Why I am sceptical about the virus or contagion theory has several reasons. Some of them may meet with understanding and reflection, others will probably meet with rejection.
For one thing, it is a theory. If it were not a theory, we would call it "contagion law",
in any case we made the theory into something more solid.
I am not sure that such a thing would even work or be legitimate. I understand biology as a discipline that deals with the living, with the organic and therefore with beings that
- are subject to a constant change of substances through the constant absorption and excretion of innumerable substances. I guess that's why it's called "metabolism". In German even more literal than in English (Stoff: matter, thing, / Wechsel: change).
- are exposed to an ever changing environment.
When the method runs after itself
Organic matter cannot be understood through its details, because the analysis itself already lags behind its method when something is taken from the whole body and then examined in its detail. The thing to be examined is no longer in the body, so it no longer reacts with the body's own circuits and substances in it. So what I get, when investigating a detail is a detailed result (cutting off the tail).
The deeper and finer one examines microscopically and beyond, according to my way of thinking, the further one distances oneself from the organism as a whole.
Of course, I grew up believing that one could clearly distinguish a healthy lung from a diseased one. And when someone is presented with two such lungs in a pictorial comparison, they immediately tend to say that the person with the ugly looking organ must have had lung disease!
But now these lungs have been isolated (looked at) from the rest of the organism. Does this answer without any doubt that a person suffered with this lung as the sole cause?
For me, the important question of the process of isolation is that the smaller the particles that are examined, the smaller the chance of getting the big picture. If they are "invisible", i.e. examined on a chemical level, and these chemical elements are to be neatly separated from each other,
... how do I even know what exactly is to be separated from what?
the observer can describe an entity only if there is at least one other entity from which he can distinguish it and with which he can observe it to interact or relate. This second entity that serves as a reference for the description can be any entity, but the ultimate reference for any description is the observer himself.
Humberto Maturana
If I cut off the path between one element and the other, have I not separated something that has not already been subjected to a process of change through the separation itself (isolation)? Intervening in interconnected elements then already represents something different from what was there before (the separation).
In addition, I cannot carry out a process of isolation of such particles inside a living organism. I have to do it outside the whole organism. But is what I then examine still the same? How can it be the same?
As I understand isolation, and what is subsequently done with fluids taken from an organism, is that they are combined with other substances to get results.
(see further down)
If you were to take a fluid (such as mucus from the nose), put it in a petri dish and do nothing more than observe what changes there after a certain time, you would see visual changes, but you wouldn't know what to do with them.
Not only are they brought into contact with other substances, other things are done, such as centrifugation.
In the meantime, we know that a drop of mucus contains countless microscopic and smaller organisms and other substances.
Whether this mix says anything about which substances and organisms are useful or harmful within the large organism, I will never be able to know beyond doubt. Since these have also been isolated from the organism from which they come.
In order to separate something that I have given a name from something else that I have also given a name, I have to know both, don't I?
The history of virology is, how could it be otherwise, similar to the history of the exploration of the cosmos. (I give a name to things that I am not sure what they are like "dark matter" or "anti-matter").
The reaction of one thing with another thing should become clear to me. The history of virology is full of contrasting experiences in the examination and treatment of the things examined, depending on what the scientists saw in them after subjecting the things (particles) to treatment.
Without such a treatment, it would have remained with said mere observation of what is visible in a petri dish. That which a thing does all by itself, without the intervention of a researcher.
Can you agree that "treatment" will already change the image I will get?
And even if the treatment tries to simulate something that would happen in the organism, is the simulation the same as the non-simulated original (ever ongoing) process?
The isolation method says according to its logic: Then we have to take all the sand of the beach out of its environment and study it away from the system that affects it. Grain of sand by grain of sand.
But if we can only examine a part of the grains of sand, because it is completely impossible to isolate people and beaches from their environments, we are confronted with the statement that it is already sufficient to have examined only a part of the human being and only a part of the beach and that this is enough to be able to draw conclusions about the overall event.
But then we have to become philosophical and ask: "But what is the overall event?"
I therefore understand the history of virology as a process in which scientists used substances to bring about a simulation of what was assumed by them in the organism. But even the determination of the substances used to grow a cell culture can only be done on the basis of what is known.
The Max Planck Institute says that different things have been known, that there have been correspondingly different applications in cell culture breeding and that this different knowledge has been published and evaluated by different researchers, and summarises that no clear result has been reached as far as the virus theory is concerned.
Isolation
I am separating elements that previously worked together in order to then obtain something separate as the monocausal cause of an overall organic reaction.
