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

XPan

The Living Force
I will throw this into the discussion...
(Exosomes)

It was spoken about in the latest Corona Investigative Committee, No 112 "The Disgrace" - in which Dr Wolfgang Wodarg mentioned an interesting snippet: That it has come to the fore, being proven in the lab, that the spikeproteins (and nanoparticles) are found in exosomes, identified with help of gold in order to make them become visible.


The spikes also spread through the body (via exosomes), the latter which are information snippets between cells (even e.g. when a cell disintegrates, it then spreads the information to other places within the body, both good and bad - and here I am thinking of cancer for example). So, Wolfgang Wodarg connected the exosomes to the shedding effect / transmission ! We have now indeed something additional, which isn't strictly a virus, but acts like one - where cells are involved to create exosomes (+cargo), to spread information outside of the cell membranes within the body to other places. And it is believed that this happens outside of the body, too !


Karen Kingston later in the session, also confirmed that in the Pfizer study for toddlers (for FDA approval of the Pfizer injections), that this shedding effect was very real - and highly detrimental. (It was actually a pretty horrible to listen to the more it sunk in; very daunting about the illnesses and deaths revolving babies, and the absurd, literally psychopathic lies "with a bit of truth" in their papers, when analysed by Karen Kingston). But now i have partially gone off the theme in this thread.


My point here is to highlight

that exosomes seem to play a much larger roll in the "information exchange and transfer of information" [things we associate normally with virus]. Sounds in a way like a virus, looks like a virus... Wolfgang Wodarg mentions that this area is rather new and it would require much more research.

I must confess, that I absolutely loved how @Mandatory Intellectomy punched it here - by really going deeply into the strange, contradictory world of virus, science and infections. Raising many good questions, indeed. I have been pondering about it for many months, and I still feel like I am with one leg in the Germ Theory, and the other leg in the Terrain Theory.

I do not exclude any of them, though - because I sense that both theories hold important, vital keys ! I suggest; cooperate, discuss, dig in, be curious. Instead of erasing one theory from the other, because that knowledge has not yet unfolded enough yet to be sure what is what really.

(where's R. Rife with his super-microscope when we would need that? :-D)

Oh man, I love your sentence, aragon ❤️ Now really, where IS that Rife super microscope ?!?

I've been wondering many times for the past two-three years, how it would be like, "to start from scratch", like students, learning and observing the living world of tiny particles / entities... what they do, how they change, and what they are changing into... how they relate, and so on. To ask questions. To be curious about how this all might work in real life, so to speak.


Virology like a Snowpiercer

Sometimes it feel as if today's virology resembles more like a Snowpiecer or Steamroller (train) - which has left behind half of it's wagons in the snow, buried in ice and snow. Why is it so hard, to go back to the roots - in order to observe and learn from scratch ? In order to see what we may have overlooked when it comes to transmission, virus, particles, small entities - and human bodies ? Instead of ideas which over decades which appear to have solidified into fact, like written into stone ?

I do not rule out that virology has collected a lot of good knowledge - but at the same time I wish to remind - that we do live now in a world in which knowledge has become vastly corrupted. Everything should to be allowed to call in question, to be discussed. It is vital - now in a time in which shifts from criminal-industrial "healthcare" to individual human healthcare, highlighting body, soul and mind and our responsibility - to acquire and as well re-acquire nature's wisdom.

I mean there are plenty of aspects within Virology and health, which we may have overlooked in places we least expect to find anything; about the inner workings in the small particles in and out of our bodies... I often get the feeling, that something essential just doesn't add up in virology - but i can't put a finger on it.

I believe @Mandatory Intellectomy tried to do exactly that; To raise questions. I give him the benefit of the doubt, and he doesn't need to do it in a perfect way, served on a silver platter. The vital aspect of it is - to raise and ask questions. To put forwards thoughts, theories, findings - and we are discussing and comparing it. And we also could leave doors open to the unexpected, too. Instead of claiming established consensus in these matters. I do believe more in viruses today, yes (e.g. I don't dismiss them) - but that doesn't mean i shut the door to the many other still unknown aspects (or even forgotten) to man in 2022.

I think that is fair !

_-2022-07-12-at-08.04.07.jpg
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Pandemics can be "caused" by vaccines, new EM technology, the media freaking you out 24/7, and other things

As @Revolucionar already mentioned, people have been sick hundreds of years ago too, without all of that. Not only that, but they quarantined the sick. Without germ theory, media pundits or the scientific establishment.

I have personal, honest-to-God experience of straight-forward infections caught from my buddies. As a child, and also very recently. Irrefutable.

See, this is the problem with such wild claims as "there is no transmission" or "viruses may not exist at all" - you entangle yourself in a web where you need to come up with ever-wilder claims to fit the evidence. (Transmission, antivirals, dna insertion via virii, the fact that epidemiology actually does work if done right, etc.) And you try to make others question straight-forward experience.

(It's actually similar to the Darwinism/materialism thing where they try to bully you into questioning totally obvious things, such as that genuine altruism exists, that in some way there is intelligence behind the nature/the cosmos etc.)

I simply won't deny my straight-forward experience in favor of some far-fetched theory. I'm done with that sort of thing forever. F**k "science".

Well, it can be done. Lanka has done it with that "sea virus" and found out it doesn't cause any disease.

I don't get it. So are you saying that this virus does actually exist and has been purified, it's just that it doesn't cause disease? If so, see my post above: however a virus "works" and causes disease may be much more complicated than that and in some ways outside the current scientific paradigm. Perhaps the "purification" changes it, inactivates it, or whatever. Perhaps it needs to be "docked" into an information field, or perhaps the pattern of DNA is just the tip of the iceberg (like with genes in the cell) and there is MUCH more information in the "regulatory context" around it, etc.

Again, we still know very little; and whatever a virus is or isn't, it is very close to the boundary where things get murky and the distinctions get blurry.

Maybe look at it this way: Nobody has ever seen ("isolated") an electron, or a radio wave, or a quark, or whatever. It is technically impossible. These things can only be discerned by their effects. So you could write letters to all physics departments and demand "proof" that an electron exists. They will send you documentation of their experiments, such as in a Wilson cloud. Then you will argue "but that's only indirect, and it has never been isolated!! It could be anything! All physics is a big scam!!" Same with radio waves etc.

And to a degree, you would be right, in the sense that much of physics presupposes materialism and a "thing ontology", which may be wrong, or only part of the picture. But it still explains a whole lot and is super useful.

