I'm not sure about this, and I'm not willing to prove anything to anyone. But from what I found about it, from a girl who always says that there is no virus. She is Russian, and she has no content in English. Briefly, she said that those are just the cells of our immune system. They could be affected by a chemical, for example from trails, and start healing us. And they may look like that under the microscope because our body creates them to make us heal. So, from what she said, that there is no virus, but only chemicals, and things that can affect us in our lives, that push our body to create those cells.
The thing I'm sure about that our immune system is much stronger than we think. And by staying home like in the lockdowns, by not breathing fresh air with those masks, by injecting more chemicals to our body, or taking them in form of a medicament, we may only hurt our immune system.
The strangest thing is that during the pandemic no one promoted a healthy style of life. To eat better, drink more water, breath more fresh air, to stay fit, to move as much as possible. But they pushed for the total opposite.
I was happy when the president of the Salvador promoted healthy style of life during that time :
Anyway, everyone has the right to believe what ever he/she wants. We also have the right to believe and trust what ever we want. Sometimes all we need to follow is logic !
I disagree - nobody should believe the science. It isn't supposed to be a cult.
I hope I cleared what I meant here : https://blurt.blog/informationwar/@clixmoney/rf4yip
OK, but I still reject the claim that anybody has the right to their beliefs just because they believe them.
That is pathological relativism. I posted on this yesterday ;-)
EXACTLY but a cult it has become.
The ideas are liable to be really mashed up in most minds.
The counter-theory is quite subtle.
There ARE sub-microscopic entities that we now call "viruses" - there are about 1 billion per ml of natural water and soil, for example. They are everywhere!
So, what is their true role and real mechanism of action? THAT has been the 100-year con!
Even in the standard literature, there are "non-pathogenic viruses", there are also endogenous viruses and exosomes. The big con is to scare people into believing the world is awash with pathogenic viruses and that vaccines will immunise people, instead they are the most likely cause of the alleged diseases that then stimulate cells to discard those particles to detoxify, and those particles are then blamed as the pathogens! Great con.
Unlike bacteria, that we can all see with a good microscope, the virus-con can be perpetrated with expensive equipment such as electron-microscopes and genetic testing.
Getting the cause and effect the wrong way round makes pharmascum and doctors very rich and powerful.
The last step, because the word "virus" is derived from the Latin for "poison", and hence assumes some pathogenic nature, is to entirely change the word to something more neutral.
"There ARE sub-microscopic entities that we now call "viruses" "
Yes there are many microscopic particles but 'we' do not call them viruses. THEY did. Under the instructions of a man called Rivers under the instructions of Rockefeller who went on to build a mighty empire based on the thing they just dreamed up. Viruses.
Before them a virus was a poison. Latin is a dead language hence the meaning of a word cannot be changed. Virus means poison. They committed fraud.
We've had this discussion before. What I take issue with is people who then say "viruses don't exist", as some mantra, with no follow-on, so that someone else hearing that thinks that there is nothing there at all. There is - it just isn't what we've been pushed to believe. Also, that mantra is actually damaging to the cause, as the vast majority of people can't believe they don't exist. So you've immediately created a barrier. "Viruses are NOT pathogens" is more accurate - possibly! I say possibly as we then need to consider bacteriophages - they could be a separate class, but the idea that all viruses are pathogenic looks like an extension of bacteriophages.
When the first so-called coronavirus was identified in the 1950s, the paper was initially rejected as the electronmicrographs looked like exosomes. So, if viruses are not pathogens, then we also need a theory of antibodies - the whole process could well be a bio-garbage-collection mechanism, but we need to push for experiments that can show this.
This is very similar to physics, in that whole theories are dismissed merely because of the refusal to fund the research in that area.
When we say 'viruses don't exist' it's a perfectly relevant statement as we are claiming their definition of a virus (which they made up and have changed 3 times now) is what doesn't exist. The definition is of a pathogenic element therefore it's pointless to say some are pathogenic and others not. That would be like saying some poisons are not poisonous.
By the way how do you know bacteriophage are pathogenic to bacteria? Only because that is what you are told right? Did you know they took the theory of bacteriophage and slotted it onto their theory of viruses?
The exosome theory is more to the point BUT when Kaufman started saying viruses are exosomes that also just confused people.
Viruses do not exist is simple and clear. No-one said sub-microscopic particles don't exist. What we want is proof of claim. They claim, well you now what they claim, without solid proof. Arguing over the minutae of the language is pointless at this juncture. The challenge is very clear and precise.
