OF THE
TIMES
luke You seem very confident that your brain is capable of deep thinking. Good for you, mate. Go get your boosters; they kill the viruses, but you already know that. Don't complain if you suddenly drop dead and you are looking at your dead body. Being dead is a lot of fun.You are right, because there are only two options: either you deny that viruses exist or you are a pro-vaxxer who loves lockdowns and Klaus Schwab. Brilliant logic.
Artex Hi, Does God, Our Creator, fit into this somewhere?No, because that god doesn't actually exist. See David Ray Griffin's "God Exists, But Gawd Does Not".
I mean, is 'He' not aware of NHI or whatever other shenanigans?No, because 'he' doesn't exist.
If so, then what is there to fear?It is not so and so there is reason for concern.
luke ...sophistry...Obviously, this will be the topic of study going through the comments.
It seems to me that he is here just to purposefully disrupt the feeds.His profile says he's a SOTT editor since 2015, and I'm pretty sure Luke is "Luc" in the podcast.
Consultants ought be problem solvers.Really? Then how would they make money out of anyone if they solve everyones problems??
where people congratulate and masturbate to each otherโs opinions emojiโs and all.
Buffalo_Ken I think "consultation" should be freely given if living within a community context, and if those 'consulted' in the community benefits from it and wants to give the 'consultor' some money in return to show their appreciation, as a way of giving something back of value to the 'consultor', then that's all well and good... Great! Otherwise, being a Consultant as a 'profession' is just a way of someone (the Consultant) wanting to make money without putting in any real hard work in life. OSIT.All of that made sense till the ending semantic games. Iโm a professional ESHA consultant and I do good work. I get pleasure out of being a good consultant, and hire me if you are not looking for somebody to kiss your ass, but rather have a problem in need of a solution. So denigrate consultants all you want. It is just your sentiment. I decided a long time ago to pick and choose the clients I wanted. Iโm lucky to be able to do that. Iโm thankful.
Chrโistian83 Are you one of the 60,000 employed by the CIA to come to sites like SOTT to disrupt and be generally antagonistic to everyone?Wooo, yeah, bring it. Friction brewing here. Raises awareness to mention itC83, and then BC easily teases it out.
Sure seems like it.
First of all it's not a no-virus-theory. (Leaving aside the issue that the word theory has multiple meanings, there's at least the general language one, and the scientific one that comes after hypothesis and experiment)Ah yes. You have never thought deeply about science and the scientific method. Got ya.
It's not the proposal of a new theory, it's the examination, refutation, debunking of the existing theory, the one posing the existance of viruses.More like: a total and utterly strange obsession with proving viruses don't exist, which is apparent to any sane observer looking into your hall of mirrors from the outside. A colossal exercise of running in circles and wasting energy.
I especially liked when (around 38mins) Luc proposed that labwork is such a complicated procedure, so people look at it and think it's voodoo. In what way is that better than what politicians have been doing for the past two-and-a-half years, when they dismissed peoples' concerns about measures or vaccines? Apart from being an ad-hominem, this asserts that people are too dumb to do their own research, so better leave it up to the experts! I thought SOTT exists in part to inform people and thus enable them to find (mental) empowerment and to take responsibility for their own life?You mix up all kinds of issues here to make an argument. It won't fly.
Critics of virus theory also don't say "oh it hasn't been isolated according to MY definition of isolated". They haven't been isolated according to THE (general) definition of the term.Yeah, because science is about consulting a dictionary that some English professor wrote, and then proclaiming things don't exist if they don't fit the dictionary definition. I think we got a new Einstein here, or Karl Popper, or Werner Heisenberg.
Without these things being isolated, that is seperated from all the other material that can be found in a cell (which is A LOT), scientists don't have a proper independent variable. They cannot do experiments, where they change just this one variable in order to find out if it has any causal relationship to what they're looking for (e.g. disease). This makes virology a pseudoscience, per definition.LOL. You have never thought deeply about science and the scientific method, did you. You just repeat the same old silly talking points.
It's also laughable they (mainly Eliott) keep coming back to covid (or other "viral infections") having specific symptoms, although I can recall many articles posted on this site, that rightly complain about the nonspecificity of covid symptoms (and how they seem to conjure new additional symptoms out of thin air for every alleged variant). This nonspecificity is not only constrained to covid, or flu, or colds in general, but to most disease.MASSIVE jumping to conclusions. To most disease? Seriously?? Like the chicken pox I got as a child after visiting my sick buddy - clearly could have been anything! Repeated, direct experience is as real as it gets, but the no-virus people try to gaslight us into believing it's all in our heads, 5G, blabla.
Then they say insisting on Koch's postulates is inadequate and outdated, when even virologists often deem them important - like in the original covid paper, even. So this is another strawman.Nah. Treating Koch's postulates (that he actually has never formulated like he's said to have) as gospel truth and then denying everything that supposedly doesn't fit is plain silly. The fact that virologists can be just as confused doesn't prove your point.
