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

[KJS]

Just wanted to jump in with an anecdote that I wanted to share. In the city where I live, they monitor wastewater for COVID-19. Two weeks ago, there was a public notification, that the level of genetic material related to COVID-19 there is rising. What a dumb idea and fearmongering I thought... So, last weekend I spent in bed with a fever, muscle ache, and irritation of the upper respiratory tract, with my wife a few days before me with the same symptoms. All of that just days before our 6-month Digital Certificate, acquired by the natural infection, expired. We didn't test for COVID-19, but my wife's friend whom she traveled days before sickness tested positive. This really got me thinking about my dismissive approach related to the whole pandemic that I had. As Joe wrote, COVID-19 surely resurrected a new form of Lysenkoism that sparked deserved outrage, but quite possible there are things that they've got right...

The characteristic feature of science is warranted uncertainty, which leads to intellectual humility.

The characteristic feature of scientism is unwarranted certainty, which leads to hubris.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1546291509397377024

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

OK, lots of responses and I haven't read them all yet. I'll take it one step at a time.

Let's say we can't prove by the "isolation" method that viruses exist. We can't, however, prove that they do not.

Of course, that wouldn't even be possible.
I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying I can't see any evidence that they do.
And the default is - things don't exist until somebody can prove they do.
You can't just claim pink unicorns exist because nobody has proved they don't.
My recent point in this thread is that after understanding what it is the virologists do, I realised their methods can't show any proof of a virus. And since there is a method to do that, they should be using it. The fact that not a single one of them does is at the very least very strange.

For example, the Sott article that was linked here suggests Koch's postulates are obsolete.
Well, Koch's postulates make sense, and they would actually prove the existence of a virus for sure.
The only reason they say they're obsolete is that when they were trying to apply them, they didn't find any disease causing viruses.
So if we have a method to prove something, nobody is using it, and they all insist viruses exist but refuse to use the method that proves it, something is very wrong with this picture.

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.

What methods would that be? I haven't seen any that would make sense.
That same article suggests some new methods, starting with:

1. Strength of association. Are viral nucleic sequences detected in most (all) cases of disease?

Please!

Do you see what kind of nonsense this is?
If they don't isolate the virus, how the hell can they know what a viral nucleic sequence is??
The only way to know that is to separate the virus from everything else, and get the sequence from that.
But they're getting thousands of RNA pieces from something that's 1000 times larger than the supposed virus, and they put that together on a computer based on what they think the genome should be.
Do you see the problem with that? The sequence is made up. And everything else they do then is based on this made up sequence. That seems like a very serious issue to me.

I'll spell it out again: the RNA sequence everyone's working with was NOT acquired from "a virus".
It was acquired from something with 1000 times more genetic material, which they believe contained a virus.
This is an important fact that's at the root of everything that's happening.

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?

As I've just said, it's easy. Just use Koch's postulates.
Without isolating the virus, nothing else is meaningful.
- You can't show it causes disease if you don't separate it from other things that could be causing it.
- You can't get its genome if you don't separate it from other things that provide genetic material.

Why does it matter if viruses exist or not?

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.

If it was only about health, then sure. But there's much more going on.
All the crap the governments have been doing for 2+ years is based on the idea that viruses do exist and cause disease. If that's not true, it has massive ramifications. Everything the governments have done was based on lies, and if people understood that viruses are made up (if that's really the case), they they would all understand the extent of the scam.

But even on a more simple level - it kind of matters whether something exists or not if public policies are based on its existence.


And also, if some people don't care either way, that's fine. This thread is specifically for people interested in it. Others can just ignore it.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

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?

