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

Parasites tend to keep even dead organisms alive, waiting for a new host. I think that is exactly what we are experiencing. I was thinking about this a while ago when I saw yet another episode of the theater of the absurd, the video of biden shaking hands with his invisible friend on the unified networks (merging). What if it was biunivocally the invisible friend complimenting biden? It is not easy to navigate in such a system, in which we are all possessed and "insane." There is, however, a quality, and here I take up a luc term because I believe it is substantial, which is called innocence. and I would add castanedian ruthlessness, which is self-reflexive and aims if played "intelligently," at not keeping dead stuff alive in the first place within oneself, constantly asking the question. What the f*ck am I channeling?
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
OK, here's some additional food for thought for the no-virus people (hopefully this isn't necessary at this point...):

How do you explain the existence of secret gain-of-function research/tampering with viruses to create biological weapons/defend against them?

How do you explain that a variety of researchers looked at the genetic sequences of the Coronavirus and immediately saw that it was man-made, which was later shown to be true via other means?

How do you explain that Sucharit Bhakdi, among others, predicted the side effects of the covid vaccines precisely by showing exactly how the mechanism works? (Clots, myocarditis, Spike protein entering blood stream, rna inserting itself into host cells etc.)

Since you claim that the computer models virologists use (alignment etc.) are nonsense, you do realize that it's no secret how these algorithms work, and that there are a variety of different sequencing techniques etc.? Can you show, precisely, how these algorithms work, how it was done by hand before the invention of the algorithms (for some history, see here), why they were designed the way they are, and why exactly, in your assessment, these algorithms don't make sense?

Can you describe, precisely, the various sequencing techniques used for viruses (all of which have different strengths and weaknesses and can handle different sizes of the DNA/RNA etc., see here for example) and discuss if, why, and how, they go wrong?

It is claimed by the no-virus people that the cytopathic effects of viruses occur anyway even without the virus, and that no controls have been done, ever. How do you explain this picture from a textbook about virus isolation that shows distinct effects for different viruses? Have they just made it up? Have they never done any experiment to show this? Is it just a coincidence?


1658213693825.png
 
Last edited:
Grounding: I would also add the (not new) fact that the protocol developed here and elsewhere that works for treatment is an essentially anti-parasitic protocol. and that anti-parasitic protocols are a not insignificant part of the treatments involved in treating the autism spectrum, as well as other neurological disharmonies.
 
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.
Yes, definitely questioning it. But there's too little to come to any clear conclusion. Lack of evidence doesn't automatically mean "it doesn't exist". Which is why I was asking what good evidence there was.

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.
Darwinism is also backed by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, yet we kind of all agreed here, I think, that they were wrong. So this authoritarian argument seems rather weak to me.

How do you explain the existence of secret gain-of-function research/tampering with viruses to create biological weapons/defend against them?
Been asking that for a while. The question is, does anyone know what it is exactly they're doing there in those labs? I don't.

How do you explain that a variety of researchers looked at the genetic sequences of the Coronavirus and immediately saw that it was man-made, which was later shown to be true via other means?
Man, have you seen how that "genome" was made?
I posted it earlier.

identify2.png

It's from this study: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

They read 56 million 150-base-pair sequences from lung fluid (not from a virus cause they didn't have that), combined it on a computer into 384 thousand sequences with Megahit and another 1.3 million with Trinity.
Then they got the genome by choosing one of the 1.7 million possibilities.

I'm sorry but in what way is this sequence real?
How is it relevant what other scientists then find in it?
This is not a "viral genome". This is a made up sequence made by assembling small pieces of code from lung fluid.
This is science?

It's like determining the source code of a computer virus by reading 56 million sequences of 150 zeros and ones from a supposedly infected file, then assembling 1.7 million combinations of those, and then choosing one and saying that's the code of a virus.

Now, if what they do in those biolabs is as accurate as this, then I'm afraid it doesn't really mean much. =/
The fact that they sometimes manage to make something that can kill people means little. Making things that kill is way easier than making things that heal.

(And as for the pictures, it looks like someone took 4 different pictures and drew some arrows on them. The End. I'm not even sure what the arrows are pointing to. All of it looks like smudges, dots and circles. What is that supposed to prove?)
 