I think this discussion answers both @clixmoney and @rycharde re the 'no virus' and the 'believing'. It also answers a lot more.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6jOdghV1aYUw/
Yes, that is precisely why I made the comment.
And that would be true! The poison is in the dose. ;-) At the right dose, poisons can be cures.
Language is important, hence a correct new language needs to be already prepared to sort out what does exist and has been misclassified, as well as what truly doesn't exist at all and has been fabricated by, for example, DNA reconstruction.
One thing I noted from the very start of the kovidity scam was the availability of the alleged virus for labs with credentials, and yet they never, ever, could find such a thing within humans. So... how did they get all those "covid" samples from? And it is from those "samples" that they calibrated all the tests. This is not even science - it is pure logical bollox. Those few private labs willing to speak in forums, all said they could find nothing in alleged "positive victims" other than sometimes influenza. But even then, so influenza does exist? I recall one paper where they randomly tested patients allegedly treated for flu and found merely 10% showed signs of the influenza virus (according to the test).
The biggest jokes are the "transmission" experiments - I don't think ANY has ever shown the human to human transmission of a virus. They have to be injected to be infected. I leave it there. Could be an ad slogan!
The old 'poison is in the dose' is the phrase they constantly use to justify vaccines as well as other drugs. I think it's also false. I think the poison is in the mode of entry myself. Clearly demonstrated by your very last sentence.
Also true of homeopathy, tho.
Hahnemann was genuinely perplexed that it worked at all!
Yeah, injections are like having the city gates protecting the people, then seeing parachutes coming down. I mean, you wouldn't inject burgers into people to feed them.
A little different with homeopathy as there is no physical trace of the ingredient only it's energetic trace. have you read anything about how water can communicate? It explains how homeopathy works when you understand this. I keep forgetting the name of the woman who's done the ice pictures, fascinating stuff.
Interesting. So you would say that the statement "at the right dose, poisons can cure" is wrong?
Would you say that about LSD too, for example? Just curious.
Yes I don't think any 'drug' cures anything especially when you shift your thinking as to what disease actually is, as in our bodies heal themselves and in the process the symptoms are labelled as disease.
Drugs only stop that process so we may think we are better but we are not cured. The healing is stopped. Not sure what you mean about LSD which produces a shift in consciousness?
You're missing the point here. If there is no virus there is no covid and no immune system. It's all utter bullcrap. Yes you are free to believe whatever you like but when ur beliefs threaten MY life that is another kettle of fish entirely. It's like saying you don't have to believe in my God but you do have to go to my church every week or you'll be sacked from your job and not allowed to buy food. Get it?
I said the following : ''I'm not sure about this, and I'm not willing to prove anything to anyone.'' That means I'm not sure about the existence of the virus and that's ok, because I found some content in the past that talk about it. But I didn't have time to dig deeper. And I'm not ''willing to prove anything to anyone'' not because I think you're wrong in something. And I'm not against you here. I'm just trying to figure out by discussing this.
But I don't understand, how the absence of the virus can be related with the absence of the immune system ? I think, ''again not sure'' that the absence of the virus couldn't be related with the absence of the immune system. And maybe, ''I'm not sure again'', they kind of take the cells created by the immune system and tell us that's a virus. I'm completely with you that they are manipulative.
I don't understand how my beliefs in the virus, or its absence can threaten your life. Especially if I'm not sure about that. I'm just trying to figure out. I don't know a lot about medicine, that's not the field I learned about.
I'm not telling you what to do in any form. Let me explain what I meant by : ''Anyway, everyone has the right to believe what ever he/she wants.''
I meant if someone believe that covid is a virus, and that vaccines are effective, and masks and lockdowns, let them believe so. We can't impact their beliefs by force. We give them evidences, arguments, and it's up to them to change that belief or not.
And I meant by this : ''We also have the right to believe and trust what ever we want.''
We, me I you who don't trust fake expects, vaccines, and everything that was forces on people. We also have the right to believe in this and to defend this position. And I don't see myself against you, by the total opposite. I wanted to support you by that.
And if I said something wrong, or maybe didn't explain it well, that's because I'm not a native speaker. I never visited an English country in my life. So, it's hard to express myself sometimes, especially when I try to use the sarcastic language.