Persej, those are good questions, and somebody should probably ask those scientists. :)
I don't know because I haven't looked into that in particular. Same with what exactly they're doing in the biolabs is unclear.
(I'm sure they can create something that poisons people. But does it have anything to do with a virus?)
The question is whether they're really doing what they say they're doing.
These are the people who claim they have isolated viruses but haven't.
So I'd be skeptical about whether what they call "modified viruses" are really anything such.
Just because they're doing something and getting results, doesn't mean it has anything to do with viruses.
Maybe they think there's a virus there but the effect actually comes from something else - which is exactly what's happening with their cytotoxicity tests that are supposed to prove the existence of the virus.
They do make a lot of assumptions and call things "viruses" without ever isolating them.
But this is not something I've looked into, so only some quick thoughts here.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Yet, there must be SOMETHING akin to souls and consciousness from all we observe, right?

Right. I mean, people are definitely getting sick from something. But first of all, is it some particles? Or is it an effect of EM radiation, stress, and other things? Of course there's also all kinds of pollution, which would be particles, but not viral.
And those things under the microscope - did they come from the outside? Or are they something the cell produced?

"Something" weird was going on with that "something" that made very clever scientists suspect that the Covid "virus" had been tweaked.

About the tweaking - please understand that everyone, including these clever scientists, was looking at that RNA sequence that was acquired without isolation of the virus!
So if somebody sees a HIV sequence in it, that can just mean that the Chinese guys who put this sequence together on a computer included a piece of a "HIV sequence" in it.
But if HIV was made up the same way (which it was), then it doesn't really mean anything at all.
As far as I can tell, all these viral RNA sequences are made up.

And I'm not saying to these scientists "admit there's no virus".
I'm saying to them "do the goddamn science properly so that we can know what the hell is going on".

All their methods are based on ludicrously incoherent foundations.

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!

Again, I'm not denying it. I just got to a point where that evidence doesn't seem flimsy anymore. It seems nonexistent.

1. They have a method to prove the existence of a virus.
2. They are not using it on purpose. They literally refuse to do that and say it's not necessary.
3. They claim that viruses exist and they have proved it.
4. None of what they actually do proves anything they claim.

This is seriously messed up.
It's more messed up when the world is thrown into chaos based on this.

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, that's an interesting one. On that note, I'm not sure what to make of the Cs comments on viruses. Also I feel like no really good questions have been asked about that. (Though IDK how clearly they'd answer any of it.)
My slight suspicion is that when the Cs are talking about "viruses", they might be talking about something different from what the scientists talked about.
So if there's a chance to clear this up during sessions, that would be nice. Like how correct are scientists' ideas about viruses, for example.

And there is also the question of whether viruses (if that's a thing) come from the outside or the inside.
Where do you guys stand on that? Those of you who consider viruses real.
- Do they come from the outside? Or does the body make them? (Or your thoughts?)
- Are they infectious?

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.

Will have to look into how "antivirals" work exactly. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

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.

Yep, exactly. There's plenty that's constantly destroying our health.
Our "immune system" (or basically just "health") is constantly under attack from all kinds of sources.
Weakening our health is the global elite's long-standing policy, so that's always going on everywhere, and there are almost no places to hide anymore. The book The Invisible Rainbow showed that the EM coverage of all our technologies is so vast that you practically can't hide anywhere, including Brazilian forests. And as nature says, there's widespread water pollution and many other things.

If your body is weakened and damaged from all these things, your cells will be dying, you'll have some flu-like symptoms, for example, and you'll go to the doctor. The doctor detects with dumb PCR some chunks of RNA/DNA that match some made up sequence in the database, and you have a "disease". If they look at your dying cells under the microscope, they see some debris that they call "the virus".

But all that's really going on is rather unspecific damage to your body from all kinds of things and your body trying to deal with it.
At least that's a possibility - one that's hardly ever considered.

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).

If you put it this way, then the question is: What is a virus?
Because if we make all these caveats to its existence, what's even left?
That is the thing that led me to my recent thoughts... there doesn't seem to be anything left in the "virus" story that would be real.

Maybe the answer to "is germ theory or terrain theory true" is "neither and both". Just my two cents.