At around 46mins: Not having a better explanation for the observed phenomena (disease) is not an argument against the dismantling of an existing theory. I'm baffled at how many "awake" people still make this error in logic. You are conflating two seperate issues.No, it's the no-virus people who always conflate the issues. See the responses here. They mix up everything under the sun to prove their point. For example, most of them are "terrain absolutists" without any reason. Even if it's not viruses, it could be something else, viruses may be different from what we assume them to be, or... No need to deny contagion is real, as humanity has always known even without any theory.
Lanka, apart from not being the only one, did not set out to prove his theory on ("viral") disease. He did the same experiment that virologists do by the thousands, except he also did proper controls. You know, the thing you do so you know it's not the experimental setup that is causing the observed effects? (virologists sometimes claim they're doing controls, but if you look into it, it's always bogus, since they're comparing different things, or treating the samples differently - e.g. extracting cell debris soup from a patient and administering it to living cells vs. the control just being administered saline, not cell debris, and the cells not dieing).Same talking points over and over and over again. It doesn't prove anything, and just shows that you guys bring a whole load of simplistic assumptions to the table without realizing it. Might be a good exercise for you to think about it.
Then they say something along the lines of: one scientist being right does not invalidate what all the others observed. Of course this sentece is true, but that is not what is happening here, see my previous explanations. It's not a comparison between singular studies, it's an exemplary critique of the methods of the field, which of course (scientifically) has to be followed by more research by independent people. In the meantime however, it is quite easy to look at the virologists' methods yourself and conclude their inadequacy, all you need is time and an open mind. Then you might realize how the whole field is a house of cards, built on some fraudulent research 70+ years ago (many financed by Rockefeller institutions), that has never been adequately evaluated and now it's "too big to fail".How does Reeeing about dictionary definitions and primitive assumptions about science, the scientific method, and a crazy obsession with disproving the existence of viruses help though? It just derails critical researchers and vectors them into running in circles while believing they are oh-so smart. Time and an open mind will lead you to the conclusion that it's all not so simple, not so black and white, and all very complex and nuanced.
Virology is at its core confirmation bias. Take some allegedly diseased cells, extract an unknown amount of debris (of which you declare to contain the cause of disease). Put that soup on some abnormal (monkey kidney, or human cancer) cells, stress them, give them too little to eat, stress them some more (transfer them to another petri dish), repeat. After some time observe them dieing (having no controls to rule out the method as cause). Extracting cell debris soup from there and hacking the contained DNA/RNA into little peaces (for easier sequencing). Sequence the parts and have them re-assembled by a computer algorithm (that only the manufacturer knows) which is basically assembling a puzzle from millions of pieces (and you don't know the solution) - to make that easier it is compared to other known "viruses" that have been "assembled" by the same method, which makes this a big hen-and-egg problem (or circular reasoning, if you will).Same tiresome talking points. Uninteresting. Unimaginative. We are dealing with information here, and science is clearly onto something, even though they, just like the no-virus people, often work under questionable assumptions. Figuring out the details and what's going on with information in the viral/sub-optical realm is what's needed. Won't happen if all you do is reeing about dictionaries and wrong, black-and-white ideas about the scientific method.
Note that I've simplified the process massively here, and each step introduces massive amounts of uncertainty and thus gets you further away from reality.I know all the talking points. They are boring and have the flavor of fanatic priests spitting nonsense from the pulpit. They don't change my assessment.
Just look at the original covid paper: "In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents." Do you realize how many ways there are of combining 56 million reads(puzzle pieces)? Even if you only look for a combination that's 20 pieces long, that's a 3 with 136 zeroes! They're telling you themselves how bogus their methods are.Rigid, unsophisticated thinking combined with jumping to conclusions. Not saying the covid paper is right necessarily, but when dealing with information and pattern recognition based on knowledge about the molecular realm, we are very, very far from randomness and chance.
But it's not for me to tell you what to think. Go ahead, keep believing in the hot air that virology and other pseudosciences (experts) keep spurning out and keep you in a (medical) mind-prison. Your choice.I share the sentiment. But I want to save some people who might be reading this from the clutches of the no-virus fanatics. Crackpotism is not good for the soul and vectors people away from real research into what's going on.
Richer Thank you for that excellent and thorough rebuttal of SOTT editors utter ignorance of the real issues at play.LOL, you guys are really poster boys of Dunning-Kruger.