I'll post the relevant excerpt from the latest session:

Q: (Chu) There's a discussion on the "No Virus" thread and Mandatory Intellectomy wanted to ask questions about it.
(Joe) How correct are scientists' ideas about viruses?
A: Close enough though there is a lot they do not know including the fact that a virus is a transdensity structure.
Q: (Joe) Do viruses come from outside of the human body or from inside?
A: Both.
Q: (Joe) So the body can also make them?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Are they infectious?
A: Depending on the specific virus. Mostly, yes.

Thanks for asking those.

With the additional remark a while ago that viruses are "thoughts made manifest" that somebody already mentioned here, it is no wonder that these things would be so elusive.
(Though, it also occurred to me that pretty much anything physical is "thoughts made manifest" in one way or another, but this, being so small, just might be one of the easiest things to physically manifest for creatures like us?)

It makes me think along the lines of thoughts/emotions causing disease (fear, trauma, negative conditioning etc.) and these "viruses" being some sort of intermediaries for manifesting the physical symptoms. If they can come both from outside and inside, you can probably just create some of this stuff inside yourself by your thinking and manifest a "disease" that reflects your mental state or beliefs or whatever.

But the answers also show high variability - inside/outside, both infectious and not, so a "virus" can probably be a lot of "different" things.
Could it be a general interface... between densities? Between mind and body?
A communication/translation device? That's actually a lot like those exosomes.

At any rate a very complex issue.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Darwinism is also backed by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, yet we kind of all agreed here, I think, that they were wrong. So this authoritarian argument seems rather weak to me.
The thing about Darwinism is that I'm pretty sure all or most of the ID guys would agree that the Darwinists mostly do good science on the whole. It's in their root assumptions--more metaphysical principles than actual science--where they go wrong. A Darwinist will look at all their data and say, "this resulted from random processes, because obviously," and the IDers will say, "obviously, this could not have been random." But when it comes to the actual data, guys like Behe cite mostly the work of Darwinists.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Darwinism is also backed by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, yet we kind of all agreed here, I think, that they were wrong. So this authoritarian argument seems rather weak to me.

But the interpretation of that data is what is in question, not the data itself (although they do tend to overlook some very important parts). Darwinian evolution is still a theory.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The no-virus theory, especially as it relates to Covid, seems to be popping up a lot lately. Many people in the alternative realm seem to be more receptive than ever. On Substack this is making the rounds too. Including good-old smearing of those who refuse it (like Dr. Malone and others) as controlled opposition. Wonder what's up with that!
 
....(Joe) How correct are scientists' ideas about viruses?
A: Close enough though there is a lot they do not know including the fact that a virus is a transdensity structure......
I find this emblematic. Virtually what scientists say about the virus is as close to the truth as is available in the 3d in which they operate. i.e. ALL SCIENTISTS (not just virologists for example) but....scientists. And indeed scientists about viruses say everything and the opposite of everything. So it is once again a matter of ruthlessly navigating as we enjoy the show, in a transdimensional and transdensity power play based on a food chain that has us hanging at the bottom, especially in view of what they are about to throw down. :clap:
 

Ketone Cop

Jedi Master
Wow. I step away for a while, then return to a thread I thought wasn't getting enough attention only to find it has blown up to the point half the responses are from Ambassadors and Administrators!! More has happened here since I've been gone than I can process without some further rumination time, but I appreciate the discussions and dialogue, especially those who are saying that "viruses don't exist" need to step back from the edge for a while.

For the moment, I will simply lay out my own direct observations based on experiments that I personally performed that proved to me that viruses, or some other otherwise unknown phenomenon of DNA exchange of information involving some conglomeration of DNA and proteins, are real. For background, I worked on a doctoral-level project that involved the isolation and characterization of a virus which included isolation and sequencing of DNA and proving that transfer of DNA was occurring between bacterial species by means that could only be explained by current viral transduction theories as we currently understand them.

(Disclaimer: I did not receive a doctorate, only a Master's degree - because the British technician I was collaborating with at Los Alamos National Laboratories had to leave because her visa expired, but only after a fire that summer (1999 I believe) razed a large area there forcing her egress and because the DNA I provided her was not of sufficient purity to do her work properly due to problems I had with the ultracentrifuges, which I did not solve in time. I needed that sequence information in order to publish my characterization findings in a journal. Had I been successful, I would have had a virus known simply as "TP21" renamed after me as "KetoneCopperii". Sigh.)