It's quite possible, though that still leaves us with sorting out which parts of which are correct. :)
But you're definitely right that "illness" is very individual. Which is a big problem of modern medicine in general - they like to have simple rules for everything and can't think outside of the box. Most doctors have no ability to judge the patient's individual circumstances.
Related to that - I have recently heard many voices from among doctors, saying that in the pre-convid times, giving a diagnosis was for most doctors most of the time just a guess. Basically they have to give some diagnosis because the patient demands it (all result of programming), but much of the time they don't have a clue what the "correct" diagnosis is. They just give some more or less plausible name to the symptoms and the patient is satisfied. It sounds "sciencey".

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?

I invite you to think about it a lot more, like with the Darwin stuff. Because it's not really as clear-cut as you think, and this view has been programmed into all of us all our lives (just like evolution shit).
How many kids in those parties got the measles? How many didn't? Why not everyone? Was it at least most of them?
Did one get it from another, or did they just develop it at around the same time?
What other triggers than catching it from one another could there be?

Imagine somebody got the idea that suntan is caused by a virus. People, with sufficient programming, would be able to find just as much "evidence" that people catch suntan from one another as they do with flu.
It doesn't always work? Well, neither does the flu. If some made up RNA sequence was assigned to suntan in the same ridiculous way it's done with flu, they could claim you have the suntan virus even when your skin is light. Cause you're a goddamn asymptomatic carrier! (Yep, bullshit is sophisticated these days.)

Also, does everyone who gets the flu "catch it from somebody else"? Much of the time you couldn't trace it to anyone.

And think about this: If getting a cold is a matter of a virus, and you have to catch it from someone else, then that would mean that if you go to live in the mountains for 6 months alone, with nobody around, you could not get a cold even if you fall into freezing cold water, because it comes from a virus and you have to catch it from somebody.

I think anyone can tell this is nonsense. You can get a cold in the mountains alone. But in that case, contagion isn't necessary. And if it's not necessary for one, it's not necessary for others as well. So something triggered the cold. (Not sure how a virus even comes into play in this mountain example, but let's put that aside.)
Then what are the triggers? Did the kids in the measles party catch it from another kid, or was the disease triggered in a few of them by some other means? Why didn't everyone get it?

This is all complex and there are many possibilities. And part of our problem is that we are programmed to think a certain way - look for viruses and contagion, even when things could be explained some other way. usually nobody is even looking at other options.

I'm not saying contagion doesn't exist at all. I don't know all the details of how every disease starts and where it comes from. But I think much of what's considered contagion actually isn't. (And in the case of viruses, it seems to be rubbish overall, imo.)

I recently thought about possible other mechanisms for disease "spreading" or things that can be interpreted as contagion:

- Exposure to same environment, toxins, food, etc. This should be clear.
- Stress, fear, trauma. This alone could explain much of convid.
- Newly established habits, like maybe wearing a stupid face mask.
- New practices like poking people in their noses and throws with dubious test kits.
- Vaccines. Duh.
- Shocks to the body, like sudden cold or whatever.
- Morphic resonance. I think we've talked about that here.
...and probably more.

Pandemics can be "caused" by vaccines, new EM technology, the media freaking you out 24/7, and other things. Keep in mind that, as I've mentioned, our bodies are under constant attack from many directions, so these things are not the whole cause, just the straw that broke the camel's back.

No wonder then that we can't "isolate" it

Well, it can be done. Lanka has done it with that "sea virus" and found out it doesn't cause any disease. (After which he thought it was kinda dumb to call it a virus.) It's not easy, due to exosomes and other similar things, but it's not impossible to isolate particles this small. It's just that virologists refuse to do it.

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.

Sure, fair enough. But if nobody has seen a virus, why assume it exists in the first place? Again, it was conceived as a theoretical thing, more than a century ago, without any evidence, and since then, evidence still hasn't been provided.
Why start from the end that it does exist?
So again, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but why does somebody say it does when they can't show any evidence and refuse to use the methods that would clarify the issue?

