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

[hlat]

Some of us may remember in elementary school when teachers taught us that electrons orbit the nucleus like planets around the sun, which is false. Some of us may remember in high school when teachers taught us another false version of electrons, something about sp shells, but not probability distribution or cloud.

Newtonian physics seemed to be true based on experience and observation, for a while, until physics advanced beyond those approximations. They still teach Newtonian physics in high school. I guess it's useful within a certain range.

Darwinian evolution seemed to be true based on experience and observation, for a while, until biology advanced to genetic sequencing and cellular machinery. So the dividing line for evolution became family and below, and for creation order and above. The suppression of creation goes on, but the knowledge of creation has grown for us to the point of being irrefutable.

Viruses seem to be true based on experience and observation, for now. But there is evidence that viruses are not what they are claimed to be. I don't see a problem at all in discarding whatever is false about viruses, as we did with Newtonian physics, evolution, and electron positions. Maybe the concept of viruses is true or will remain useful within a certain range or scale, even after knowledge advances to the point of something beyond viruses.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

You are also saying that it's not about proving that viruses don't exist, yet in the next paragraph it is. It is about getting proof that they exist, yet it isn't.

This is not a contradiction.

Proving that viruses do exist = can be done = should be done (or at least attempted) if you want to claim they exist.
Proving that viruses don't exist = can not be done.

So it's about the former and not the letter. Basic science.

---

I have found in the past month that we have a bigger problem that whether viruses exist. Most people can't read and don't understand what other people are saying. (This is not aimed at you, Chu.)

I have never said that viruses don't exist (in fact in many cases I explicitly said they do), but maybe 3/4 comments I've gotten in various places over the past month somehow assume that I did. People can't distinguish between "these studies didn't isolate the virus" and "viruses don't exist" and similar things.
So no wonder we're going in circles.

Even in most of the posts here people are misrepresenting things that I said and then easily making arguments against the things I didn't say, straw man style. You point out some problems with virology, people interpret that as "viruses don't exist", which really upsets them, and everyone starts freaking out. So yeah, this is kind of pointless. I have discovered it's an issue that upsets people a lot, for some reason.

Well, at least it got a few people thinking, though, so that's good.

 

[Joe]

I have found in the past month that we have a bigger problem that whether viruses exist. Most people can't read and don't understand what other people are saying. (This is not aimed at you, Chu.)

I'd say that's an overly simplistic take on it. I think it can be reasonably said that you also were not exactly clear in your position (as others have noted).

I have never said that viruses don't exist

Well, let's not be coy. You said:

So do viruses exist? If I said "yes" and somebody asked me "How do you know? Can you provide any evidence?", I couldn't provide shit. Could you?

by which you were clearly stating that you can find no evidence that viruses exist. Which can reasonably be taken as you are seriously questioning the existence of viruses. And yet you then have a go at others here for assuming that you are, at the very least, seriously entertaining that idea.

 

[Lilou]

I'd say that's an overly simplistic take on it. I think it can be reasonably said that you also were not exactly clear in your position (as others have noted).



Well, let's not be coy. You said:



by which you were clearly stating that you can find no evidence that viruses exist. Which can reasonably be taken as you are seriously questioning the existence of viruses. And yet you then have a go at others here for assuming that you are, at the very least, seriously entertaining that idea.

Yes, it is a bit like beating a dead horse! Turning circles, then beating it again, no?

I don't think I can add much more to this circular discussion. I've concluded viri are pieces of genetic information. It is a parasite that cannot proliferate without hijacking a host cell. How the body of the host cell responds depends on immune function, defects in code, maybe even exposure to light or EMF. God only knows. What we have been told by the C's is that soul will marry genetics, which will also determine how a body responds. For good or ill. OSIT.

 

[luc]

@Mandatory Intellectomy
What we were trying to do here is give a warning (to you and others) not to get sucked into this issue because it tends to jumble one's brain. That you still don't seem to see the whole point of what we were trying to say seems to confirm that.