The subject of my thesis was a bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis, subspecies kurstaki, which harbors a lysogenic bacteriophage named "TP21" (for "Thuringensis Phage #21). This bacterium is one of three in the Bacillus anthracis family, which also includes Bacillus cereus. A lysogenic bacteriophage is a virus that usually maintains its DNA within its host organism as a separate entity in a plasmidic state within the bacterium it inhabits; with a "plasmid" simply being a circular piece of extrachromosomal DNA. When the bacteria divides, it produces copies of the bacteriophage plasmid along with its other plasmids and chromosome.

For the argument I'm going to make here, this information is critical. Some of it is gong to be very specific and scientific. Pay attention! Because stupid comments/questions are now being taxed at $50 here apparently after reading the latest C's session. I personally don't think that fine is steep enough, but whatever.

The goal of my project was to isolate the DNA of the TP21 virus/plasmid, characterize it along with the means of viral transmission involved, and then alter or add DNA information that could potentially aid the virus to both infect the closely related bacterial species Bacillus anthracis and deliver a genetic payload that would shut down the production of a certain anthrax toxin in vivo. ( Background information: Sequence and Organization of pXO1, the Large Bacillus anthracis Plasmid Harboring the Anthrax Toxin Genes )

This is going to get technical. Just a warning!

So, what I did first was isolate the DNA plasmid in Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki using gels (the DNA band containing the plasmid was quite distinct from the other plasmids and chromosomal DNA present within B. thuringiensis) and further characterized it by restriction enzyme analysis. Each enzyme - and I used at least 20 - cuts DNA at very specific short DNA base pair sequences which usually only occur at a few specific points within any given unique DNA strand, which is a way to map a piece of DNA to get its general layout, structure, and size and to generate markers that you can point to in a separation gel to say, "that is a viral DNA fragment".

(TECHNICAL - avoid unless you're a masochist: A separation gel is an agar gel that you can add DNA to and use electric charge to move DNA through, with large pieces moving much slower than small pieces due to resistance, and a standard using many different but exactly sized pieces of DNA is also run so you can determine the sizes of each band of DNA. When analyzing a specific piece of DNA, using one restriction enzyme, you should see several pieces repeatedly that when taken as a whole add up to the entire length of the piece of DNA you are analyzing, with each band representing a site where that restriction enzyme DNA marker exists. When done in concert with other enzymes, you can thus generate a restriction enzyme map of any piece of DNA, and from that information, define its structure and from that point forward use that information to determine that yes, this DNA piece is from this virus, because it's replicatable.)

After doing that, I then treated a growing culture of Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki with Mitomycin C ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/mitomycin-c ) , which elicited a response whereby the bacteria started producing some kind of DNA/protein product which I could isolate using ultracentrifugation at very high speeds. Taking that resulting pellet, I treated it with proteases to destroy protein structures that contained the viral DNA (if I didn't do that step first, I didn't get DNA - hard lesson learned), then I removed the proteins and crystallized the freed DNA using a cold alcohol process if I remember correctly. After isolating the DNA, I treated it with the same restriction enzymes that I treated the plasmid DNA with, and I saw the exact same size fragments in the gels as I saw in the treated plasmid DNA. (An aside: had I done this first, then sent it to the tech in Los Alamos, I may have a doctorate today because this DNA was CLEAN of any other cellular DNA fragments. Alas...)

Not only that...my restriction enzyme analysis proved that these DNA particles were circularly permuted and terminally redundant ( Chromosome Structure in Phage T4, III. Terminal Redundancy and Length Determination on JSTOR ) - which means, each DNA particle had some extra genes present on it, but not the SAME genes on each DNA fragment. Some process involved in producing these DNA particles was creating fragments that had at least 20% repetition, which matched the previously observed phenomenon that some kind of viral production mechanism was stuffing viral head proteins with a bit more DNA than they could hold, based on the fact that the DNA was being created using some kind of rolling toilet paper mechanism, to be...illustrative.

So, SOMETHING was creating viral DNA genomes and stuffing it into some kind of protein container that held more than a single genome of DNA. That was good news to me, because it meant that if I could indeed create a genetic construct that could be incorporated within this virus to shut down toxin production in Bacillus anthracis, then I had room on the DNA strand being shoved into the capsids to hold my genetic construct! Get out the champagne!!