Also the definition of a "virus" isn't even properly agreed upon (it may or may not need to be a pathogen, depending on who you ask), yet people are sure it exists. That doesn't even make sense.
It's like saying "I don't know what exactly Hexgrofnumgul is, but I'm sure it exists and causes the flu."

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?

Well, to be fair, just because 10 people are exposed to the same environment, doesn't mean they end up with the same inner terrain. Inner terrain is to an extent a result of long-term influences and condition, and it includes mental state, or even knowledge. So even if 2 ppl live in the same conditions for 50 years, just the fact that one is an optimist and another a pessimist can make a huge difference in their terrains. It's complicated in all directions.
(Not taking away your point, though.)

Maybe viruses don't cause diseases directly, but alter our DNA in a way that make us susceptible?

Maybe. That's why somebody should isolate one of those bastards and do some scientific experiments instead of voodoo mumbo jumbo.

Maybe, maybe, maybe!

Exactly! Too many maybes, too little science!

It flies in the face of the evidence of our own eyes

I dunno, man. I'm only following the evidence and here's where it took me. You have the "evidence of a virus with your own eyes"? You some kinda superman or something?

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

OK, and now finally to what I wanted to post today.

No official institution can show that SARS-CoV-2 virus exists

Christine Massey has been using Freedom of Information requests as a research tool to unearth the truth about SARS-CoV-2.
Along with many others, she tried to get some evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus from more than 100 institutions around the world.

Jon Rappaport interviewed her.

So once I learned from people like David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Thomas Cowan that the alleged [COVID] virus had never been isolated (purified) from a patient sample and then characterized, sequenced and studied with controlled experiments, and thus had never been shown to exist, I realized that freedom of information (FOI) requests could be used to verify their claims.

Most people are not going to take the time to check all of the so-called “virus isolation” studies for themselves, so FOIs were a way to 1) ensure that nothing had been overlooked, and 2) cut to the chase and back-up what these gentlemen [Kaufman, Cowan, Crowe, Lanka] were saying, if they were indeed correct.

So in May 2020 I began submitting FOI requests for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient, by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Q: How would you characterize the replies you’ve gotten from these agencies?

A: Every institution without exception has failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing purification of the alleged virus from even 1 patient sample.

Twenty-one of the 22 Canadian institutions admitted flat out that they have no such records (as required by the Canadian legislation). Many institutions outside Canada have admitted the same, including the CDC (November 2, 2020), Australia’s Department of Health, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, the UK Department of Health and Social Care…

You can read the whole interview here:

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey - Truth Comes to Light

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News October 7, 2021 With a background in biostatistics, Christine Massey has been using Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests as a research tool, as a diamond drill, to unearth the truth about...

truthcomestolight.com

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

This is a great panel discussion about monkeypox, covid, and virology in general:

Monkeypox Mania Summit

Host Alec Zeck of The Way Forward presents a live summit to dissect and debunk the monkey business surrounding both monkeypox and the theory of pathogenic viruses at large. Featuring in order of appe...

odysee.com

Ten guests, two hours & 22 minutes, all very interesting stuff.

 

[Joe]

I'm still a bit bemused by the claim that sars-cov-2 doesn't exist, with the implication that NO viruses exist. Is that REALLY the contention of some people here?

 

[Seamus]

And also, if some people don't care either way, that's fine. This thread is specifically for people interested in it. Others can just ignore it.

Its not that I don't care, it just seems like a pointless discussion because you seem to have already made your mind up. Its even difficult for me to pin down exactly what we're discussing/debating in this thread.

As I've just said, it's easy. Just use Koch's postulates.
Without isolating the virus, nothing else is meaningful.
- You can't show it causes disease if you don't separate it from other things that could be causing it.
- You can't get its genome if you don't separate it from other things that provide genetic material.

My understanding of the problem with applying Koch's postulates to viruses is that viruses are not self replicating. Koch's second postulate states "The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture" but viruses can't grow on a pure culture.