It is as if I were to take apart a very complex structure, assuming that I could easily put it back together again afterwards. This is not easy with technically sophisticated mechanical machines, but with an organism, if I cut it up, it is not possible at all. I then have a dead body (on the dissection table) or a single removed organ.
The medicine of the past proceeded on the basis of the external appearance of the internal organs. If a person had a damaged organ and was then examined as a dead person, the pathologist could judge the condition of this organ by looking at it. I ask myself whether a very sick-looking organ might have looked like a rotten tooth in an otherwise healthy organism. And how many dead or open human bodies someone must have seen to get such a kind of trained eye. How can someone set a standard and recognise an organ as "good and healthy"?
How it came about that today's doctors can be so impressed by genetics is inconclusive to me.
If the so-called human genetic code were deciphered, it would be easy to breed humans. In the laboratory. We would need to combine sperm cells and egg cells, produce an artificial placenta and births outside mothers would henceforth be possible.
We could programme the necessary DNA. Because we know all about it, about viruses and the infection paths and what exactly the code is for the viruses identified and discovered in each case.
But let's stick to the methods that a layman like me understands.
Let's take a very sniffy and coughing person with a high fever. A swab of his sputum when he coughs.
This is then swallowed by someone healthy (I know, disgusting idea).
- First question: How do I know that the person who swallows the substance is healthy?
But further on: the "healthy person" swallows the mucus of the sick person. We wait and see. The healthy person gets sick after two or three days.
- Second question: How do I know that it was the sick person's mucus that made the formerly healthy person miserable?
- How can I exclude the possibility that it was not something else that made the test person ill?
I can only do this if I create a laboratory condition.
However, it is not possible to create a laboratory condition for living and breathing human beings.
That would mean strictly isolating people from their usual everyday life, putting them in a solitary cell, not allowing them to have any contact with the environment.
Furthermore, they would not be allowed to eat anything for a few days and would only be allowed to drink water that comes from one and the same source. These isolated individuals would then have to swallow the "infected" mucus from one and the same sick person.
But as soon as they came into contact with food, the laboratory condition would be contaminated. So one cannot speak of a laboratory condition including living people.
Since this is not possible, the curious person thinks that it must also be possible without the human being as a whole. Easy. Everything can be extracted: blood, bone marrow, urine, faeces, mucus, cells, skin scales, hair, etc.
To get around this (ethical) problem, you do it with animals. But they have to be fed too, don't they?
Then the problem is the laboratory condition itself.
The moment I strive to exclude all causes that constitute contamination, I no longer have everyday living conditions. But that is exactly where we organics live. Humans, animals, plants.
My question would be:
- If there are so many millions of unknown particles (called viruses) on the smallest electron microscopic level, which we assume are organisms and non-organisms (chemical substances) mixed together in this broth, it is illogical to have discovered one of them as the dangerous virus par excellence without discovering all others. Those "others" might interact in various ways, of which we don't know if they benefit or harm.
That would be like picking out a grain of sand on a sandy beach and saying that it was precisely this grain that plagues us all because a microscopic fly was found dead on precisely this grain!
Logic dictates that we would also have to be able to name all the other grains of sand and determine their effects in order to make such a strong statement.
We would not only have to have isolated this one grain, but also all the other grains from all the others!
But as far as serious science is concerned, we do not know all of them, or have examined and named them. To discover something unknown, you have to look in a known environment, don't you? I cannot see something new if I am surrounded by the new and do not recognise anything familiar.
Change
Also, according to my understanding, what we have initially investigated and then named would then no longer be valid over time, because when we have arrived at the last grain of sand, we would have to start all over again, because in the meantime the waves of the ocean have washed over the beach, the whole system has reorganised itself again, changed and other elements that were not there before have been added or have fallen away (which is also called "mutation").
On the one hand, it is said that millions upon millions of microorganisms are present in biological bodies.
If it is the case that there are an incredible number of them, most of which are unknown to us, how can we say with any certainty what is "new" or "different" if we only know a tiny fraction of the total?
How then does what we have "isolated" react with everything else that we do not know or name, or whose reaction we cannot know or predict for that reason?
When Virologists claim to isolate a “virus,” they are referring to the end result of a cell culture experiment. They never actually separate a particle they assume to be a “virus” directly from the sample obtained from a sick human first, they simply assume there is a “virus” already within the patient sample and go from there. There are a few problems with this.
There are billions of different micro and nanoparticles within the patient sample, including cellular debris, extracellular vesicles, and exosomes which are indistinguishable from “viruses.”
The sample from a sick patient is immediately placed in what is called Viral Transport Media which contain chemicals that are toxic to cells.
These chemicals are added as a way to “safely” transfer the patient sample to the lab for testing, culturing, and other molecular biological techniques. They often are composed of some sort of salt solution, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and can be contaminated by disinfectants such as ethanol. These are all substances which are toxic to cells and can change the sample before the culturing process even begins.
Further, based on what we "know", we would henceforth have to get tested for all known diseases and vaccinated for all so-called contagious diseases known on earth, would we not? This would hardly be a different situation from the one we are in now, but it doesn't matter?
My understanding is what was already a lived reality before 2020, still is.
Nothing is newer or more dangerous than it always was.
What has changed, however, is that we are exhausted in debates and apparently the scientists who do not do their work carefully enough seem to assume that others have already done it for them and that they can trust that what they have received is flawless (gold standard).
Those scientists who cast doubt on this have taken a lot of flak and are told that it is up to them to prove something that they themselves seem convinced is already proven and no further effort into actual experimentation is needed. But this is the reversal of a burden of proof.
By whom must the claim of "imminent danger!" be proven?
The doubting scientists did not launch a gigantic media campaign and say that "Seven billion people need to be vaccinated". It was the governments of all countries who, instead of not creating a panic, promoted one. Even if catastrophic influences were indeed threatening the lives of all, panic would be the last thing to use as a means of calamity.
By definition, a disaster is an inevitable event.
Because it is inevitable, it is called a disaster. If it could be averted, influenced, controlled, it would not be a catastrophe, it would be a relative event, not an absolute one.
It would cause near to a hundred percent destruction and not the opposite, 0,1 percent destruction.
For those who think that it was the lockdowns, the distancing and the hygiene that prevented total destruction, something as hazardous as a perceived killer virus would have cleared all those hurdles, as it would be utterly impossible to protect against something so super deadly.
Let's not forget, for something so destructive, we lived roughly about eight months before the first vaccines were distributed. Until then, the only protection we proceeded were social distancing and masks.
In reality, we have not been able to create anything like the protected environment we like to imagine.
In normal everyday life, people went shopping as usual, met at work for a whole year before mass testing was even extended to non specific workplaces, and those who worked from home offices had to get out of the house just like everyone else who did not work in front of the screen.
Let's also not forget, that a great many people did not follow the mandates and went on to see, kiss, hug and meet people.
Sources:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/26/the-virus-of-sin/
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/05/the-case-against-cell-cultures/
I am going to post this also on hive in order to get some challenging responses and comments. I probably will change or add a few things. Forgive me not to have used any images. I might use some in the further edit of this article. For now, I want to get it out.
Re🤬eD
Thank you.
The video is not available. Do you have another source?
The video was of the KMFDM song genau
I was in High Agreement with your post.
✌️🥓
Oh, I'm so with You. This is something I wrote up and leave in comments around the web:
I cringe when I see or hear any of the plot elements in the play They put on for Us and sell as "reality" which suggest that "deadly viruses" even exist. Why?
Because They have never proven contagion. Between Béchamp and the military having hundreds of well People subjected to sick People who coughed, sneezed, and spat into Their mouths, who had the mucus of the sick swabbed into Their nasal passages, and even had the blood and the mucus of the sick injected into Them, with ZERO of the well falling sick, I think contagion can be ruled out.
Colds and the flu are seasonal detoxing of Our systems (thus fluids and rest are the most often recommended approach to dealing with the illness We experience).
Given that They have never isolated or purified a single virus, merely making extrapolations from fragments of stuff They found, computer models made with guesses all around the fragments, and calling it "the virus," I think We can safely say They don't have anything real.
Given that Pasteur admitted in His posthumously published journals that He added toxins to make it appear as if He had proven contagion... And given He likely was working with Rockefeller, who loved the idea of "deadly viruses," glomming onto the idea for its profit potential and fear factor for control, and then selling it as "truth" in His publishing, schools, and media...
I think We can conclude that the whole "out of Wuhan" is a plot element in Their play, maintaining the idea that "deadly viruses" exist, and likely to be used in building up another war, this time with China. If any "gain of function" is being done, it is in the form of nanotech which behaves like Their mythical "deadly virus" does, being in some way "contagious." These are psychopaths who are in control and They surely would not be averse to creating such a thing.
So when the play is being taken as if it is indeed "reality," I feel a burning desire to speak up and hopefully get awareness of the colossal scam being perpetrated on Humanity out there. And I admit... I am hoping these facts are communicated, rather than the fearmongering presented in the play the psychopaths in control on Our planet are keeping Us entrained on.
Also... I wrote an article that discusses these things as well as much more and would love Your thoughts:
Everything You Know: https://hive.blog/informationwar/@amaterasusolar/everything-you-know
(Sorry it's on hive... Haven't brought it here yet.)
Thank you very much for commenting here. I am in line with you.
I want to answer to this part of your comment:
I fear that such material belonging to the past would not be accepted and convictions or formulations like zero effect would rather achieve the opposite of reflection.
It would currently have to be repeated in the same way, but then you run into the problem I pointed out of "creating a laboratory atmosphere with living people". Although I'm with you emotionally, I can't help but consider such things. I don't think any subjects would volunteer to swallow such fluids or be injected with a blood sample from a sick person. It is considered ethically unacceptable and I think many would agree. But that gives you a dead end, doesn't it?
So you do it with laboratory animals and derive the findings of modern research. But animals can't talk and they can't make statements about their well-being or communicate that they don't want what is being done to them.
The military experiments from the past would be torn apart by contemporary scientists, precisely from the point of view of the lack of laboratory conditions and the lack of precise temporal documentation. You would have to ask yourself the critical question of whether there really were zero diseases. What if some people did get sick? I don't think that's out of the question, and if that were the case, there would be no clear result. I don't mean to say that a possible illness of the test persons at that time would have been proof that they were infected, but only that there are many other reasons for illness or similar symptoms.
Finally, it remains for me to say that I personally would like the contagion theory to remain unproven, because it runs counter to my view of the world and the consequences of this view of the world are unacceptable to me. In other words, even if something like contagion does exist, I would still put the consequences of what this means (guilt of contact, persecution of contact, ban on gathering, distancing, etc.) into perspective and state that the price we pay for accepting the theory is too high.
Does this make sense to you?
Well, if someOne offered Me a thousand dollars, I bet I would swallow/be injected. (Many of the civilian tests had incentive added.)
And many of the experiments were done in the military (not all), and the well were ordered to participate...or offered a week's leave, or other motivator.
And define "laboratory setting..."
There are many factors besides the fact that no One has been able to prove contagion... Like no One has ever isolated a virus, all "virus genomes" were created by taking bits of genetic material They found and stitching them all together in a computer file. Things like that. In toto, the highest probability by far is that Rockefeller lied about the unicorns being real, so as to sell His petro-"medicines" for profit, and for the fear factor it had. He taught it as truth in His schools, publishing, and media, while controlling "research," even redefining "isolate" so nothing needs to be isolated.
That's where I place My probabilities.
It's a long way from top to down. And vice versa. On this way, people might be not as cooperative with the powers than we (and those who think to control everything) might think.
I would only participate in such an experiment when I could to kiss the sick patient and found him attractive, lol - that hopefully should be enough of exchanging fluids. :D lol
I do believe there was some kissing in the mix. Same result. No One got ill...
Here it comes which I tried to tell in my own words up there in my text :)
source: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
It looks more like You are describing how to isolate a virus, not the conditions needed (beyond what They had) to prove contagion...
right, you can see the conditions when you open up the given link.
In my own post from above, I expressed of what I think would have to be strict conditions, please read them :) so we can have, if you like, a further conversation.
Personally, I think, both sides will not be able to prove beyond any doubt that the other side is wrong. Man is tricky and he prepares and argues and sets up settings to his favor. Most of what we think and discuss has nothing to do with science. And that is alright, if I am willing to say so.
Well, I just think that given the claims of the Rockefeller, et al, institutions that germs are out to get You, and that all it takes is contact with a doorknob to fall gravely ill, that such efforts to prove this "contagion" deliver a very high probability that Rockefeller had He pal, Pasteur gin up proof of contagion (which He did, telling of how He used mercury in what He used to "prove" it), so He could sell His petro-"medicines" for to His vast profit and control. I'm gonna run with that, based on the probabilities I give it.
You're welcome to set Your own probabilities.
It makes money and kills off sheeple, so it cannot be questioned. That was the final straw that got me blacK listed on DEEP STATE Hive MIND! GREAT STUFF.
It can. I question it :)
It's questioned by a great many people, as well. Fortunately, also by scientists who did not forget about what is called a scientific method or serious scientist. I read with pleasure this link which might entertain you and also gives some inspiration and hope.
As for your banishment to hive, that is a consequence that was and continues to be foreseeable. I have been banned from my work, that is the price you pay when you stand up against something that seems too infamous to be true. If it were easy, none of this would have happened, right?
Some say a stupid strategy to swim against the odds (and they certainly have their justification, considered individually). What is nice is that we are not all the same. And so individuals have found different ways to put a face to the conflict. You are one of the greater provocateurs and, in addition to your grief, you may have found some satisfaction in it.
Greetings to you!
Greetings back - I keep hearing bad things about Germany at the moment, but I live in NZ which is not good - I think shit is hitting fan here right now...
Thank you.
What things do you hear about Germany?
Right now I am less consuming news because it's summer and most people are on vacation and it's always low with politics during this time.
What I see is higher gas and food prices and longer delivery times from orders. I think it will get worse. Unfortunately I cannot stop that, lol - I lost my wand.
Mainly power shortages and rationing...is that happening?
Not that I am aware of. We have summer and that is probably something which makes people less noticing... I so far have not noted any power shortages, if what you mean refers to what I use in power supplies like fridge, lights, computer etc.
Also, I cannot perceive anything being rationed (supermarket). But then I am probably the wrong person to ask. Companies will be able to tell better, I guess.
What I know of, is when I talk to crafts people who report that they have to wait much longer on things they ordered for repairs and such.
Yes the supply chain is slowing down here too
I don't have time to look it up. If you read the book
The Invisible Rainbow
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51353279-the-invisible-rainbow
There are so many references in the book. He cites several studies where this was indeed tested and they were unable to prove contagion exists in these tests.
Thank you. I cite myself from above text:
This raises the question, if those tests you refer to from the book were made in this fashion. If I have any errors in my thought process, please highlight them. I would appreciate it. I will nevertheless have a look at the given link.
My point probably is that it can't be tested to an absolute degree. Which leaves me with the question if a relative degree is sufficient? Which might be the answer from those who think of the given standard as "gold".
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/contagion-fact-checked/
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/contagion-a-fairy-story/
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/14-reasons-why-millions-of-people-never-once-died-from-infectious-diseases/
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2020/12/29/the-spanish-flu-a-blueprint-for-2020/
all old articles of mine about contagion
Thank you for the links. I have read some of them, already at earlier times when you referred to them. Listing them here makes sense.
What I'm getting at is the isolation process itself, which I personally find troubling. Separating something visible to the eye is understandable to my mind because my imagination can follow it. I can separate a plum stone from the pulp, I can isolate coarse stones from pebbles, and so on.
Where, beyond my imagination, I am concerned with particles too small to be able to recognise them as matter, I am required to explain the isolation to myself on a chemical (molecular), finally on an atomic and then on a mathematical level. I know too little about chemistry, but I know that there are molecules that can be joined together or where the joining of molecules leads to different chemical reactions than in their previous combination.
If you study solids or liquids or gases, their states of aggregation can be changed, molecular compounds can be manipulated, and so on. So far, so understandable.
However, this always takes place with objects that man takes from somewhere, examines them in the laboratory or in the field and, depending on the desired application, makes a usable one out of them.
I question if this is possible with complex organisms on this chemical-mathematical level. Because of the necessary treatment of the elements, there is an influence on what is done outside of it in order to achieve or observe a reaction, i.e. a renewed visualisation of the coarser matter. Which, when one has recognised these chemical-mathematical connections as "reactive", are transferred to the large organism.
In my imagination, this transfer from the small to the large must necessarily take place with high sources of error, because an organism like the human being is not absolutely similar to any other human organism in detail. And you never now everything about the vast interconnectedness of the details in the whole.
As I have read, current scientists do nothing but compare one Petri dish with another Petri dish, or resort to mathematical codes that they have been told represent a sample of an original infected tissue (in my words). They get a computer code.
They do not work with living human beings, to whom they give a substance that they got from a sick patient, and where they then fulfil the multi-way method of Koch (who could not even fulfil it himself, as far as I know).
Now, if one demanded that but this is exactly something that would have to be done repeatedly to prove the contagion theory, wouldn't one get just what I say above in my article as an answer? That it is impossible to prove unless you create strict laboratory conditions?
Because in fact it is, the scientific experimental method is strictly regulated and nothing is accepted as valid that is not according to the criteria of "repeatable under the same conditions".
What would be your answer to that?
My answer would be they have isolated bacteriophage perported to be smaller than 'viruses', they have isolated exosomes, perported same size and look as 'viruses' and they have manufactured nanobots smaller than alleged viruses so the fact that they havn't isolated viruses ever tells us they do not exist.
Hm... I was rather referring to the strict laboratory conditions and to the fact that even experiments as you and others have described them, in compliance with the postulates, still do not represent strict laboratory conditions in human experimentation.
Consequently, the experiments of Beauchamp etc. would also not be considered cleanly scientific if there were cases where subjects became ill after being given mucus (if I remember correctly a few test persons got sick, or am I wrong?).
Because one could not know whether it was the mucus or something else that made them ill. From today's perspective, one would probably argue that they were not representative.
Can you say something about it?
Congratulations, your post has been upvoted by @asifniazi01.
Thank you.