they work may be different, but it doesn't rule out all the theory. About isolation, see my post above.

I'm not conviced they create disease. Thanks to this forum and to SOTT, we know there are lots of created "viruses" injected to guinea pigs and people and these ones (human created "viruses" or "something") creates diseases, serious diseases (not a simple flu).

I don't understand this part. Do they, or don't they create diseases? Sorry if I'm slow.

At the end, I agree with MI: virus story is a hoax. Viruses are the scape goat, as always. To divert us from the real culprit of our ilnesses and disabilities.

Although I can understand the reasoning behind it, I think it doesn't help keep our minds open to more possibilities. I have a suspicion that this may be part of a more nefarious agenda: if the "alternative" currents believe that viruses don't exist or don't cause diseases, what happens when a "biggie" (from outer space, say) hits? They may try to blame it on 5G or whatever, while the governments can inject all the vaccines they want because "viruses don't exist" (taken to the extreme view), or don't cause diseases. Blame it on global warming while they are at it. Blame it on anything that doesn't point to another possibility: that viruses are NOT understood yet, and that humans don't have any control over them. Too advanced a "technology" that the authorities may not want people to start digging into.

Maybe viruses don't cause diseases directly, but alter our DNA in a way that make us susceptible? Maybe diseases caused by bacteria and fungi are one kind, and the ones caused by viruses are another. Maybe viruses open up "gate" for either "evolution" or "devolution". Maybe it's about information, and they are a tiny clue about how 4D interacts with our 3D reality. Maybe, maybe, maybe! I think it's better to keep all options open until one knows more.

In a sense, this reminds me of the contrail/chemtrail/HAARP debate. Confusing the issue so that even smart people can be derailed from something obvious, like the cooling of the atmosphere.

My 2 cents, FWIW!

 

[Persej]

You know what is funny? The fact that a psychiatrist asks for a proof of a virus. A psychiatrist. What can a psychiatrist prove in his field of study? Can he show us a source code of human mind? Can he prove any of many theories about human mind that psychiatrists have created? A psychiatrists should have no right to ask for any proof from other scientists before they prove themselves the things they claim are true in their field of study.

At least virologist have some tools to study the viruses, no matter how primitive those tools are. What tools do psychiatrists have to study the human mind?

The situation reminds me of Andrei Martyanov's comments about experts on political science. The people who cannot grasp the complexity of this world are trying to sell us their simplistic worldview.

It is becoming exceedingly obvious that 99% of Western political "scientists" are people who shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions (I underscore: opinions) on any subject dealing with modern civilization in so far as its complex machinery, both directly and figuratively speaking, least of all in the field of warfare.

Warfare, which requires a range of expertise which is not even in the same vicinity of the political "science", because you have to have a rock solid graduate level STEM and tactical-operational background and that means actual service in military and intel environment at the officer level.

 

[Vinícius]

You know what is funny? The fact that a psychiatrist asks for a proof of a virus. A psychiatrist. What can a psychiatrist prove in his field of study? Can he show us a source code of human mind? Can he prove any of many theories about human mind that psychiatrists have created?

no but he can medicate you to the point you agree with him

and then we have psychologists that prescribe psychiatric drugs too..

some of which make you vulnerable to viruses well known

quite an orgy of "science"

 

[Joe]

I think y'all are really getting caught up in binary thinking, ie there's only one right answer and only one model can be true. You're missing the third element - the individual circumstances. Maybe either model can be "correct" in a certain circumstance and neither one is "the truth". Maybe the answer to "is germ theory or terrain theory true" is "neither and both". Just my two cents.

Yeah, that's why so many here were (I think) so reluctant to respond to the somewhat extremist assertion that "viruses don't exist" or "viruses that cause disease (i.e. an immune response) don't exist". It flies in the face of the evidence of our own eyes (as mentioned by Luc) and seems to be the result of a preformed bias produced by government's totalitarian response to the covid BS. While that bias is understandable, we should be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.