Like it or not (and most scientists today hate it), ultimately we get into metaphysical terrain here (which also includes math and its relationship with reality), and without it there are limits as to how close one can get to the truth.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.

I must confess, that I absolutely loved how @Mandatory Intellectomy punched it here - by really going deeply into the strange, contradictory world of virus, science and infections. Raising many good questions, indeed. I have been pondering about it for many months, and I still feel like I am with one leg in the Germ Theory, and the other leg in the Terrain Theory.

I appreciate it too, and I hope that MI doesn't think otherwise. The danger I see, though, is that on top of going in circles, by questioning one type of programming we can throw the baby our with the bathwater.

Science (materialism) asserts many things, and has programmed people big time. We are right to question them. But there are also good things about science.
Religion, on the other hand, instilled in people the idea that we shouldn't question anything (God). Wrong, but there are still good things about religion.

I'll try to explain: If we only look for tangible proof/isolation/etc., we are doing science, but we also run the risk of losing our capacity to be AWED. That's what I see a bit in this discussion. Why can't it be both? Viruses (or something akin to them, RNA chunks, etc) exist, and it's not as straight forward as science will have us believe, but their mechanisms are so complex, we can be at awe at the marvels of creation. The technology speaks of a level of knowledge we don't yet possess. We can (and should) ask many questions, but also staying realistically humble about our own ignorance and (for now) inability to understand certain phenomena. If we don't consider the "magic of creation" together with the "rigor of science", we run the risk of missing many things. OSIT.


I don't get it. So are you saying that this virus does actually exist and has been purified, it's just that it doesn't cause disease? If so, see my post above: however a virus "works" and causes disease may be much more complicated than that and in some ways outside the current scientific paradigm. Perhaps the "purification" changes it, inactivates it, or whatever. Perhaps it needs to be "docked" into an information field, or perhaps the pattern of DNA is just the tip of the iceberg (like with genes in the cell) and there is MUCH more information in the "regulatory context" around it, etc.

Those are good possibilities too!

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.

I think it's a good idea to ask, and I've saved your questions. However, I'm not so sure that in this case their definition is very different from the scientific one.

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.

I think nicklebleu and others answered that one.

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".

Yes! And very often they admit to that, at least many doctors I've met. That's part of how humans work. Pattern recognition. It's done in other disciplines too, not just medicine. It's kind of the best we've got... I wouldn't see much "conspiracy" in that. Sure, there can be some hubris, but the same applies to us if by "busting (something) wide open" we assume to have more answers than we have.

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?

I don't think anyone knows the exact answer to that. Your post also reminded me of the description of how viruses behave in one of the books about the Black Death. I can't remember the author though! At that time, there was no technology to speak of. Yet, the contagion rate was very interesting to note (21 days of incubation, and it could be traced by the death records in parishes, determining who had traveled from point A to point B). There were also weather phenomena that might have contributed. I think those books contain clues that can be ignored when you focus more on modern days.

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.

Luc took the words out of my mouth. I was thinking of electrons. They are an excellent example of what is being discussed, I think.

Maybe look at it this way: Nobody has ever seen ("isolated") an electron, or a radio wave, or a quark, or whatever. It is technically impossible. These things can only be discerned by their effects. So you could write letters to all physics departments and demand "proof" that an electron exists. They will send you documentation of their experiments, such as in a Wilson cloud. Then you will argue "but that's only indirect, and it has never been isolated!! It could be anything! All physics is a big scam!!" Same with radio waves etc.

And to a degree, you would be right, in the sense that much of physics presupposes materialism and a "thing ontology", which may be wrong, or only part of the picture. But it still explains a whole lot and is super useful.

And again here, maybe electrons are not exactly what science presupposes, but they sure have me in awe at creation and the world in general.:-)
 
If isolation isn't possible, that doesn't prove that viruses don't exist/cause diseases.
You're going at it from the wrong end. Nobody is trying to prove viruses don't exist. Nobody has to prove that. Somebody should prove that they do, and nobody has. Why are we starting with the assumption that a hypothetical particle that nobody has ever seen exists?

Just that they don't behave in such a way that isolation is useful or possible.
You know how these imaginary hypothetical particles behave? You know that nobody has ever seen them "behave" in any way whatsoever, right?

If somebody reorganizes your whole life because supposedly invisible pink unicorns threaten society, it should not be my task to prove that these things don't exist and the whole thing is bullshit. They should prove that these unicorns are real. Otherwise they can tell you anything they want and you just accept it and justify it with "well, it's OK, these unicorns are invisible, so we can't prove anything and should just obey".

I'm not sure why basic principles like that are hard to understand for most people.

See, you guys are convinced that you're observing some effects of viruses, so that's good enough for you. As for me, I'm observing some effects, but if I have no evidence for viruses and I can explain those effects by other means/causes, I want it investigated and figured out what the actual cause is. I'm not accepting "It's a virus because we say so, so wear a mask, self-isolate, don't go anywhere, etc."



Whatever viruses are on the most basic biochemical or molecular level, we can clearly see their effects on a macro level.
I strongly disagree. We are observing some phenomena. Saying they are "effects of viruses" is a matter of belief.

Quarantining people to avoid the spread of disease wasn't invented in 2020.
Notice how the quarantining in the last two years didn't do squat? Heck, how NONE of the measures based on virus theory were helpful at all?

What more proof do you need outside of chickenpox parties? And once you get them you're apparently immune.
I have responded to those [parties], so just quickly. Is there chickenpox? Sure. Are you immune after getting it? Probably yes, afaik. Is it infectious? I am definitely not convinced about that, as I've described in my reply to luc. Now, is it caused by a virus? We don't have a damn clue because scientists stubbornly refuse to be scientific.

they most certainly are able to transmit to another person and cause the same or similar ailment
I strongly disagree with this one. Transmission is unproven and in fact, has been disproven by many experiments. See the first 14 minutes of The End of Germ Theory
Covid has 150 symptoms and shares them with 150 other diseases and the main ones are just detox symptoms. So "cause a similar ailment" is meaningless. That similar ailment could be 50 diseases with who knows how many other causes.

What if they were Pasteur's postulates? Would you be holding them in equal regard?
If they were the same, sure. It doesn't matter what they're called. They're obviously a meaningful way to show something. Also, I'd accept Rivers' criteria instead. The first Koch's postulate is kinda important, but even without it, it would be a huge improvement. And the Rivers criteria were made especially for viruses. Yet nobody is using them because the results would prove them wrong.

