I suppose someone would provide electron microscopy images and videos of viruses doing their virusy thing.
Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich
- Thread starter Mandatory Intellectomy
- Start date
I suppose someone would provide electron microscopy images and videos of viruses doing their virusy thing.
nature
Dagobah Resident
Electron microscopy doesn't show a living tissu. It's a technical procedure that denatures cells. So, it's "easy" interpreting what you see.
What is believed virus on EM can be other structure like phagosomes, or like lysosomes (a tiny spherical membrane, same size as a virus, same membrane, inside it you can find bits of nucleic acids).
Moreover, on some EM, there are reconstructions made by the computer; thus the image you see is not a true representation of reality.
Virus are not what we think. It's not a micro-organism as we believe or made believe, that is here to create damage to living beings. It's a very tiny bit of RNA/DNA sent on Earth in order to enable macro-organisms ( human, animals, plants) to evolve, to adapt to changings in the environnement (for example making organismes less sensible, more resilient to radio-activity, this danger that came on the planet by human's activity). There are infinite examples. I remember reading how amazingly plants and animals had succeeded in becoming strong around Tchernobyl.
In Cs transcripts, they said that a virus is a program sent by 4D, if I understood correctly.
Probably a program made by a succession of nucleic acids, which enters the cells to integrate into the cellular DNA and give us (and other living beings) new functions, new capacities. Thus: there is not in our cytoplasma (in cell's cytoplasma) things like virus, there is new combination of nucleic acid in cell's nucleus, ie in our DNA.
From wikipedia:
Watched the Kaufmann video, and his observations about the incompleteness (to say it politely) of the scientific procedures "isolating" these viruses appear valid. It's amazing how some of these papers are so full of hot air...based on little or no proof. "Trust the science", yeah right! I guess the rationale behind adding antibiotics to the mix is to 'kill' any potential bacteria (since they didn't filtrate), or?
As a layman in these matters, it appears to me that at the very least the experts' understanding of viruses is greatly exaggerated. And then to think that they, based on this incomplete understanding, could produce an effective vaccine against Covid that would actually work is just laughable.
Maybe viruses are a little bit like electricity? I mean, I remember when I was studying electrical engineering that one of the professors stressed the fact that the models and images that we see in books of electrons and how they move are just representations and models of how we imagine that they look like. He added that despite this incomplete understanding we can still 'use' electricity since we've become good at predicting how it behaves and what variables change its behavior.
ADDED: I also read your blog post MI. Valid points!
As a layman in these matters, it appears to me that at the very least the experts' understanding of viruses is greatly exaggerated. And then to think that they, based on this incomplete understanding, could produce an effective vaccine against Covid that would actually work is just laughable.
Maybe viruses are a little bit like electricity? I mean, I remember when I was studying electrical engineering that one of the professors stressed the fact that the models and images that we see in books of electrons and how they move are just representations and models of how we imagine that they look like. He added that despite this incomplete understanding we can still 'use' electricity since we've become good at predicting how it behaves and what variables change its behavior.
ADDED: I also read your blog post MI. Valid points!
What do you mean "denatures cells"? Electron microscopy, as I understand it, uses electrons to create an image of a sample in a similar way to sonar.
It can also be a virus.
I don't think anyone here thinks that viruses are here to create damage to living beings.
XPan
The Living Force
I wanted to add something revolving SARS.
Medical researcher David Crowe did an excellent analysis about the start and whereabouts of the original SARS “pandemic” in an pdf of 53 pages. You will be surprised how it started and especially how it all was truly sloppy and unprofessionally handled - compared to the official scare mongering narrative back then.
Interesting is the section in which SARS patients where by accident mixed up at a hospital with AIDS patients in the same room. None of the AIDS patients got infected with SARS. Which is remarkable given that the aids patients had a very low immune system but no transfer of disease took place.
Also the way the Chinese “determined” SARS in people was totally amateurish, just with help of low fever and if the x-Rays showed some shadows. The. You were given lethal treatments - leading to further illness and damages. As well death.
In essence patients were killed through medications. And Canada’s play in the whole game was a very strange one, too. I have to add that it has been 2 years the last time i read David Crowe’s pdf file, so i hope I didn’t get the details wrong.
David Crowe died hastily of cancer in Jul/Aug 2020 - which felt strange as he was highly critical of the Corona Plandemic at a very early stage (well, no wonder, after what came to the fore regarding the SARS “Pandemic” 2002/03)
Original David Crowe site down
I notice from my above entry in Jan 2022, that the original site from Dawid Crowe is down. (He died hastily in summer 2020 of cancer). An excellent medical researcher and critic revolving autism, as well a very early on a sceptic of the Corona Plandemic. That, due to the fact that he scrutinized the original SARS "pandemic" 2002/03 down to very fine details (described in the here attached pdf, called "SARS - Steroid and Ribavirin Scandal", 53 pages) If you are interested, it reads like a thriller. Well, at least it had that effect on me when i read the first time back in april 2020 during the earliest phase of the Corona Plandemic, and the parallells sunk in deeper...) Also Canada's roll in the SARS 2003 affair, is bizarre.
With striking parallells, you'll see (once again) the resemblance between older scams with that of the Corona Plandemic (and AIDS scam, too); faulty measurements / requirements / tests, and ill advised, toxic treatments leading to patients deaths or damages !
So, I simply upload the pdf file here directly, instead.
XPan
The Living Force
Perhaps nature wanted to point out
1) that whatever tissue is studied under the electron microscope, the sample then is detached from its natural, living environment, and on top of that; the samples are often altered with help of various solutions / additions.
2) whatever you study under the electron microscope, turns dead, as the procedure itself kills everything.
Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I could image that a procedure like that alters the samples that one wants to study. (Here of course also matters, what the scientist / virologist wants to accomplish, study, learn, alter, push... Perhaps the attitude of the observer also plays a roll regarding the results ?)
Edit: (Oh I am silly. Nature already answered to it. Forgive me.)
Last edited:
XPan
The Living Force
Regarding the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 virus
In the Corona Investigative committee session 94, "Stepping on their feet", German Prof. Dr Ulrike Kämmerer did an excellent interview showing/explaining how isolation was done. (A very interesting interview actually).
odysee.com
odysee.com
In the Corona Investigative committee session 94, "Stepping on their feet", German Prof. Dr Ulrike Kämmerer did an excellent interview showing/explaining how isolation was done. (A very interesting interview actually).
Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer & Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg | Session 94: Stepping on their feet
Guests: Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer (Human biologist, immunologist, cell biologist) & Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (Internist, pneumologist, social physician)
odysee.com
Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer | Sitzung 82: Es gibt kein kostenloses Mittagessen
Im Gespräch mit Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer (Humanbiologin, Immunologin, Zellbiologin) & Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (Internist, Pneumologe, Sozialmediziner) Der Corona Ausschuss wurde von vier RechtsanwältInnen g...
odysee.com
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
Yes, that's their idea. It's a sign of their tunnel vision. Pretty much the only two things they can imagine can cause disease are bacteria and viruses, so that's what they focus on, ignoring any other possible cause. They don't even bother doing control experiments because their belief in all this rubbish is so strong.
But that's the thing, Joe - there is no "virusy thing".
What do you imagine that would be? Nobody has ever seen a virus "invade a cell" or anything like that. Its not even possible to see that, even if that did happen (for which there is no evidence), because, like nature said, you can't see living tissue under an EM. You can only see dead, poisoned, massacred tissue, and literally all they can see there is "small, round things" that can be anything. (The processing of tissue for electron microscopy is actually ridiculous. The result has nothing to do with the original environment.)
The only reason they even think it's viruses is their wishful thinking. Remember, viruses were hypothesised at a time when nobody could see anything this small, and since then they've been trying to find them. So they say this "small, round thing" is a virus because that's what they want it to be. But without actually isolating the virus, this is just imagination.
There is zero evidence that anything seen under the microscope is actually a virus. None of these particles have been isolated. None of them have been proven to cause any disease.
And I'm not trying to prove viruses don't exist. (You can't even prove that.) I'm actually trying to find evidence that they do. But I'm realising that no such evidence seems to be available because it finally became clear to me that ALL the stuff they claim to be evidence is just wishful thinking with no science to back it up.
So I'm asking seriously, actually - does anyone have anything that can be considered evidence of a virus?
And I must admit that it took me quite a while of looking at the same evidence and a lot of thinking before it dawned on me how hollow all this virology stuff is.
It's been clear to me for 2 years that viruses don't cause disease (or that there's no evidence that they do), but only recently I realised that there's actually nothing to show viruses exist at all, even though it was all in front of my eyes the whole 2 years or so.
So for those of you who still aren't sure about this, maybe read my previous post a few times and try to understand the process of what virologists do step by step. Go through the process, and at every step, think about where is the evidence for a virus.
Forget about the assumption that it must exist because virologists wouldn't be playing with something nonexistent for decades. Even I thought they couldn't be that stupid. But I finally realised they are.
They're not playing with "viruses". They're playing with a mixture of things in which they ASSUME there's a virus, but AT NO POINT in their processes do they prove this assumption in any way.
Just look at the procedure that I described (and Andy did in the video) and look for a point where you can say there's evidence that there's a virus. You'll realise there is no such point.
Cytotoxic effect comes from the antibiotics and other crap in the sample, and electron microscopy literally only shows "small, round things". They INTERPRET these two things as evidence of a virus, but they clearly aren't.