It is the same vibe I get from reading Lanka and gang: yes, they have some good questions. But somehow it all gets jumbled and mixed with all kinds of crazy things - often they make a good point in one paragraph, then they go bonkers in the next.

In your posts, you didn't just "innocently" question some of virology's assumptions and thought about what this might mean with a curious and open mind. (Though you also did that. Great. Nobody here has a problem with that, obviously.)

But just as with Kaufmann, Lanka et al. you went from such reasonable questions and speculation to this:

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.

You uncritically accepted the conclusion of authors who deny that contagion is real and blame it on 5G in the case of Covid. Against common sense. Plus, judging by @Oxajil's reply, the authors have clearly lost the plot, or are pushing an agenda. (If there's one tell-tale sign that a "researcher" is full of sh*t, it's when they cite papers to make a point when the papers don't support that point at all, or even directly contradict it.)

You didn't consider (at least in your replies) the most important points people have made here, and instead always hammered on the issue of isolation, which reeks of a strange obsession with this issue, just as it is with the no-virus crowd in general.

IMO, the proper way to think about it is to acknowledge that obviously, there is something there, and contagion is a thing, though it might all be more complex than mainstream science believes. Then one could ask what that means, and compare notes.

What happens instead is that the no-virus people send FOIA's to universities demanding "proof", droning on about "purification" and "irrefutable proof" etc., and one can literally witness their drooling fanaticism. The same fanaticism that leads Dr. Kaufmann to refuse the use of antibiotics, and people to question that contagion is a real thing, complex as it may be as a phenomenon.

The kind of thinking you went with here:

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.

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?

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.)

And here, you came to the conclusion that "nothing about the virus story is real", which is precisely the kind of obsessive thinking that gets one into trouble:

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.

The "virus story", as told by mainstream science, is complex and has many, many aspects. Even assuming that viruses aren't "real" in some sense, there are still other aspects of the story that are real, like contagion. Jumbled thinking strikes again.

As you know, we are as anti-mainstream science as it gets here. But there are certain groups and ideologies out there that clearly don't think straight, and they have developed a strange "pull" that seems to be able to suck one in and jumble one's mind.

It's not only the no-virus crowd, it's also the "joos did it all", "Qanon", "chemtrails", "5G is killing us all", "cancer doesn't need treatment" and various other groups who obsess about certain issues/narratives, and end up going from some valid observations and criticisms to the land of crazy.

That is our warning here: we witness the effects, and we say "stop, take a step back".

 

[Joe]

I have found in the past month that we have a bigger problem that whether viruses exist. Most people can't read and don't understand what other people are saying. (This is not aimed at you, Chu.)

I have never said that viruses don't exist (in fact in many cases I explicitly said they do), but maybe 3/4 comments I've gotten in various places over the past month somehow assume that I did.

Why would this not be aimed at Chu when she was the one who pointed out that you were being contradictory on this subject. Would that not put her among the people who "don't understand what other people are saying"?

OK MI, your last posts are pretty full of contradictions. I think that this discussion can't progress much because what you are is angry at the lies, and as a consequence, you're dismissing everything that doesn't justify that anger. When in that state, you start "selecting and substituting data", ignoring some big details, etc. You are also saying that it's not about proving that viruses don't exist, yet in the next paragraph it is. It is about getting proof that they exist, yet it isn't. You're going in circles.

 

[iamthatis]

Have you considered that maybe that means our intestines don't exist?

I have a gut feeling about this one...

 

[Keyhole]

"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."

I have been thinking about this over the past few days... and what I see is the Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids. It display of extreme arrogance, in fact, to believe one knows more than the multiple thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, some of which have dedicated their entire life to studying these topics in great detail and with great determination.

To get an idea of the magnitude of this, I attempted to research the total number of virologists/infectious disease pathologists in the world, and unfortunately couldn't come up with any solid numbers. The Royal College of Pathologists (UK) registers over 11,000 members, meaning that the total number in the world is probably multiple tens of thousands, if not one hundred thousand+ doctors who have specialized in contagious disease and/or virology. The professional route to train in this area as a medical doctor takes a MINIMUM of twelve years to complete, involving at least 2 years specifically focused on virology. Collectively, we are looking at millions of hours spent studying, researching, and experimenting with viruses.