For the 100th time: I'm not trying to prove that viruses don't exist. I'd be happy if people just stopped making false claims and admitted that they don't have a clue whether they exist.

The fact that scientists seem reluctant to acknowledge this fact, doesn't mean that viruses don't exist or don't cause disease.
Again, going backwards here. Why is the default assumption that something made up exists?
Short history lesson:
1. People couldn't explain some diseases, so they hypothesised they must be caused by some small things they can't see.
2. Since then, they were trying to find those particles.
3. They never provided any evidence that they actually found them. (Which didn't stop them from claiming so anyway.)
The End.
How do we end up with "viruses exist" from that?

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.
Well, maybe, maybe not. We don't know. But there are ways to find out. So we can do one of two things:

1. Try to examine any possible cause of these diseases (many of which have been listed in this thread), using goddamn science. Test theories. Do experiments.
2. Say that everything is caused by viruses, f**k anyone with alternative theories. We won't waste time on exploring those.

I'm for option 1. Almost everyone else is going with option 2.

If you look at covid, practically the entire world got it
Really? Based on what? A PCR test, useless in and of itself, looking for a demonstrably made up RNA sequence, which was the only thing that distinguished it from the flu (and other things) because otherwise the symptoms are the same? Do you actually believe that "covid" is a real disease, distinct from other diseases? How do you tell it apart from the flu?

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.
I'm all for exploring this line of inquiry. Like, do masks protect against thought forms? Can thought forms jump on me from a person 1.5 metres away? Will a lockdown protect us from thought forms? If not, can we throw all politicians into the garbage?

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'll have more to say about that in one of my next posts. The process they used is even more hilarious than what I've described so far.

How can they get down to this kind of detailed analysis?
They're basically messing with made up stuff on a computer. (I wish this was a far-fetched answer.)
 
Lab Created Viruses: Smoking Guns or Bad Science? – Dr. Tom Cowan


Here Tom Cowan talks a bit about the biolabs and supposedly injected sequences and stuff.

Between roughly 10 and 25 minutes, he explains how the Chinese got the RNA sequence for SARS-CoV-2.

They got a sample from one person. Yep, one. All of covid mania is based on a sample from one person.
RNA was acquired from the whole sample. No attempts to narrow it down in any way.
identify2.png
From all that stuff, they get short sequences of 150 base pairs. Not a whole genome or anything like that. Just small pieces.
They got 56 million of them!!
Now they let the computer try to make something that looks like a genome, using 56 million of these 150 base pair sequences.
They get 384 thousand sequences! That means 384 thousand things that may be the virus genome (or not).
Now they just need to pick one! So they picked something that they thought was similar to SARS 1. (Guess how they got that one.)
But the genomes (of SARS1 and SARS2) were actually only similar about as much as a human and a cat.
The sequence they decided on has 30k base pairs, so is made up from 200 random pieces (of 150 pairs) stitched together.

This is science?! This completely made up sequence from the lung fluid of one patient?
This is what everyone else has been working with since then, destroying the world because of it.

Nobody sees the problem here? Nobody can see that this is completely made up rubbish?
It doesn't bother anyone that all the shit the governments did in the past 2 years, was based on this?

I mean, if they said, "Look guys, we don't have a clue how to get a real RNA sequence, but we think we should all wear masks", then at least they'd be honest. But they have presented this utter bullshit as a real scientific thing. Which it is clearly not.
 
Do the Pictures on the Electron Microscope Prove that SARS-COV-2 Exists? - Dr. Tom Cowan


Here Tom talks about electron microscopy, among other things.
The most relevant part is between 10-30 minutes. (He usually talks about a bunch of things and answers questions from viewers.)
The paper and images he shows there can be found here:

 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
M.I., I honestly don't understand why you (and the no-virus crowd in general) always mix up a "terrain absolutism" with the question of viruses. These are two very different things.

Even if there are no viruses, at least in any shape or form that mainstream science claims, there could still be a different way of transmission. This is the materialist mindset at work here: either it's a Darwinian nano-machine that you can put in a jar, or there can't be transmission. This is wrong.

Here's an idea: what if how this works is actually akin to homeopathy? Just as thoughts and "vibes" can manifest in water, and have effects on organisms, they might manifest in certain molecules - "thought made manifest". But just as with homeopathy, this can't be understood in the current scientific paradigm.

So one man's multivesicular body/exosome/bacteriophage/cellular waste/viral-like particle is another man's virus: it depends on what kind of information it carries à la homeopathy. And this might change, be influenced by all kinds of things, depending on where it is, what went on before, etc. It might even change the molecular structure itself under different circumstances.

(In some of the control experiments Lanka did where he wanted to show that purified viruses have no cytopathic effect compared to controls, it turns out that when he put some yeast RNA in one of the controls, this actually did show a cytopathic effect. That would indicate that even the mere presence of RNA actually can have effects, it's just that we don't know how it all works because of materialist assumptions.)

Here's another idea: both camps are at each others' throats, both camps are entangled in a web of wrong assumptions about what's going on, and can't see beyond their ideology. How come? Well, if someone wanted to prevent people from knowing what's going on, this would be the way to go.

Here's still another idea: Perhaps the virologists are doing stuff, using PCR tests, computer models etc. that they don't really understand themselves. But they are still doing something, and achieving some results. Going conspiracy here: what if that's the point, that someone wants to manipulate our DNA and other biological features, let's say, but doesn't want us to understand what's behind it all? Well, create virology, heavily control it, let them work under wrong assumptions with dubious materialist models, but teach them enough to cause harm or artificially create "thoughts made manifest" in some molecules to further enslave the human race 👿
 
Karen Kingston later in the session, also confirmed that in the Pfizer study for toddlers (for FDA approval of the Pfizer injections), that this shedding effect was very real - and highly detrimental. (It was actually a pretty horrible to listen to the more it sunk in; very daunting about the illnesses and deaths revolving babies, and the absurd, literally psychopathic lies "with a bit of truth" in their papers, when analysed by Karen Kingston).
It's pretty ironic that much of the most disturbing stuff comes from the Pfizer study itself.

An interesting point in this is, what role do proteins play in possible transmission of something bad from person to person? Proteins are at least more stable than RNA and might possibly be a better candidate to explain some things than a made up pink unicorn. I mean virus.

The exosomes are interesting too. Not sure how likely it is that they could get from one person to another. They only said they believe it's possible. And I still find it strange that a cell would have instructions to "use" something from outside of the body, other than nutrients and stuff it was designed to use.
I think it's a largely unexplored area.

I've been wondering many times for the past two-three years, how it would be like, "to start from scratch", like students, learning and observing the living world of tiny particles / entities... what they do, how they change, and what they are changing into... how they relate, and so on. To ask questions. To be curious about how this all might work in real life, so to speak.
We'd probably end up with some very different theories.

Why is it so hard, to go back to the roots - in order to observe and learn from scratch ?
Too much politics, too little science. And it's getting worse. They're not afraid to tell people outrageously stupid things because they've found out that most people will either believe them, or not do anything about it.

Now really, where IS that Rife super microscope ?!?
Safely hidden from us.
But that's another sign of where we are. We have this amazing thing somewhere that could shed a lot of light on the issue. Why aren't we using it? Why aren't we making the best microscopes?
I mean, this is a totally crazy conspiracy theory, but... could it be because somebody knows it would prove that scientists are full of shit?


As @Revolucionar already mentioned, people have been sick hundreds of years ago too, without all of that.
Well, in those times, people also lived in shit (pretty much literally). We know the so-called infectious diseases have been vastly reduced not by vaccines but by sanitation, hygiene, nutrition. Toxicity and shit was everywhere because nobody bothered with it.

I don't get it. So are you saying that this virus does actually exist and has been purified, it's just that it doesn't cause disease?
Yeah, this gets confusing, partly because there's no clear definition of a virus.
This particle was thought to be a virus, Lanka isolated it, but he found it did not have the properties of a virus. (He actually discovered a symbiotic relationship with some other organism.)
Now, what to conclude from that is up to everyone.
I see a point in the fact that once he applied a real scientific method to determine something, the results were completely different from what virologists assumed.
It took Lanka years to come to terms with what he was seeing.
He himself looks at it now from the perspective that viruses don't exist, so he doesn't classify the particles he identified as viruses.
It depends whether you define a virus as a pathogen or not.
But you could go at it either way. Either it's a virus but doesn't cause disease, or it's not a virus.
But if it doesn't cause a disease, what determines what is and what isn't a virus? And I don't know the answer to that.

Again, we still know very little; and whatever a virus is or isn't, it is very close to the boundary where things get murky and the distinctions get blurry.
That's for sure. Hence the need for open minded science instead of "anybody who thinks it's not a virus is crazy and dangerous", which is the scientific method of the day.

But it still explains a whole lot and is super useful.
Yeah, I get your electron analogy and what you're saying. I'm just finding the practices of virology (see post above "Lab Created Viruses: Smoking Guns or Bad Science") kinda far from super useful the more I look at them. They only seem more and more meaningless the more I understand what the bloody hell they're actually doing.

And really, was all the crap they've told us over the last 2 years actually useful? Somehow I'm not seeing that. Unless you count useful for enslaving people and making rich arseholes richer. In that way it was very useful... to them.

Like it or not (and most scientists today hate it), ultimately we get into metaphysical terrain here (which also includes math and its relationship with reality), and without it there are limits as to how close one can get to the truth.
Agreed.


I appreciate it too, and I hope that MI doesn't think otherwise.
Oh, I thought you were evil and hated me. Dang.

The danger I see, though, is that on top of going in circles, by questioning one type of programming we can throw the baby our with the bathwater.
Definitely see your point there.
Now, let me be clear about this: This is exactly the reason why for 2 years, I stuck with the idea that viruses do exist. And I've never said anywhere that they don't. But I've been studying it more and more, and lately I simply got to a point where I couldn't justify to myself why I still think viruses exist.
That is the point I got to and no further. So I am being careful not to go too far. I certainly don't know everything, and this field is about as murky as it gets. I just keep searching.

I think it's a good idea to ask, and I've saved your questions. However, I'm not so sure that in this case their definition is very different from the scientific one.
Well, just make sure to ask without any assumptions and prejudice. It would be helpful if they could elaborate on it a bit more. Cryptic one liners are OK when it's up to us to investigate, but with this, we've been stuck at a point through which we can't penetrate much with our limited means.
(And that is also great for the PTB - we can't figure out all the details, so they can bullshit us with whatever they want.)
Knowing more about the metaphysical element would be good too. Is it a necessary part? Does it work without it? How can we affect any of this?


Bottom line is, I'm not drawing any clear conclusions. I'm just asking annoying questions. And I'm not trusting authorities one bit.

Tom Cowan says that usually when he was wrong, it wasn't because he went too far but because he trusted authorities too much.
That's kind of where I ended up with this. I had to start questioning virology a lot more than I originally thought necessary.

When you look at that "Lab Created Viruses" video above, it really boggles my mind how the scientists can do this kind of nonsense with a straight face.
 

XPan

The Living Force
I don't get it. So are you saying that this virus does actually exist and has been purified, it's just that it doesn't cause disease? If so, see my post above: however a virus "works" and causes disease may be much more complicated than that and in some ways outside the current scientific paradigm. Perhaps the "purification" changes it, inactivates it, or whatever. Perhaps it needs to be "docked" into an information field, or perhaps the pattern of DNA is just the tip of the iceberg (like with genes in the cell) and there is MUCH more information in the "regulatory context" around it, etc.

Isolation of the Sars-Cov-2 Virus - testing for disease

I want once again refer to the Corona Investigative Committee Session, No. 94 • "Stepping on their feet" - in which Prof Dr Kämmerer outlined how the isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been done. (it was really a remarkable interview, very well done in detail, for whomever is sceptic about the isolation of the virus - and she had some remarkable comments about Lanka's procedures/claims, which didn't really favor his theory, because he made some strange errors (which she explains where and why) - without him ever to correct or withdraw his original papers.



If i remember correctly the virus has been purified in vials through centrifugation & separation (I can't recall what the procedure is called), then concentrated into a spray, with then was tested on volunteers - who did get mildly sick.

I personally would say, while Lanka has some very interesting ideas - OK - but there are some serious faults/errors in his claims and he doesn't provide the evidence needed in order to strengthens his claims. I also applaud for Dr Kämmer for having such an open mind about Lanka's ideas - but adds: you have to show the evidence; explain the where, why and how !

And there I say, too, that is only fair.

Dr Kämmerer, Viviane Fischer and Dr Reiner Füllmich have offered Lanka to cooperate all together, in order to test and prove his theory. So far, they have not gotten together.


"terrain absolutism"

@luc - I love your expression "terrain absolutism" ❤️ I too believe that isn't getting us anywhere, to insist or sound as if there is only one truth / theory. Another "ism" - which is like ... Different, yet all the same principle.
 