Ah yes. You have never thought deeply about science and the scientific method. Got ya.Definitions of theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.You're using it in the sense of #6, while a scientific theory is #1 - a proposed explanation for observation. The point is you can never prove something does not exist, because there is no observation to explain.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically testedor in more detail [Link]
More like: a total and utterly strange obsession with proving viruses don't exist, which is apparent to any sane observer looking into your hall of mirrors from the outside. A colossal exercise of running in circles and wasting energy.Again you have not understood what I said ("It's not the proposal of a new theory, it's the examination, refutation, debunking of the existing theory, the one posing the existance of viruses.")
It's not that we can't understand what's going on in labs or that we are too stupid.It's not that YOU can't understand, my issue is YOU said WE or anyone else (non-virologists) cannot understand the methods.
What I see in the no-virus crowd hardly goes beyond consulting a dictionary, looking up the word "isolation", and start reeeeeing. Not my kind of truth seeking, and pretty stupid.You are, again completely missing the issue here. I couldn't care less about definitions of words if reality works different from them (which is actually the case most of the time). We arrive at talking about definitions, since virologists use the word completely differently than the rest of the population. In this way they are being dishonest and misrepresent their own experiments.
Yeah, because science is about consulting a dictionary that some English professor wrote, and then proclaiming things don't exist if they don't fit the dictionary definition. I think we got a new Einstein here, or Karl Popper, or Werner Heisenberg.
LOL. You have never thought deeply about science and the scientific method, did you. You just repeat the same old silly talking points.You don't seem to have looked at, understood, and thought logically about the methods of virologists (which is the only thing I'm criticizing here, not science as a whole, which also flew over your head somehow).
Independent variable... Isolation... Blabla... Does a radiowave exist? An electron? DNA? RNA? A hormone? The stars? This is ridiculous.If you don't like my words, tell me how to construct an experiment where you want to find a causal relationship. Saying "blabla" does not invalidate any of my points. Neither does changing the subject. Extrapolating to deeply different fields of science in order to validate one specific field is a pathetic strawman attempt. Physics is not the issue here, virology is.
My favorite showcase of no-virus crackpotism is a discussion between Kaufmann and Judy Mikovitz, where Judy keeps starting to tell fascinating things about her science, and Kaufmann, like the true lunatic he is, keeps interrupting her, spitting "the dictionary says thisssss!! Isolation! Dictionary!!!" Insanity.Same issue as before. He tried to make her notice how people use the word with different definitions in mind. If you don't all use words with the same definitions, you can argue all you want, but communication will never happen. You're calling people crackpots for insisting on everyone using the same definitions of words.
(on my quote about nonspecificity of symptoms): MASSIVE jumping to conclusions. To most disease? Seriously?? Like the chicken pox I got as a child after visiting my sick buddy - clearly could have been anything! Repeated, direct experience is as real as it gets, but the no-virus people try to gaslight us into believing it's all in our heads, 5G, blabla.Again, the issue isn't what it is in reality that's causing the symptoms. I've read about a few theories, but none fit perfectly imo. It could be the body getting rid of toxins (as in food) through the skin. But you don't need to come up with a better theory to dismantle an existing one. It's not hard to say we don't know.
Nah. Treating Koch's postulates (that he actually has never formulated like he's said to have) as gospel truth and then denying everything that supposedly doesn't fit is plain silly. The fact that virologists can be just as confused doesn't prove your point.Nice retort "nah". As I said it's mainly some virologists themselves who hold Koch's posulates in high regard. I couldn't care less about what the guy actually postulated, but looking at them, you can see the logic. He is trying to come up with a method that ensures an independent variable! You know, a single knob you can turn, to find out if it, and it alone causes the observed disease. I'd say it was a pretty good effort for the time, and making a blanket statement like they're outdated or not important just shows your ignorance. You need some kind of framework to establish a causal relationship. On the whole this is only pointing out again, that this is just ignored in most of virology. They just proclaim that the cause of disease is in their cell culture soup and proceed confirmation biasing themselves.
(on: "Not having a better explanation for the observed phenomena (disease) is not an argument against the dismantling of an existing theory."): No, it's the no-virus people who always conflate the issues. See the responses here. They mix up everything under the sun to prove their point. For example, most of them are "terrain absolutists" without any reason. Even if it's not viruses, it could be something else, viruses may be different from what we assume them to be, or... No need to deny contagion is real, as humanity has always known even without any theory.Yes, many people make it a single issue, which is wrong. Is that an attempt at excusing yourself, since others also make the mistake? Once again, the point is: not having a better explanation for observed phenomena after pointing out major flaws in one theory trying to explain it, does not in any way invalidate the pointing out of the flaws - these are two seperate steps. Criticizing theories opens science up to look for alternate explanations which they otherwise wouldn't have (recent example being altzheimers, the fudged amyloid plaque data that focused science on this singular theorized cause, delaying actual progress).