And contagion of "viral diseases" has never been proven and actually has been disproven in many experiments.
Watch The End of Germ Theory: The End of Germ Theory
Exactly. For the ones interested in this phenomenon, I recommended reading The Rainbow and the Worm by Mae-Wan Ho. Destroying cells alter their properties and the properties of their constituents.
Today there is no non-invasive technique allowing the direct observation of viruses (20-200 nm) a living cell.
I wrote several chapters of book Comets, Viruses and Evolutionary Leaps that are dedicated to viruses. If you want to read about it here is the link.
Last edited:
There is a SOTT article with some good EM images of SARS-CoV-2 doing its thing.
This "no viruses out there" idea sounds exactly like a "the Earth is flat". OK, we don't have a virus isolation technology (or do we, considering virus manipulation experiments?), but no "anti-virus" person presented a better model for disease distribution not caused by bacteria. Good old COINTELPRO.
Last edited by a moderator:
nature
Dagobah Resident
Beside XPan's respons, it's another factor that was in my mind, a general factor concerning all microscope models: the way one prepares the sample, particularly the fixation stage. When you take a living sample, you fixate it in a chemical liquid (usually it's formol, or Bouin's liquid). It enables the sample to be hard, thus be easy to cut very thin. Also other liquids for example dye product in standard microsopy, chemical dessication procedure in electronic microscopy.
It's a general we, included doctors, school teachers, university teachers, virologists, new forum readers who are still not aware about that, etc..)
It can, but provided the numerous other points raised by MI's post and the discussions XPan reports us from the Corona Investigative Committee, one can highly doubt.
It can: as a vehicule ( a tiny spherical membrane) that enables the viral nucleic material (ie a tiny bit of genetic code - a program) from oustside the cell to inside its nucleus where abides the cell's DNA. In phagosomes, exosomes, lysosomes and who knows what other transportation / biological intra-cellular containers, the surface is same on EM pictures (a membraneous sphere).
While searching for EM photos about viruses, I came to this photo below. I deepL translate :
Usually, they don't precise the way they take the image. Here we have the chance they said it: they inoculate the sample. So, practically speaking, they take a sample (biopsy on a sane human, or a recent sample from their laboratory collection?), they put it in a Pietri dish and pour the contents of another dish containing the supposed Cov viruses stored in their laboratory or elsewhere? Anyways, it's not a sample taken in a said infected patient.
Another element that can challenge us: how is that serious virology expert don't succeed in obtaining such images, in isolating viruses? A scientific observation is relevant if it is reproductible by other independant ( no interest conflicts) reseachers.
Attachments
It's good old COINTELPRO, truthful arguments wrapped up in a non-discerned lie to twist the entire thing into viruses don't exist.
20th century postulates fall short when it comes to the complexity of microbiology and evolving technology. Even with our limited understanding of the living cell and complex tissues like the fascia due to the tools currently being used that make it all look so "cut and dry" we can still surmise the complexity behind it as we try to understand the living world around us.
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
How They Find Viruses - explained in 1 minute:
Virology in a nutshell.
Virology in a nutshell.
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
When I saw how long the article is and with how many pictures, I thought, cool, maybe there will be something interesting there. Sadly, the article is so bad it's embarrassing.
Also, "doing its thing"? It's not doing anything. It's still images. Of "small, round things".
The article actually names two of the four studies that Kaufman showed didn't isolate the virus, which the authors of one of them even openly admitted. Yet the author of this article cites them as proof that the virus has been isolated. So the author is either
The rest of the article is all based on all the flawed and meaningless methods of orthodox virologists. Same old garbage of very bad science. The author is a mainstream virologist who just believes in the virologist dogma without questioning it. This is regular poor mainstream science, as represented by people like Fauci. Lots of authoritarianism, little science.
And if anybody gets fooled by a still image of a circle to which somebody draws an arrow and says "that's a virus", well, they're probably a lost cause. As has been said, it could be anything, and nothing was done in those studies to determine what it actually is. Without isolation of the virus, which clearly has not been done, none of the claims in the article have any value. It's all make-believe.
I mean, they even use cancer cells, get toxic effects, and determine from that there's a virus involved.
Then they describe an image with the words "isolation of nCoV-2019" and in the next sentence say it's an image of Vero cells, which means NOT an isolated virus.
This is exactly the kind of anti-scientific dogmatic rubbish like Darwinism. All of it is built on foundations that have been demonstrated to be false. They don't have an isolated virus, yet they act as if they do, and everything else they do is built on that false claim.
By the way, flat earth was an established, untouchable mainstream dogma, just like Darwinism and virology are today, which required a lot of effort of true scientists to be overcome, just like these two things will require.