Even if there are no viruses, at least in any shape or form that mainstream science claims, there could still be a different way of transmission.
Sure. I'm not saying there can't be.

Just as thoughts and "vibes" can manifest in water, and have effects on organisms, they might manifest in certain molecules - "thought made manifest".
Definitely. I mentioned morphic fields as a possible means of "transmission".

It might even change the molecular structure itself under different circumstances.
That's exactly what pleomorphism says, yes.

Well, if someone wanted to prevent people from knowing what's going on, this would be the way to go.
Really? I think we're doing pretty well here.

Well, create virology, heavily control it, let them work under wrong assumptions with dubious materialist models, but teach them enough to cause harm or artificially create "thoughts made manifest" in some molecules to further enslave the human race
Well, could be, though tbh most virologists seem too stupid to be useful. Sure seems like a scam directed by somebody else, though.



and she had some remarkable comments about Lanka's procedures/claims
I was actually surprised how poorly prepared she was. She knew less about the experiments than I did. She had more questions than answers. (But also, as I had to watch the English version, all spoken by a guy, it was kinda confusing cause I was never sure who was speaking.)

Dr Kämmerer, Viviane Fischer and Dr Reiner Füllmich have offered Lanka to cooperate all together, in order to test and prove his theory. So far, they have not gotten together.
Let's hope this will happen. That could be useful.

BTW in one interview, Steve Falconer of Spacebusters said he talked to Fuellmich about whether viruses exist, and said Fuellmich basically agreed with him that there's no good evidence for it. So he asked him why he doesn't say it publicly, and Fuellmich said that it would be way more difficult to argue from that perspective publicly. (Which is clearly true.) So that was interesting.
At any rate, I've been pretty impressed with Fuellmich's knowledge and understanding of many things.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Seems to me a better model is needed. I'm kinda with MI here. We should look at the facts as objectively as possible. I don't have skin in the game either way. It would be nice however, if there was a model that made sense of both the facts and lived experience. Until then, maybe just admit we don't really know.
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Anyway, here are a few excerpts from Tom Cowan's recent book The Contagion Myth, which summarize both the situation with SARS-CoV-2 and the situation with virology in general.

Quite a few problems with 'The Contagion Myth' as these researchers point out:

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we regularly receive emails from people forwarding links to videos and articles that question the mainstream narrative about the pandemic. It would be a full-time job for more than one person to take in, analyze, and contextualize the great variety of perspectives. We have not made this our full-time job. But we have concerned ourselves with some of the alternative narratives, and continue to concern ourselves with the mainstream narrative. We have no problem admitting that, overall, much remains opaque. More than anything else, there are countless riddles and questions. It is very hard, within the thicket of opinions, to gain a sense that there is a common ground of phenomena that people can agree upon. This is especially true with research on viruses, which is extremely technical, highly mediated by sophisticated technology (electron microscopes, sequencing machines, PCR tests, etc.), and embedded within many assumptions, for example, about causality. You can hardly avoid relying on authorities, but which authorities? How is it possible to discern the truthfulness of what the different authorities are saying?

One person whose views have received a good deal of attention is Thomas Cowan. A video in which he speaks of 5G — and not viruses — as a causal agent in what people call the pandemic went viral. Many refer to him as an authority countering the mainstream narrative, while others state they have debunked his views. Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell published a book in 2020, The Contagion Myth. We decided to spend some time with the book in an attempt to understand their perspective. We have not spent the months we would need to investigate every claim they make by reviewing the literature they cite in the book. We have spent many hours investigating a few central claims and the way they craft their argument. We will not discuss here the causal factors they propose, such as 5G or environmental toxins. We are primarily concerned with their critique of the widespread scientific view that infectious diseases are caused by viruses (and bacteria).

Misrepresenting Research Studies — Three Examples​

To begin with, we consider two examples from The Contagion Myth that are indicative of the way in which Cowan and Fallon Morell report on mainstream research concerning infectious diseases. The first example refers to bacterial infection and the work of Robert Koch (1843-1910), one of the founders of the germ theory of disease. They briefly consider Koch’s research on tuberculosis (TB):

In 1905, Dr. Koch received the Nobel Prize for proving that TB was an infectious disease.

Except he didn’t.

In fact, he could find an organism in infected tissue only by using special staining methods after the tissue was heated and dehydrated with alcohol. The stain was a toxic dye, methylene blue, and the solution he used contained another toxin — potassium hydroxide (lye). When he injected the organism stained with these poisons into animals, they got sick. But what caused the illness, the bacillus or the poisons? (p. 33)

Cowan and Fallon Morell deny that Koch proved that TB is an infectious disease because they claim that Koch injected animals with bacteria and poisons (stains used in microscopy). Since there were, according to them, two components in the injected solution, Koch could not know whether the bacteria or the toxins were making the animals sick. This makes sense. But did Koch do this? The source for their brief description of what Koch did is the English translation of excerpts from Koch’s famous 1882 paper on the “Etiology of Tuberculosis” (Koch 1982). We read the excerpts and then also read the original and much longer German article (Koch 1882).

Koch describes in detail his procedures to examine the tissues that he had taken from the organs of animals that had been “altered by tuberculosis” (p. 1270). As Cowan and Fallon Morell relate, methylene blue and potassium hydroxide were used in the staining procedure. Staining allows the bacteria to stand out under the microscope and makes it easier to distinguish different bacterial species from one another. Koch writes, “in all locations where the tuberculosis process has recently developed and is progressing most rapidly, these bacilli can be found in large numbers” (p. 1271). He concludes, “on the basis of my extensive observations, I consider it proven that in all tuberculous conditions of man and animals there exists a characteristic bacterium which I have designated as the tubercle bacillus, which has specific properties which allow it to be distinguished from all other microorganisms.”

Koch then states “from this correlation between the presence of tuberculous conditions and bacilli, it does not necessarily follow that these phenomena are causally related” (p. 1271). His next step was to isolate bacteria from the body and propagate them in pure cultures in the lab until they were freed from parts of the host organism that might still have adhered to the bacteria. For this he developed a solid nutrient medium on which to culture bacteria. He describes in detail all the steps he took to cultivate the bacteria until he had pure cultures. The whole point of the many procedures was to obtain pure, uncontaminated cultures. These pure cultures were never stained. He only stained bacteria in order to identify them under the microscope. He did not inoculate experimental animals with stained bacteria and “poisons” as Cowan and Fallon Morell claim.

In his paper, Koch goes on to describe how he inoculated experimental animals — mainly guinea pigs — with the pure bacterial cultures and states that in all cases but one the animals developed the symptoms of tuberculosis. For him this was a proof that the bacteria cause the disease and are not just correlated with it.

It is not possible for us to understand how anyone could read Koch’s article and come away with the conclusion that he inoculated animals with a mixture of bacteria and toxic stains. We cannot judge what led Cowan and Fallon Morell to misrepresent Koch’s procedure, but they did not read Koch’s article with the intent to present Koch’s work as accurately as possible. The way they misrepresent Koch allows them to erroneously discredit Koch as a serious researcher, implying that Koch was not smart enough to know that injecting bacteria and toxic stains into animal would provide no proof of the bacteria as disease-causing agents. As his tuberculosis article and his many other articles show, Koch was a remarkably thorough, critical, and careful researcher.

The second example concerns an article published in 2020 describing animal experimentation with SARS-CoV-2, the virus implicated by mainstream science and medicine in the current pandemic (Chan et al. 2020). Here is what Cowan and Fallon Morell write about what the researchers did:

They took unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged snot and (again, without any controls) squirted it down the throats and into the lungs of hamsters. (Where is PETA when you need them?) Some, but not all, of the hamsters got pneumonia, and some died. We have no idea what would have happened if they had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of these hamsters, but probably not anything good. And even more perplexing, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly, contagious virus theory. (p. 52)

In contrast to what they report, if you read the article you will find that, while the researchers did experiment with hamsters,

  • they did not mix “unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged snot”;
  • they did not squirt such a mixture down the throats and lungs of the hamsters;
  • what they squirted into the nasal passages of anesthetized hamsters they describe as diluted “virus stocks” that were obtained from “plaque purified viral isolate” that had been amplified by culturing in VeroE6 cells (which are derived from monkey cells, not lung-cancer cells);
  • these animals became ill, and recovered;
  • they do not report that some of these animals “didn’t even get sick at all”;
  • none of the animals died;
  • the experiment did have controls; the controls had saline solution, without viral stock, squirted into their nasal passages; none of the controls became ill. (See Chan et al. 2020.)
Just about everything Cowan and Fallon Morell relate from the article is false. As in the case with Koch’s tuberculosis experiments, they grossly misrepresent what the researchers did and found in their experiments. If they would have taken care in studying the article, they could have justifiably criticized the lack of detailed reporting on the method of virus isolation and purification; they could have criticized the researchers for saying that Koch’s postulates had been fulfilled in this case, since those criteria don’t apply to viruses (see below). But Cowan and Fallon Morell did none of this; they simply reported on an experiment that never happened in the way they describe it.

Cowan and Fallon Morell are similarly cavalier with the work of those they cite to support their views. They introduce the intriguing work of Luc Montagnier concerning resonance phenomena in aqueous solutions as follows:

Here’s how the experiment goes: first, one puts DNA or RNA in water (beaker one). Then one puts a collection of nucleic acids (the chemicals that make up the DNA and RNA) in a separate water beaker (beaker two), in another part of the room. Then one introduces an energy source, such as UV or infrared light and shines that on beaker one, which contains the formed DNA or RNA. In time, the exact same sequence of DNA or RNA will form out of the raw materials in beaker two. (p. 76)

In the paper that Cowan and Fallon Morell cite (Montagnier et al. 2009), the researchers describe a series of experiments that lead them to posit the “capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions.” The process of obtaining and diluting bacterial DNA and the apparatus needed to determine the presence of the electromagnetic signals are presented in some detail.

The only part of the paper that bears any resemblance to Cowan and Fallon Morell’s description deals with the “homologous ‘cross-talk’ between dilutions.” Discovering the resemblance demands an act of imagination on the part of the reader.

The researchers make high dilutions of bacterial DNA sequences (10-8 to 10-12). Only at the high dilutions could they detect specific electromagnetic signals that differed from the rest of the detectable ambient electromagnetic “noise.” These they call “loud” dilutions. Lower dilution bacterial DNA sequences (10-3) were “silent,” and did not emit those signals. In one experiment, they placed “loud” and “silent” dilutions in capped plastic tubes side-by-side in a mumetal box that shields the samples from ambient electromagnetism. They observed, after 24 hours, that the loud dilutions became silent. When a mumetal shield was placed between the two dilutions in the 24-hour experiment, the effect did not arise. They speak of a resonance phenomenon and cross-talk between the dilutions. Such results only occurred between dilutions of DNA of the same species.

As you can tell, there is hardly any similarity between what Cowan and Fallon Morell describe and what you can find in the article. There is nothing in the article stating that “the exact same sequence of DNA or RNA will form out of the raw materials in beaker two.” Montagnier and colleagues are detecting electromagnetic signal changes, not the resonant creation of specific DNA sequences from a collection of nucleotides.

In the discussion of their results, the researchers point out that the production of such electromagnetic signals has only been able to be repeated “with only certain bacterial sequences.” And they raise the question whether “they are restricted to some genes involved in diseases.”

Although Montagnier is not someone known for his reticence or hesitancy in voicing his views, in this paper he and his fellow authors are quite tentative in their conclusions. They do not claim that their experiments “prove” anything. The experiments “suggest” the presence of a phenomenon that they believe deserves further consideration.

Cowan and Fallon Morell are less tentative in their conclusions, building a theory of disease based on the possibility of resonance phenomena between people living in similarly toxic situations:

When one applies this discovery to viruses (or exosomes) said to cause measles, chicken pox, or herpes, it is possible that since these particles called viruses or exosomes are simply packages of DNA or RNA, they emit their own resonant frequencies. In a way not yet determined, each frequency creates an expression that we call a disease; however, the frequency will create what we call illness only if there is a purpose or reason for the illness. (p. 77)

For Cowan and Fallon Morell to use the tentative conclusions of a study as the basis for positing causal relationships in a context that is foreign to that of the original experimentation is highly problematic. You can wish that they would be as critical of their own methods as they are of those they choose to criticize.

These examples — and there are more in the book — show that when Cowan and Fallon Morell refer to research studies, you need to read the studies yourself to see if their depiction in any way conforms to what was done. Such misrepresentations provide plenty of reason not to trust what they say concerning the research others have carried out. Ironically, they repeatedly accuse mainstream researchers of making bogus and fraudulent claims.

Argumentation Strategy​

Cowan and Fallon Morell are centrally interested in convincing their readers that bacteria and viruses do not cause disease; hence the title: The Contagion Myth.

Before they deal with Koch’s research on tuberculosis, they refer to the famous “Koch’s postulates.” These are drawn from Koch’s research and have historically provided a conceptual framework for assessing whether a specific bacterial species can be considered the cause of the disease. Koch’s postulates have been expressed in a variety of ways. Koch himself did not speak of postulates and presented his views on criteria for evidence of causation differently in different publications and at different times in his career (Carter 1985; Evans 1976 and 1993; Gillies 2016; Gradmann 2014). Cowan and Fallon Morell, however, choose to present one particular formulation:

Koch’s postulates are as follows:
  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but not found in healthy organisms.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in a pure culture.
  3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
  4. The microorganisms must be re-isolated from the now diseased experimental host which received the inoculation of the microorganisms and identified as identical to the original specific causative agent.
If all four conditions are met, you have proven the infectious cause for a specific set of symptoms. This is the only way to prove causation. (p. 3)

For their overall argument, it is important for Cowan and Fallon Morell to categorically state that the fulfillment of these four postulates is the only way to prove causation. Holding on to this claim as if it were a self-evident truth, they can go on to “show” that Koch and others have never proved that a disease is caused by bacteria or other microorganisms. This can be for a number of reasons, but especially postulate #1, in the way they formulate it, is rarely (or ever?) fulfilled. This is because bacteria that are implicated in a given disease can be found in some or even many healthy individuals. This was known to Koch, and it has been widely known since his time. We all harbor bacteria that, in other people, or at a different time or in different circumstances in us, can be implicated in a disease. One example is Helicobacter pylori, which can persist in the stomach of a person who is healthy, but can also be connected with gastric ulcers (for a number of examples, see: Monack et al. 2004; Fisher et al. 2017).

So Cowan and Fallon Morell have a neat solution to a complex issue: Because Koch’s postulates are never completely fulfilled, scientists have not proven that bacteria cause disease. The problem with this neat solution is that they set a fixed standard against which everything, for all times, needs to be assessed. They rail against scientists who state that Koch’s postulates are outdated (pp. 73ff.). As I said above, Koch himself never spoke of postulates and “his” postulates have been formulated in a variety of ways by different scientists. As Cowan and Fallon Morell themselves point out (p. 3), Koch knew that the criteria for causation he had articulated in his tuberculosis experiments could not all be fulfilled, for example, in cholera; experimental animals did not become ill when injected with cholera bacteria that had been cultured from ill humans. Nonetheless, Koch gave a variety of reasons why he thought bacteria are causal agents in cholera.

Cowan and Fallon Morell pick out one formulation of Koch’s postulates as their universal measuring stick. They even compare the postulates to Newton’s laws of gravity (p. 75). They don’t allow for an evolution of scientific thought in relation to the variety of phenomena scientists encounter. This is a convenient and pretty iron-clad way to make sure that no one can claim to have proven causation for a purported bacteria-related disease. Unfortunately, it also means not dealing with the complexities of biological realities, research, and the nature of understanding.

When Cowan and Fallon Morell address diseases that are purported to be related to viruses, they implement the same strategy. Koch’s postulates have to be modified for viruses because viruses only reproduce within living cells of another organism. They cannot be grown on nutrient media, but need to be grown in cell cultures. They then have to be separated from tissues (which is an involved process) before scientists speak of “viral isolates” that can then be used in inoculation experiments.

As they did with Koch’s postulates, Cowan and Fallon Morell take one set of criteria against which they judge all experiments relating to viral causation of disease. They enumerate “River’s postulates,” which are based on a 1937 article by bacteriologist and virologist Thomas Rivers (Rivers 1937). They present one formulation of Rivers’ postulates:
  1. The virus can be isolated from diseased hosts.
  2. The virus can be cultivated in host cells.
  3. Proof of filterability — the virus can be filtered from a medium that also contains bacteria.
  4. The filtered virus will produce a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals.
  5. The virus can be re-isolated from the infected experimental animal.
  6. A specific immune response to the virus can be detected. (p. 4)
This list doesn’t come directly from Rivers, whose discussion of the task of establishing causality is remarkably nuanced. Writing about the necessity of moving beyond Koch’s postulates, both for some bacterial diseases and for viral diseases, Rivers remarks that “progress having left behind old rules requires new ones which some day without doubt will also be declared obsolete” (p. 4). He knew that his new criteria for establishing viruses as agents in infectious diseases were tentative and that changes “will in the future undoubtedly occur in the methods of establishing the specific relation of viruses to disease” (p. 11). A variety of methods have been developed and other criteria formulated in the 83 years since Rivers’ article (for example: Byrd and Segre 2016; Carter 1985; Evans 1976 and 1993; Fredericks & Relman 1996; Gillies 2016; Gradmann 2014). Science hasn’t stopped.

But for Cowan and Fallon Morell, Rivers’ postulates are the criteria to assess causation related to viruses. They refer to a number of studies related to SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19, and claim that none of them have fulfilled the postulates (pp. 50 ff.). This is for them proof that viruses don’t cause disease:

Again, this book’s central claim is that no disease attributed to bacteria or viruses has met all of Koch’s postulates or all of Rivers’ criteria. This is not because the postulates are incorrect or obsolete (in fact, they are entirely logical) but rather because bacteria and viruses don’t cause disease, at least not in any way that we currently understand. (p. 4)

Cowan and Fallon Morell continue in a similar vein when it comes to the question of the isolation of viruses. They present one “gold standard” technique from a thesis of a German virologist, Stefan Lanka (1989). The hundreds or probably thousands of virologists who claim to have isolated viruses are all wrong, according to Cowan and Fallon Morell, because they use other methods to isolate viruses than the one Lanka developed. Lanka’s technique is impressive, but it is not the only one. If you look in the literature, you find that there is no one “gold standard” for viral isolation (see, for example, Eisfeld et al. 2014; Hematian et al. 2016; Hsiung 1984; Leland & Ginnochio 2007). We are not virologists and cannot assess their respective strengths and weaknesses. But we see no reason to think that all these scientists are deluded or making fraudulent claims, which is what Cowan and Fallon Morell believe they have shown.

Cowan and Fallon Morell write that “the entire world of medicine, virology, and immunology” is mistaken in believing that “many of our common diseases are viral in origin” (p. 67). Is there reason to believe that people who say “a disease is caused by infectious agents” are oversimplifying a highly complex relationship between a virus, its host organism, and the environment? Absolutely. Is it justified to dismiss 150 years of research that focuses on one aspect of that relationship? We don’t think so.

We do not agree with the widespread, all-too uncritical use of the terms “cause” and “causation” that one finds in the scientific literature, or with the one-sided focus on infectious agents that often ignores the larger questions of health, resiliency, and dispositions for becoming ill. The problem is even worse in mainstream media and politics, where viruses become “the enemy.” We have presented a broader, ecological view of viruses elsewhere (Holdrege 2020). We are open to considering perspectives that challenge the monolithic mainstream narrative. But when this is done by grossly distorting scientific findings of others and crafting an argument that only appears to work, then more harm than good is done in the search for a balanced and nuanced understanding of infectious disease and the current pandemic.

Apologies if this was posted already. It seems that Cowan and Fallon Morell have poorly researched the topic (either intentional or not) and seem to be quite limited in their thinking. I think it should be noted that if these authors are misrepresenting research studies, I'd be wary of their ability to research objectively and accurately and of any conclusions they formulate based on that 'research'. I haven't read the book, but I'd look into the papers and sources they refer to if you find their ideas interesting. FWIW.
 

XPan

The Living Force
Really? Based on what? A PCR test, useless in and of itself, looking for a demonstrably made up RNA sequence, which was the only thing that distinguished it from the flu (and other things) because otherwise the symptoms are the same? Do you actually believe that "covid" is a real disease, distinct from other diseases? How do you tell it apart from the flu?

'Covid' is not the same like the flu.

It is very easy to think that they are the same, because most symptoms appeared to be similar. Yet Covid it has shown some rather odd properties.

Here I am thinking of Dr Shankara Chetty from South Africa, which has been interviewed both in the Corona Investigative Committee twice, as well been witness in the Grand Jury Trials: The disease had an odd effect which distinguished itself from the flu, by changing rapidly character on day 8 (not for all, but for a significant amount of people). First it acted like a respiratory disease, but then went into something like a violent allergic reaction, VERY different from the common flu.

Also, it has been proven as far as I can tell, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been heavily tampered with in labs, in order to make the virus more infectious via the spikes, due to 34 changes - in order to easily to humans.

This is not a natural property of corona viruses - and unknown to nature ! Let's say the virus doesn't exist - then how come it would be made extremely transmittive all of the sudden ?

Also remember, that Omikron doesn't have the unnatural properties from the original, lab-tampered Alpha strain. Nature somehow intervened here, shed off the tampered alterations, and returned into what would be considered more normal properties of a corona virus family (mild flu disease). And therefore Omikron not only infected most people (vaxxed / unvaxxed), it only induced mild symtoms without deaths (in unvaccinated).

The better science regarding viruses is done by sequencing, not by the lousy, infamous RT PCR tests. The RT-PCR test is just the deliberately constructed framing tool, in order for the PTB to "prove evidence" of (non existent) "disease" in most people. Like an alcohol test which reacts by default, no matter if you had booze or not in your system. So, that it would generate the necessary numbers i order to back up their false narrative (to do lockdowns, transmission, isolation, surveillance, law changes bla bla bla). PCR test on RNA is useless, but splendid for DNA if done correctly.

_

Just as a side note: the dangerous (lab tampered, unnatural) alpha strain is what has been put into the Covid-19 vaccines via artificial RNA code (the kind of code which never occurs in nature) The jabs are INDUCING THE VERY DISEASE, they officially wanted people to "cure" from. Therefore the jabs are literally the bio weapon used against humanity.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
And really, was all the crap they've told us over the last 2 years actually useful? Somehow I'm not seeing that. Unless you count useful for enslaving people and making rich arseholes richer. In that way it was very useful... to them.
This is a fair point, and got me thinking how psychopathology applies to this whole mess. By reading RFK Jr's book on Fauci it became even clearer to me (if that's even possible) that for a hundred years or more all these 'scientists' and 'experts' that are connected to the Big Pharma Mafia (and there is and has been a lot of them!) don't have any real expertise and know-how to any proper discoveries/products – they don't have a clue of what they're actually doing – but that's okay because they don't care!

In RFK Jr's book there are plenty of examples of various projects where they've cooked up some new vaccine or medicine, often using as raw material a previously banned product (because it has killed too many people) that they have no idea of how it could even possibly work against the disease they're 'fighting'. However, with their honed PR machine and straight-faced lying they've, every single time, convinced the public that "this thing is good for you, safe and effective!". Then as the product is rolled out and the numbers start to show that it's not working, and that a bunch of people are dying of it (usually in Africa), another department starts working on the scientific publications: harassing, falsification, 'massaging' numbers etc. No problemo! And if some real expert, who is a real scientist comes along pointing out the holes in their 'theories', as e.g. Peter Duesberg who challenged the "HIV virus causes AIDS" dogma, then he's just simply blacklisted and destroyed.

Part of the problem of why virology (and the whole medical industry) is such a mess is surely the fact that all these psychos run the show and have/get all the money. They couldn't care less if viruses exist or not, they couldn't care less if someone gets cured of a disaese or not (many probably would like them to die).

So, I totally agree that the usefulness of main stream virology during the last couple of years is on the negative side. The psychos don't know any science for real but they have power and money, so they've used the opportunity to have some 'fun and games'.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
See, this is the problem with such wild claims as "there is no transmission" or "viruses may not exist at all" - you entangle yourself in a web where you need to come up with ever-wilder claims to fit the evidence. (Transmission, antivirals, dna insertion via virii, the fact that epidemiology actually does work if done right, etc.) And you try to make others question straight-forward experience.

I think there is an underlying "thinking error" (if you want to call it that) that people easily fall into which is called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" based on limited data/knowledge. I've not looked into the matter at hand here extensively at all, so I can't judge specific claims. I just want to highlight that it appears to me that people can easily tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they are confronted with phenomena that are poorly understood. As a general rule: if a phenomenon is not well understood and a lot of data is missing, it is always wise to err on the side of caution; namely, to not enter any extreme positions/assumptions such as "if that is the case, obviously, viruses don't exist".

A much more logical and sensible approach on the other hand would be to make it perfectly clear to oneself and others that we lack a lot of context, information and data, to understand what's going on, and therefore it would be foolish to come to set and/or extreme conclusions/ideas. I would imagine that there are quite a number of people out there (among whom might be researchers, scientists and/or authors) who have entered such extreme conclusions and/or are flirting with such ideas' despite being confronted by a mysterious/complicated/difficult phenomena that is poorly understood. The problem might be that they then publish such extreme ideas instead of just presenting facts and not coming to any extreme conclusions.
 
Top Bottom