Same talking points over and over and over again. It doesn't prove anything, and just shows that you guys bring a whole load of simplistic assumptions to the table without realizing it. Might be a good exercise for you to think about it.You're repeating "same talking points" without actually rebutting anything. And again missing the point, and again showing you haven't understood the core issue. No one can prove the absence of something. What I did is not a proof in any way. There are no assumptions in there. It is a description of the methods of virologists in simpler terms. It is so that you get your ass up and look at those methods. Only then can you decide for yourself if these methods are bogus or not.
How does Reeeing about dictionary definitions and primitive assumptions about science, the scientific method, and a crazy obsession with disproving the existence of viruses help though? It just derails critical researchers and vectors them into running in circles while believing they are oh-so smart. Time and an open mind will lead you to the conclusion that it's all not so simple, not so black and white, and all very complex and nuanced.Again, ignoring the strawman ad-hominems (man, I just love those two words, don't I?). The point is virologists seem to have a different definition of science, scientific method, isolation, purification, infection and a slew of other words, than the rest of humanity, including other fields of science. You just cannot take them by their word. But you will only see that once you actually familiarize yourself with their methods. Which you guys seem not too keen on, since it's all oh-so complicated, lest we think it's voodoo.
repeating misunderstood/misconstrued points about dictionaries and reeeing
I know all the talking points. They are boring and have the flavor of fanatic priests spitting nonsense from the pulpit. They don't change my assessment.Says more about you and your assessment of people.
Rigid, unsophisticated thinking combined with jumping to conclusions. Not saying the covid paper is right necessarily, but when dealing with information and pattern recognition based on knowledge about the molecular realm, we are very, very far from randomness and chance.Do you have any details on how what I said is rigid or unsophisticated? Of course I could have made more example calculations, because the length of the reads is variable and the length of the whole genome is variable, but leaving those out for brevity is.. unsophisticated? Pattern recognition, in case you missed it is based on previously known "viruses", which have been detected by the same methods. It's circular reasoning and creates endless possibilities for future pathogens to be found through confirmation bias. "Oh look, this one seems 87% simiar to a known coronavirus, if we assemble these reads in one out of 3.8*10 to the power of 136 ways. Time to declare to the world that we found a new pathogen!"
I share the sentiment. But I want to save some people who might be reading this from the clutches of the no-virus fanatics. Crackpotism is not good for the soul and vectors people away from real research into what's going on.You want to "save" people from taking responsibility for themselves, being self-informed and making independent decisions, gotcha. So you baselessly call people who have done research (in an area that you haven't much) fanatics, crackpots, priests. While you can't differentiate between theory and pointing-out of flaws in another theory, between word-definitions and laboratory-methods.
Definition of theorySee, nobody who has done some serious reading on science and the scientific method and the myriad questions around it would even attempt to define the term "theory" and come to conclusions based on such a definition. Left hemisphere run amok again.
You just cannot take them by their word. But you will only see that once you actually familiarize yourself with their methods. Which you guys seem not too keen on, since it's all oh-so complicated, lest we think it's voodoo.I have familiarized myself with their methods. What I see is some flaws based on materialist assumptions and pretending they know more than they do (same as in almost all other sciences), and a whole lot of fascinating research that raises many questions and piques my curiosity as to what viruses are, how they work, what their role is in information exchange, what role RNA and DNA play, what their function is in evolution and DNA changes, and many more things. It's fascinating.
Again, the issue isn't what it is in reality that's causing the symptoms. I've read about a few theories, but none fit perfectly imo . It could be the body getting rid of toxins (as in food) through the skin. But you don't need to come up with a better theory to dismantle an existing one. It's not hard to say we don't know.Frankly, viral theory appears to account for most of the observable phenomena RE infection, the symptomatic presentation, spread, and treatment response. Sorry, but it can't be denied.
But again that was missing the point. How do you explain respiratory "infections" being often accompanied by joint aches?This is fairly elementary and is known in the literature as "sickness behavior". It can include fatigue, body pain, depression, and sleepiness.
How to you distinguish chickenpox, shingles, measles, smallpox, monkeypox, herpes, rashes, eczema and a whole lot more, without a test to help you?Well, chicken pox, shingles, measles, herpes and eczema all present completely differently, which can be seen with the (trained) naked eye But aside from the obvious differences (which really, are readily identifiable if you know what to look for)
How is visiting a sick buddy and later developing the same symptoms DIRECT PROOF? Imagine sailors going on a long trip on sea and one after the other developing tiredness, shortness of breath, muscle pain, gum disease and some even fever and convulsions. Would you theorize one or more were infected and spread it to the rest, even though the disease started only after a month on the sea? Because what you've just witnessed is classic scurvy (lack of vitamin C in food).I see what you tried to do here, but sorry, its not gonna cut it. Scurvy is a bad example because nutritional deficiency does not present like this in modern 1st world countries. It rarely comes on immediately (unless there has been some significant traumatic event or major change).