Sorry Clix if you thought I was having a go at you. Nothing of the sort. I was talking in general. I used a collective 'you' it can mean many people too.
What I'm trying to convey is that the belief in viruses has shaped society just like a religion would. It's not a case of 'believing' in something. Science and medicine are not religions although they have tried to make it so. The whole world has been turned upside down because so many people believe a lie.
It's time to call them out before it's too late. It may seem like I'm shouting because I am passionate about this.
Re the immune system - if there are no viruses then there is no need for an 'immune system' to fight them. What we actually have is a detox system. Read this: https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2022/01/12/anti-bodies-again/
Right, I disagree with the whole "right to believe" any bollox - that's relativism - and it's wrong. It also plays into the hand of medical tyrants who don't give a crap about such inert relativism. They promoted this philosophy on purpose - to breed confusion - and amid confusion, most people believe.
Good morning from here,
are you hung up on the word "right" to believe?
Regardless of whether one claims a right to believe something, it does not stop anyone from believing or not believing even without such a (thought or postulated) right. "Believe" in this case can merely be a lingustic way of saying synonymously that one trusts or does not trust a source. This source can be oneself or others or both. Instead of "belief" one can also say "conviction".
One "believes" those whom one considers to be reliable sources. Every person, I would say, expresses an attitude that they think is the right or wrong one. In a field where I have no professional (e.g. scientific) experience, I have no other option than to research sources and then form a picture of what I should make a decision about. But the nature and motivation of exactly what I am researching into already contains (I would think overwhelmingly) my presuppositions and also what I WANT to know, or determines the tendency of what I hope to find to confirm my presuppositions or disprove those of others.
If I am unwilling to admit that I am leaning in a certain direction even before I find evidence to confirm my assumption, I am essentially no different from those who find contrary assumptions confirmed.
I would therefore admit from the outset that it is particular convictions and principles that concern me on issues and on which, even contrary to scientific findings or achievements, I nevertheless wish to contradict such because my conscience tells me to do so. No one, I would say, should speak against what I call my conscience (the highest authority, so to speak). Where one wants to force me to turn against this conscience, one is asking me to turn against myself. I understand this to mean what is enshrined in our Basic Law: "Human dignity is inviolable".
Science, or its application in, for example, life-prolonging measures, seems to be indisputable that people who are put on heart-lung machines are kept alive by this. If someone now comes along and says "I don't believe that!" and claims such against better knowledge, they will have reasons for doing so that probably sound irrational to me. Nevertheless, this makes me realise that it seems to be emotional reasons that express a vehement rejection and the more I try to convince such a person that his feelings play no role in the apple always falling down, the angrier this person will become.
It is the relationship level that determines a conflict, I think. I have found in countless debates with friends or strangers that efforts of convincing, pointing to sources etc. etc. are of little or no use if you don't get the relationship level clear beforehand. You can name and copy as many sources as you want, the other person will not even look at them or be willing to study in them if the level of personal relationship has not been pacified or satisfied. Only the one who has been emotionally satisfied is accessible to rational arguments.
Yeah, and in Russia we used to ask people : ''Do you believe in covid ?''. That's for sure was a religion for so many who injected in their bodies the unknown, and some of them did that even to their kids. And people were wearing masks even in parks when no one around, I always felt sorry about old people who barely breath, but kept wearing it because the TV told them so. Things were really crazier. That's why comparing that to sanctions, it's the light for of harm. Maybe we will turn to the Soviet Union again and not be allowed to do a lot of things. But that's way better than what happened during those two crazy years. Maybe they are giving us a break, and it will be just worse in the future, and those sanctions will just help them to make us more controllable, that's what I see at least. It's my destiny to run from a country like Algeria because I wanted more civil country, and to be cut here in Russia with what's going on now. Maybe it's my final destiny and I have to deal with it. I wanted to leave the country, but I have a Russian wife and a son who is already used to many things here.
Running won't help, this a worldwide thing. Covid was just an excuse to bring about the great reset. They are dismantling everything and will build it back how they want it unless we stop them. A lot of what they're dismantling needs to go anyway. The hellthcare system for one. But all this is just to bring in their new monetary system based on scarcity instead of consumerism. You're better off staying and building a garden, grow veg. Learn an essential skill. So far there are few places to run to. I hear Mexico is ok. Not sure about Algeria. As long as you keep away from cities.
Yep, unlike WW2, there is nowhere to run now.
The scum needs clearing. Both the people and the tech.