Let's be clear, the "no-virus theory" is not a critique. It is an attempt to cancel an entire body of knowledge.

Pointing out the holes in some of the theories, technical details and overarching assumptions of virology is one thing. But to claim that the entire foundation (that viruses exist at all) is untrue means flushing 150 years worth of research down the drain in one fell-swoop. It is cancelling the shared body of knowledge and collective experience gained by thousands of scientists through millions of hours of research, and declaring it absolutely worthless.

To those who have been sucked into this mind-warp, here is what is happening: You believe that that you, after reading a few books on the subject (with highly questionable research) and perhaps some YouTube lectures, know more about virology than the combined knowledge of many thousands of scientists who have spent their entire lives studying it. Not only do you have more knowledge than them, but the entire premise of their career is false. In fact, the highly specific and technologically advanced machinery they have developed to analyse their findings is actually just looking at "cellular debris" and "waste products", but they are too stupid to realise this.

Are you OK with believing this? Honestly?

And this doesn't even take into account research scientist who are not medical doctors, but who also study viruses and contagious diseases (biomedical scientists, medical microbiologists, clinical biochemists, non-medical PhD research scientists). To top it off, we have all of the other health professionals (family and emergency care physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, immunologists etc) who have also collectively racked up multiple millions of hours working with infectious diseases outside of the laboratory, but in a clinical setting with patients, gaining direct experience of viral and bacterial infection. Although you also dismiss this as though it were a complete fabrication.

And based on what? The alternative (materialistic) theories of a handful of fringe scientists (most of whom are not even trained in virology)? The insistence on using one specific technique for viral isolation, when there are in fact many techniques? The dogmatic obsession with "Koch's postulates", which were never set in stone, never insisted on by Koch himself, changed frequently as the decades went on, and might not even apply to viruses?

I repeat, this is an extreme display of arrogance and a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who know little, if nothing about a subject, believing themselves competent to cancel an entire body of knowledge and lived experience. Not only does this mode of thinking destroy your cognitive abilities and strengthen the false personality, but this level of detachment from objective reality is no doubt a "sin against the soul".

Recall Niall's comment:

There's no easy way to say this, so I'll just say it. Obsession with this 'line of research' is akin to the onset of mental illness. You will end up giving yourself an 'intellectomy' if you don't extract yourself from this rabbit hole.

The parallels with the "flat earth theory" are remarkable. A materialistic theory which discredits the millions of hours of study and research of physicists, mathematicians, astrophysicists, astronomers, climatologists, meteorologists, and other specialists in the field. Explained either by incompetence or through some paranoid schizophrenic tendency of the followers who believe that all of those scientists are insiders in some big conspiracy.

I am genuinely concerned by the sheer lack of discernment displayed by the members who have bought into these theories.

 

[Wandering Star]

I have thought about the issue of contagion of viral processes and my own experience. When I was young (childhood, adolescence, early adulthood) I was continually developing viral illnesses (colds and flus). If someone had something close to me, I would not let it escape, I would get it.

As I already commented in this thread, it could be related to the highly polluted environment in which I lived and in this context, the work of viral processes cleaned my body of toxins.

However, I have thought that there is a quality that many people have that may be related to contagion, it is "empathy".

I believe that this quality of some humans allows us to read the energy field of the people with whom we interact and makes it easier for something to activate in us.

In any case, I have suffered so much from viral diseases that, from my personal perspective, I cannot deny their existence.

 

[mkrnhr]

I don't think the number of virologists or any professional "scientists" is an argument for the validity of a theory or a model. That's exactly the argument of the global warming pseudo-science crowd: it's true because of the consensus of the professional "climate scientists" (using such a neologism instead of climatologists is already a red flag of an orwellian subversion of terms). An argument should stand on its own merit. It should also be based on verifiable observations. The "viruses do not exist" thing (it's not even a theory) is based on nothing more than misdirections. Surely virology, like other disciplines, has some flaws and it should be criticized, but the critic should make sense, otherwise it's a waste of time and neurons. So far, it is worse than flat earthism because one can argue that yes, the earth is flat on the scale of a town or a village but not on the scale of continents or the whole world. The no virus thing is closer to the "space is fake" thing though.

 

[aragorn]

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s been thinking of a potential connection with the recent discussions in this thread and thr recent warnings by the C’s.

A: Be aware that you are currently under attack by forces that wish to silence you and end your exertions on behalf of your group in specific and the planet in general. These forces are getting desperate and will attempt to use any inroad possible. Be awake and alert at all times. Any disputes or disagreements can be easily blown out of proportion to your destruction. And then, when the negative energy is withdrawn, the devastation left will be amplified by the knowledge that it was all a deception. [Planchette swirls around and around for about 45 seconds] You have been warned. Do not take this lightly. Communicate and listen. It will take all of you together to navigate these dangers!!! Goodbye.

Pierre) The warning at the end of the last session two months ago, is it still going on?

A: Yes. Beware of quiet spells!

 

[Keyhole]

I don't think the number of virologists or any professional "scientists" is an argument for the validity of a theory or a model. That's exactly the argument of the global warming pseudo-science crowd: it's true because of the consensus of the professional "climate scientists" (using such a neologism instead of climatologists is already a red flag of an orwellian subversion of terms).

But it is not just a theory or model which is being disputed. It is the existence of the thing itself, and the existence of that thing rests at the foundation of all of the work that has come after it.

To use your example, instead of questioning the validity of the global warming model, it is more like saying "climate doesn't exist".

That most virologists follow the conventional theory of virology doesn't necessary say anything about its validity. However, the sheer number of researchers who have studied viruses, the depth of technical detail and knowledge acquired which has been shown to have practical value in the real world, and the colossal amount of time devoted to the topic, can be used as an argument for the existence of the thing itself. Or so I think

 

[mkrnhr]

That most virologists follow the conventional theory of virology doesn't necessary say anything about its validity. However, the sheer number of researchers who have studied viruses, the depth of technical detail and knowledge acquired which has been shown to have practical value in the real world, and the colossal amount of time devoted to the topic, can be used as an argument for the existence of the thing itself. Or so I think

I agree that there is a subtle difference between criticizing the existence of a thing and models involving the thing. The line can be blurry sometimes because in some disciplines, the existence of a thing is derived from models or theories, or derived from deductive or inductive processes. I often think of global warmists as flat earthers on the temporal dimension: climate was flat throughout earth's past until 1975. So if they deny climate variability (hide the decline, hide the medieval warm period etc.), are they denying climate itself whose essence is change? That's an fun question.

The way professional science nowadays works is based on a chain of conclusions handed down the generations of students with little examination of the first principles. The whole academic and scientific enterprise, populated by dimwits as pointed out in the latest Mind Matters episode, is so corrupt that questioning some of its assertions can be seen as legitimate. However, this questioning ought to be based on something tangible, and done in a legitimate way, i.e. carefully and scientifically. The viruses do not exist and space is fake do not fall into this category of questioning not because there are many virologists (a number of whom have maybe never been in the presence of a microscope since high school) but because there are convincing arguments to the existence of viruses and their effects and that this no virus questioning is based on nothing. Maybe that's what I wanted to emphasize.

 

[Wandering Star]

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s been thinking of a potential connection with the recent discussions in this thread and thr recent warnings by the C’s.

In fact, I thought so too, yes.

 

[Wandering Star]

And on the subject of "dissensions" in fourth density, a phrase comes to mind (I think it's from Carla's Ra stuff, but I'm not sure) which talks about this.

I am paraphrasing: "In fourth density 'differences' are stated, but they are balanced for the good of the group."