Critics of virus theory also don't say "oh it hasn't been isolated according to MY definition of isolated". They haven't been isolated according to THE (general) definition of the term. Without these things being isolated, that is seperated from all the other material that can be found in a cell (which is A LOT), scientists don't have a proper independent variable. They cannot do experiments, where they change just this one variable in order to find out if it has any causal relationship to what they're looking for (e.g. disease). This makes virology a pseudoscience, per definition.as though this was the first experiment on the subject, from scratch.
DAHESH last time I checked, labs cannot tell the difference between exosomes and 'viruses'.100% correct. Here's some quotes on that [Link] EV = Extracellular Vesicle.
EVs generated by virus-infected cells can incorporate viral proteins and fragments of viral RNA, being thus indistinguishable from defective (noninfectious) retroviruses.
However, it has recently been found that EVs can have important biological functions and that in both structural and functional aspects they resemble viruses. This resemblance becomes even more evident with EVs produced by cells productively infected with viruses. Such EVs contain viral proteins and parts of viral genetic material. In this article, we emphasize the similarity between EVs and viruses, in particular retroviruses. Moreover, we emphasize that in the specific case of virus-infected cells, it is almost impossible to distinguish EVs from (noninfectious) viruses and to separate them.
In contrast to EVs, the definition of viruses developed by 20th century virologists was quite precise: both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary define virus as โan infectious agent of small size that can multiply only in living cells.โ EVs do not fall under this definition, because despite their resemblance to viruses in many aspects, they are fundamentally different, as they do not replicate. However, contemporary virology has distanced itself from this strict definition of virus by its wide use of the terms noninfectious and defective virus. Therefore, EVs generated by retrovirus-infected cells that carry viral proteins and even fragments of viral genomes essentially fall under the definition of noninfectious viruses.
Based on current knowledge, there are many aspects in which EVs resemble viruses, in particular retroviruses. First, although some EVs may be up to a micrometer in size, the majority of EVs are <300 nm, the size of a typical RNA virus. Like enveloped viruses, EVs are surrounded by a lipid membrane that also contains cell membrane proteins. Like many viruses, EVs are formed in the endosomal system or at the plasma membrane via defined biogenesis pathways, for example, involving the endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRT) machinery (1). Like viruses, EVs can bind to the plasma membranes of other cells, enter them either through fusion or endocytosis, and trigger specific reactions from these recipient cells (1). Finally, EVs carry genetic material, and this genetic material can change functions of the recipient cells (2, 3). Especially in the case of retroviruses, EVs generated in infected cells contain selected molecules of viral origin (4) and can be so similar to noninfectious defective viruses that have lost their ability to replicate that the difference between them becomes blurred.
Recent scientific breakthroughs have shown that EV-associated proteins, lipids, and genetic material can be functionally transferred to target cells ..., strongly implying that EVs and (retro)viruses have in common not only structural but also some functional aspects. This similarity is a reflection of the similarity in biogenesis of EVs and viruses...
Because EVs are produced by virtually all cells, probably every viral preparation is in fact a mixture of virions and EVs. To study their respective functions, it is necessary to separate EVs and virions. This is very difficult with some viruses, such as retroviruses, because both EVs and retroviruses are comparable in size (EVs ranging from 50 to 100 nm, virions being โผ100 nm) and buoyant density (EVs: 1.13โ1.18 g/L; most retroviruses: 1.16โ1.18 g/L). Other membrane-derived materials may also have similar characteristics. Therefore, density gradients, which are often used to separate EVs from contaminating protein aggregates on the basis of differences in buoyant densities (40), are not always reliable for separation of EVs from viral particles.
Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules
A growing body of evidence indicates that cells infected with enveloped or nonenveloped viruses release EVs that contain viral components. Here, we aimed to create awareness that virus preparations may never be pure but rather are contaminated with diverse subpopulations of EVs, and some of these EVs may be either indistinguishable from or very similar to so-called defective viruses.
luke You seem pretty much invested in changing people minds..Nah, just enjoying myself
I hope you're paid well enoughBy Russia, yes.
I got smallpox as a young adult without coming into contact with any sick person suffering from it, contrary to many experiences of other people who supposedly "caught it from someone else", perhaps you have an explanation (since you seem to understand so much more than the rest of us)? It was in the midst of summer by the way, I always thought viruses would not survive direct UV radiation, strange isn't it?Flawless logic: either terrain theory is 100% true and viruses don't exist, or sickness is 100% based on contagion via direct contact only. Got it.
codis If you believe viri are real, the idea that they are pathogens and cause disease logically follows.One adduces the existence of a pore forming toxin, and then must fall in line to trigger 'human antibody production to protect you'? Oh, the irony.
And when you trust the isolation and sequencing methods, the virus spike protein and it's effects in the body are a real thing. As a consequence, the idea to trigger human antibody production via a vaxxine to protect you from the negative effects is sound.
So, in short ...
... shut the f*ck up and line up for the shot.
Or else you are a hypocrite.
How very mechanical, no etheric fluidity whatsoever... Interesting.Not countering the argument, or even mention it.
More often than not spiritual understanding from, and of, this world is either fluffy wishful nonsense of rainbows and lollipops ...I tend to agree.
Does SOTT need viruses to exist?No, but they seem to exist and so we must take them into account.
Or, more to the point, does it need SARS-CoV-2 "virus" to exist?SOTT's been around a lot longer than SARS-CoV-2. I'm not sure how or why SOTT would need it to exist when it didn't for decades previous.
Who are the controllers of SOTT, are they the same controllers who won't allow any post discussing the Zionist infiltration, takeover and current destruction of American and the Western world?Think about this for a minute. You're suggesting that SOTT is controlled by those who don't want people discussing Zionism. And yet, SOTT has thousands upon thousands of articles criticizing Israel, Zionism, AIPAC, alleged Jewish history, and so on. How does the one square with the other?
adanie15 Isn't it more wise to take a neutral position, the middle road of we don't know for sure?There are some things that warrant neutrality, and others that don't. It's sane to be neutral about many aspects of viruses. Not so much to doubt their existence entirely.
Any site would get extreme labeling for claiming SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist, and who wants that? that's whyNah.
You are using the word 'seem' and 'seems' quite a lot.Because unlike delusional paranoids, some people are comfortable living in a world with uncertainty baked into it, without going into radical skepticism mode or true believer mode.
An evil phony vaccine doesn't need a virus to exist. Nor does an evil mask mandate, nor does an evil lock-down mandate, nor does an evil war on food, or war on the poor or war on truth or war on moralityCorrect. Technically, it doesn't need it. And?
Anyway, Coca-cola seems to be a real thing, as does ZionismSo does the flu.
So re what you said about your 1000's of articles about Zionist nightmare, can you point to 1 or 2 or 3 calling out the Zionist Jewish takeover and destruction of constitutional America and its family structure and moral fabric based on Christ's teaching within the past several months?Maybe because we honestly think it's bullshit.
It's interesting finally seeing more SOTT (underbelly?) people after all these months. This circling of wagons around an idea which perhaps isn't any more or less fringe than its counterpart, yet presented to readers in such an unprofessional manner, is pretty strange.That's because the no-virus people are so fanatic and loud that they normally dominate the comment section here. A counterbalance was needed.
For me, mostly the issue is SARS-CoV-2, whether it exists or not. Regarding any other viruses is not the main concern for me. B/c for me it's becoming apparent the whole lying dystopian CoViD narrative is largely based on this. Its purported existence. Yet, almost everything else we are told re CoViD is either a lie or an exaggeration or complete fabrication of nonsense, and topping it off, it's mostly completely against the common good. So, it's natural to be very skeptical.And this is where nuance comes in and the ability to discern subtleties. Just because they are lying and creating the "pandemic" using the false-positive PCR baseline doesn't necessarily mean that there is no virus.
It seems you are saying about others the same which some may say about you. Thus, isn't it better to avoid all this, focus energy on Big Pharma and all their partner institutions which are driving these evil sickening murdering vaccines???True. You are right. This is exactly why people here are making fun of the no-virus shtick: these people are obsessed, and lost, and massively divisive. They suck people in who then focus their energy in the wrong direction and running in circles. Hence we need to forget about the no-virus shtick and dismiss it as the psy-op it clearly is.
"What I think is that this question, which has people on our side at each other's throats, is irrelevant, and as distracting as it is divisive.
The way out of all this is NOT to get people to reject germ theory, but to get them to recognize the fact that the authoritiesโโgovernment, media, the medical establishment, academiaโโare utterly corrupt, and actually MALIGN. Whether the authors of this horror FAKED "the coronavirus," or grossly EXAGGERATED its effects, it's their malignityโโtheir evilโโthat people must now finally recognize; and when they do, it will be Game Over."
Have these guys taken the phony vaccine? It would be interesting to knowI can confirm that none of them have taken any of the jabs.
"many are working on this..." yeah, many need to eat, many need to pay their rent, car, gas, food, phone and so on, so they do what they are told. making $$$ trumps all else for most people, especially those deeply stuck in the systemYeah, so what the heck are the tens of thousands of scientists working around the globe on viruses doing if not working on some actual thing? Are we to believe that these people are just twiddling their thumbs all day making stuff up?
"closes us off from reality?" whose reality? a CoViD mRNA vaxxer's reality? Everything is fine in America reality? There's no Satanic agenda reality?No, closes you off from actual reality. A complex and nuanced place where not everything is smoke and mirrors from TPTB.
reality is masks don't work, lock down doesn't work, phony vaccines don't work, "CoViD" has 99+% survival rate, but we must turn world upside down b/c of some bogeyman virus!? Maybe if you come at things from this perspective you might make some progressDo you even read SOTT? SOTT has articles and focuses that cover all of that and them some.
"basic facts, observable facts" such as, we don't know what it is or anything about it nor can it be foundJust because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't understand what information, the building block of all of reality, really is and yet here we are built out of the "stuff", for lack of a better word.
you're making it one or the other, not us; you're making big issue but it isn't
please
go with whatever blows your skirt up dude
in meantime, hopefully next up will be something more meaningful, such as increasing phony vaccine sudden deaths and phony vaccine mass illness. one of the elephants in the room which is censored from most mediaMost media, but not SOTT. Again, do you even read the articles on this site?
maybe you are vulnerable, you sound like ones who want to fight, making big deal out of what is now a mostly irrelevant issue.It's not irrelevant to you, apparently.
curious, are you salary or invited, since hearing this rambling one sided discussion, it doesn't heighten my interest to hear again anything other. am surprised SOTT has this kind of podcast, level rather, but it's positive in sense that it generates thinkingEveryone on this show and all the editors here on SOTT are unpaid volunteers. We do this work because we love truth and want to share it with as many as possible.
but still, maybe u should re-tune yourself with reality of more pressing issues.Again, do you read SOTT? There are other shows that cover the "more pressing issues" you're talking about. Though whether those issues are more pressing is debatable.
Here's another example, aside from Zionism and death clot shots, of a far more pressing serious issue:Interesting, may take a look later.
The Feminist Angle [Link]
Is the โnew normalโ a culmination of raw male power, based on a crude mechanistic view of the world? Does it signify a new and radical negation of feminist values?.... Kaye likens Rosemaryโs baby with the mRNA injections, the creators of which โcan have no peace or equilibrium whilst [their] creation lives.โ
The mad scientist is the creation of the mechanistic view of the world, the view that nature and humanity are machines which can be adjusted and developed for optimal results, results which, as Mattias Desmet has explained, culminate in the perfectly safe life of an unconscious body on IV.What you may not realize you're doing is applying the same reasoning that the anti-white supremacy Critical Race theorists use to besmirch Western values (because slaver hypocrisy) and thought but you're applying it to mechanistic doctrines (because anti-female hypocrisy). I think I understand what you're trying to get at, and I think there's something to the notion that a mechanistic worldview can be seen as anti-female though I would say it's more accurately anti-human. But you're seemingly too worked up (understandably so) over the issue to really parse things out into a coherent and compelling case. Not that you were intending to make a case here, but I don't think you were being as clear as you thought you were or as clear as I though you could've been.
But the mechanistic view is in its essence also a deeply anti-feminist view, as it is rooted in a worldview where the autonomy of women was considered a threat to male-dominated society and values. The witch hunts and the Renaissance did go hand in hand, something we often ignore.
In film and literature, tampering with nature often brings disasters. In Rosemaryโs baby, the references to Frankenstein are clear; the male, mad scientist, evil and dominating, has forced the monster inside the womanโs womb, the sanctuary of life; isolated and gaslighted she has no option but to accept and justify what has been done to her: โAs she realises the full horror of the situation, she is determined not to cooperate with the coven. Nevertheless, she soon finds herself rocking the baby and appearing to accept his strangeness.โI would say the "new normal" is more the manifestation of the devouring mother archetype than one of raw male power. Protecting people at all cost and to the detriment of their long term survival isn't a male or masculine trait. It is the feminine desire to nurture gone way too far.
Is the โnew normalโ a culmination of raw male power, based on a crude mechanistic view of the world? Does it, along with the abolition of even the word โwomanโ signify a new and radical negation of feminist values?
ONE GERM, ONE DISEASE.Every disease, they say, is caused by one single etiological agent. HIV causes AIDS. SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID, etc. And all that is required to cure said disease is a bunch of toxic drugs that only the pharmaceutical companies can sell to us for $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sorry, disease is far more complex than that, as modern holistic medicine is now coming around to acknowledging.
As I've said repeatedly before: the primary reason SOTT editors believe in virus theory is religious, namely, that Laura's pet channelled "Cassiopeians," or whatever they're pretending to be, believe and teach deadly virusesYeah, you said it repeatedly, and each time it made me LOL. I wonder if anyone reading what you wrote stopped for a moment to consider the important fact that you have zero, and I mean, ZERO,evidence for your little theory. That you did, in fact, pull that one entirely out of your metaphoric arse and then present it here with the same presumed authority that you present your ill-conceived opinions on viruses. You're a joke dude and deserve to be taken as seriously as any misguided fool who seems unable to stop posting in the comments section of a website that he clearly does not like. You know, there's this novel idea that, if you don't agree with/like the underlying theme of a website, you can, and should, take a f**king hike, for everyone's sake, mostly your own.