So according to Koch's postulates viruses can't be "isolated" in the same way that bacteria and fungi can, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means that we can't apply Koch's postulates to them. Its another example of a theoretical framework that works in one circumstance but not in another. It doesn't mean that Koch's postulates are "wrong" or that viruses don't exist, it just means that Koch's postulates have value when examining bacteria and fungi and other microorganisms, but not for viruses.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I'm still a bit bemused by the claim that sars-cov-2 doesn't exist, with the implication that NO viruses exist. Is that REALLY the contention of some people here?

Well, the fact is that the problems with sars-cov-2 are the same for other viruses as well. Lanka and others have been searching through the literature and couldn't find a single study that isolated any virus. So the isolation problem is not just a matter of sars 2. Lanka already did this work in the 90s, so he was a bit ahead of the curve. Many others only started looking into this in 2020 because of C19, but the problems have been always there. The governments just kind of forced more people to start asking questions.

My understanding of the problem with applying Koch's postulates to viruses is that viruses are not self replicating. Koch's second postulate states "The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture" but viruses can't grow on a pure culture.

True, there is that difference. But this is easily resolved. Nothing is stopping the scientists from isolating the virus after they grow it in a culture. Otherwise you're not determining the effects of a virus but of that whole culture, and you're not getting RNA from a virus but from the whole culture, with all the crap they add to it.

 

[Chu]

True, there is that difference. But this is easily resolved. Nothing is stopping the scientists from isolating the virus after they grow it in a culture. Otherwise you're not determining the effects of a virus but of that whole culture, and you're not getting RNA from a virus but from the whole culture, with all the crap they add to it.

But MI, why is this so important? I don't get it. If isolation isn't possible, that doesn't prove that viruses don't exist/cause diseases. Just that they don't behave in such a way that isolation is useful or possible. You seem to be ignoring several of the arguments here, and not really considering other options. You know better than the average person the scam of materialism, yet in this instance, you insist on the isolation problem, which is materialistic from the get go.

 

[hlat]

I appreciate Mandatory Intellectomy poking holes in the official narrative of covid and darwinism. He is asking for scientific evidence, and in science that's a very appropriate request. The fact the scientific method is unable to answer certain questions is also useful in showing the limits of science.

 

[Revolucionar]

@Mandatory Intellectomy I think you did a great job of sifting through the technical detail and I believe you're justified in your conclusion that the science of virology is something of a pseudoscience on par with Darwinism, but I also think you're missing the forest for the trees.

Whatever viruses are on the most basic biochemical or molecular level, we can clearly see their effects on a macro level.
Infection is most definitely a thing.
Since the days of antiquity leper colonies were commonplace. Lazaretos were a thing since the 15th century. Quarantining people to avoid the spread of disease wasn't invented in 2020. I'd wager it's been done since time immemorial.

People realized this basic reality of infectiousness for a very long time and with good reason.
It was mentioned several times already but you seem to ignore or gloss over these facts claiming that there's no proof.
What more proof do you need outside of chickenpox parties? And once you get them you're apparently immune.

Now, whether these are what we think of as viruses or if they're something like exosomes, doesn't really matter. It's how they behave in the epidemiological sense. You can model this stuff mathematically with a high degree of precision (unless you're Ferguson).
These things may well be a product of an already diseased terrain, but they most certainly are able to transmit to another person and cause the same or similar ailment even if the other person has healthy terrain, so to speak. In such a way, they could have been propagating down through history, mutating along the way and you have yourself a chicken or the egg situation. So it doesn't really matter. I'd bet both possibilites can be true at the same time.

As far as isolation goes, you keep holding on to Koch's postulates like they're the holy writ.
What if they were Pasteur's postulates? Would you be holding them in equal regard?

It appears that viruses are not able to exist in an isolated culture. They seem to be ephemeral in some way, which goes along with their role of 4D to 3D interface. The fact that scientists seem reluctant to acknowledge this fact, doesn't mean that viruses don't exist or don't cause disease.

For you to make this claim, I think you first need to address the reality of infectious diseases and I'm afraid that referring to the possibility that all of it is merely environmental or endogenous just doesn't cut it.
If you look at covid, practically the entire world got it, which makes the environment as varied as it can be. The symptoms were very consistent across the board. So what could have caused it other than something like a virus?

 

[aragorn]

I find this discussion both fascinating and confusing – arguments provided both 'for' and 'against' appear to have merit. I guess it comes down to, as Chu pointed out, if you examine viruses from the pure materialistic perspective or from a more 'esoteric/4d' perspective. On that, a little side note: I just started reading the book that was recommended on the Descriptions of afterlife thread (Atwater's We Live Forever, excellent book btw!) and I was struck by the authors description of 'blobs' that she could see floating after she had died and exited her body. Later she understood that these 'blobs' were manifestations of various thoughts floating around – 'blobs of thoughts' that effected all living things around them. So, what I'm getting at with this is that the lack of our understanding of 'viruses' could be because of them being some kind of specialized 'thought froms' that affect us.

Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of points from the materialistic perspective. In one of the several dozens of podcasts related to Covid that I've listened to in the past years I remember some of the experts (might have been McCullough, v.d. Bosche or Malone) saying that the way they 'sequenced' the original Wuhan coronavirus was the following (simplified, I'm sure): (1) they identified the individuals with the same symptoms (2) they took samples (maybe fluid from the lungs?) from these individuals (3) they analysed the samples' DNA sequences, and then (4) identified which snippets of DNA sequences in these samples were both 'new' and in common. Hence, they got the DNA sequence for this new coronavirus. I remember that this expert added that this was in no way conclusive/super-specific and that's why the Covid PCR test was dubious – it identified a pattern of 'something' that was there but as the old saying goes, correlation (the same pattern in the sick individuals) doesn't guarantee causation.

This got me thinking of all the models and illustrations of SARS-CoV-2 and especially the spike protein part. If, as has been pointed out, the 'microscopy thing' (where's R. Rife with his super-microscope when we would need that? ) is not that good, how have they been able to come up with these models? They talk e.g. about how new variations changes this and that in the spike protein part, and we all remember how Montagneur said early on that the thing looks man-made because something similar to HIV was inserted in the structure. How can they get down to this kind of detailed analysis? My layman's guess is that this has to happen somehow with the use of genetic sequences and computers. I have no idea but is it possible to see, using a computer program, what kind of thingy a specific DNA sequence will 'grow'? After all, didn't they produce the RNA code that they use in the 'vaccines' by using computers in some way?

As I have two kids I've been through the usual routine of having various child diseases and 'stomach bugs' making their rounds in our family. For instance, a couple of years ago the kids had Chickenpox: first our daughter caught it, developing blisters, and a couple of days later our son got the same thing. Us adults didn't get any symptoms since we already had immunity from going through it in our childhood. So, witnessing all that I find it close to impossible not to conclude that 'something', let's call it a virus, is spreading between individuals and making some of them sick.

I don't mind this 'debate' to go on, I find the discussion interesting and educating.

 

[nicklebleu]

Maybe viruses don't cause diseases directly

That’s actually the case - the virus itself doesn’t produce any disease, it’s the immune response to the virus that does, or so mainstream virology thinks.

But at the end of the day, that is semantics! I agree with Chu, that there is something out there that does somehow affects our bodies and does something. I know that sounds a bit silly, but I think that is exactly the state virology is in - with a hefty dose of materialistic thinking and foregone conclusions on top of that as MI has shown.

It also seems that this something is transmissible somehow. Whether or not it can be isolated - I don’t know. In my mind the evidence is a bit inconclusive either way, as the definitions of ‘isolated’ seem to be used differently.

I think at this point in time we just can’t say more and my hunch is that looking back in 50 years time people are going to say “They were kinda right, but they essentially missed the whole point!”

I for one will continue holding the admittedly materialistic and simplified version of “yes, there is a virus, and if I get affected, there are things that I can do”, realizing that this is probably way more complex and that in some instances there might be nothing that I can do if I get sick.