After that, my next step was to try to find a mutation of TP21 that could infect Bacillus anthracis while the work on creating the gene product to stop toxin production continued. On that front, I did find that it was possible to infect some strains of anthrax with TP21 based on agar plate studies, but I could never grow one of those colonies enough to try to isolate TP21 DNA from any of them. That said, all of this happened using isolates I obtained from Bacillus thuringiesis kurstaki, and only after processing ultracentrifugation products of B. thuringiensis that had been subjected to Mytomycin C treatment; and the DNA I recovered from those pellets matched that from B. thuringiensis plasmids that had not been treated with Mitomycin C directly. So, some process was causing that plasmid DNA to be replicated and placed into some kind of protein container that I had to personally liberate from before confirming by restriction analysis that it was, indeed, the same DNA sequence; and when I used some of that pellet to infect other strains of Bacillus, I saw evidence on the agar plates I was using that whatever was in those pellets did, indeed, infect them. My control plates did not produce the same results.

So, THERE.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Yes, definitely questioning it. But there's too little to come to any clear conclusion. Lack of evidence doesn't automatically mean "it doesn't exist". Which is why I was asking what good evidence there was.

You keep saying that, and then you just continue to restate the same tiresome talking points of the no-virus crowd, and brush off anything we say with snarky comments. Not good enough.

Darwinism is also backed by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years, yet we kind of all agreed here, I think, that they were wrong. So this authoritarian argument seems rather weak to me.

The difference being, we all read Behe's and others' work who make superb arguments based on detailed, nuanced, brilliant science, as well as philosophy, etc. I haven't seen anything even remotely comparing to that from the no-virus crowd. Plus, what @Approaching Infinity said.

Been asking that for a while. The question is, does anyone know what it is exactly they're doing there in those labs? I don't.
Come on man, we do know, see here for example. Unless of course you assume that everyone on the planet is lying, or that governments worldwide are pouring billions into research that has never produced any result whatsoever, or that we can just dismiss anything ever said by scientists based on virus theory because... whatever.

Man, have you seen how that "genome" was made?
I posted it earlier.

Look, I don't claim I understand all the details. But neither do you, I suppose. But I need more than a bombastic powerpoint slide with a bunch of talking points and snarky comments to convince me.

Who's to tell that this method isn't sound, at least to a degree? Why shouldn't they sequence a whole lot and then sift through it and see if they find something that makes sense based on previous knowledge about dna patterns? 300k possibilities seems like a lot, but if you can immediately exclude 99,99% based on what you know about the structure of DNA etc., then it's not, and the computer did its job. After all, we are dealing with information here, and computers are great for pulling a signal out of the noise. And if you are looking for an infectious agant, why not, er, look for an infectious agent? Again, I don't know how this works precisely, but the history, papers describing the sequencing techniques, manuals etc. are out there to check it out if you are truly interested.

All I see is talking points: "Muh isolation", "Muh computer", "Muh exosomes" etc.

(And as for the pictures, it looks like someone took 4 different pictures and drew some arrows on them. The End. I'm not even sure what the arrows are pointing to. All of it looks like smudges, dots and circles. What is that supposed to prove?)

Can you at least try to understand instead of mocking? The pictures suggest that there is research showing different cytopathic effects that are virus-specific. Since observing these effects is a routine thing, I assume that there is actual data behind it (experiments with infected tissue). Which would counter the claim made by Lanka etc. that cytopathic effects have nothing to do with viruses. Now, I haven't checked the research. But from a no-virus perspective, you would need to claim it's all made up and pulled from thin air, which is what you seem to suggest, without giving any reason whatsoever.
 

Ketone Cop

Jedi Master
I screwed this up:

"Some process involved in producing these DNA particles was creating fragments that had at least 20% repetition, which matched the previously observed phenomenon that some kind of viral production mechanism was stuffing viral head proteins with a bit more DNA than they could hold"

I meant that the viral heads were being stuffed with more genomic DNA than a viral capsid could contain, meaning that the capsids contained more than a single viral genome. Sorry for the confusion. Or, for adding to it... :)
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
@Ketone Cop Thank you for sharing your experience. I just fear this will be way too nuanced and scientific for the no-virus people, who seem to think that unless you can rip out viral DNA with your bare hands, hang it out to dry, and then take a selfie, then viruses don't exist and everything is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom