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.
RE: Do Viruses Really Exist?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do Viruses Really Exist?
"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.
I think this is more interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_teleportation
and surprised Wankipedia has a whole page, without (so far) the snarling allegations of fakery.
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?
Sorry for my late reply.
Yes, I know that already from personal experiences (in case of stopping a fever too soon, it may stretch the disease-full times even longer), for example.
To answer your question: If the dose does not make the poison then there is no over dose which causes damage? To take another example (and not LSD) what about sleeping pills taken in great amounts? It is said that they can cause death. Do you know anything about it?