What Iโd like to see is this editorial team address the Cassiopean experiment and their continued involvement with something that reeks of new age bullshit.Your comment reeks of self-righteous, arrogant, entitled, BS. So don't feel offended if we appear disinclined to look favorably on your request.
Joe Hey thanks for responding Joe. Not trying to be any of the things you say my comment reeks of. Iโve always been curious. Not offended at all. If you, or anyone else involved with SOTT ever feels inclined Iโd just like to know how you or anyone else involved in the Cโs sessions could fail to see that it does come across as โnew ageyโ. A mystical woman who channels the messages of beings from another dimension? You participate in these sessions and then tell Tsidkenu that heโs a nutbag? Right.I think I 2nd that. I mean I could pick out the parts of it I would say different, but basically, I think I 2nd that.
Itโs pretty rare that the editorial team comments on the articles so itโs nice to see you all here. It would be nice to see you show up and comment in a positive light once in awhile as it seems you only ever show up to tell people theyโre idiots.
Regardless, I donโt have an opinion regarding viruses either way and Iโm sure you and your editorial brethren are far more informed than me. Since there is a chance you might actually read this thanks for all the work you and everyone else has put in here. Itโs been very helpful for me and what Iโve learned here has by extension trickled down to my friends and family. I think youโve all actually made a tangible difference in this world.
Peace out you surly Irish prick. โค๏ธ
You're a joke dude and deserve to be taken as seriously as any misguided fool who seems unable to stop posting in the comments section of a website that he clearly does not like.Quite parasitic of him isn't it, a bit like how a virus behaves... latching onto a host, in this case the SOTT website, and infecting it from the inside out. He is the very definition of what he claims doesn't exist.
Anybody get chickenpox transmitted intentionally as a child?If you are a tough kid you will survive all these "infections" and then afterwards you will be tougher!
No... but sott is a psyop... and that's the only take away. The sooner people realise this the betterSure, but the goal is different than most.
adanie15 Interesting how some read SOTT and the comment section for hours, though they dislike SOTT, the editors and think it is a psyop. It must take some considerable time. This podcast certainly brought a few out in the limelight. Some who complain about SOTT censorship while they post away without trouble. The disconnect is strange.Interesting and strange, indeed. The mind boggles at the disconnect between their perception and reality.
No... but sott is a psyop... and that's the only take away. The sooner people realise this the better
No... but sott is a psyop... and that's the only take away. The sooner people realise this the betterYep. Sure is. So eh...can you piss off now?
JohnnyQuest As long as youโre here, koehli and a few other editorial team members as well, would you be willing to address your association with Laura and her channeling?What's to address?
Perhaps calling one of the readers of your site a โnutbagโ is warranted.More than you realize.
Perhaps the editorial teams position on no virus theory is entirely correct. Although Iโve yet to ever see any of you address what I would regard as the elephant in the room. That is, you all to some degree participate in an activity with the founder of this site which cannot be proven or measured be any legitimate scientific measure.It means we have open minds, unlike many here.
Youโll notice that although Tsidkenu espouses a firm belief in there being no viruses he/she still regularly reads this site and does NOT believe it is a psyop. I donโt either. This is a great place and you all do great work and Iโm thankful. Though โrappinโ with the Cโsโ makes this entire operation seem a bit, how might you say itโฆ nutbaggish?I'm pretty sure his clear statements that "sott" is a "psyop" mean he DOES believe that. Then again, I really have zero interest in anything such a person has to say.
richie rich I like dropping by to see what the tribe is fostering on poor deluded sods thinking they'll find the truth here.And adding in your 2 cents while doing so. How magnanimous of you. To be honest, I really don't care what you do, especially since it seems so pointlessly self-absorbed. That said, we do, as always, reserve the right to boot inveterate larpers like yourself without notice.
So hereโs what Iโm thinkingโฆ you and the team do your best to bring us information from outside the mainstream. Which includes real science, reliable science which isnโt tethered to the establishment. For instance this argument you and the team make about no virus theory perhaps being a psyop is based on your efforts from studying the available scientific evidence regarding Sars-Cov-2. Would it not be fair to apply the same rigor to Lauraโs claims of being a multi dimensional channeler? How can one possibly prove that they are capable of such things?Far as I'm aware (and I've read a lot), Laura doesn't make that "claim." She's been pretty open about the history and her whole approach in her books. Yeah SOTT brings information from outside the establishment, and one of those areas is parapsychology or "psi." "The science" (jk) suggests these phenomena are real, even if we don't fully understand them. When it comes to channeled information and the whole history of various forms of mediumship, same thing: the phenomenon itself is real, but no one really knows what exactly it is or how it works. Different practitioners or researchers may have different ideas about it, but for those with an interest, well, it's interesting, regardless. If you're interested and open-minded about it, you may get something out of it. You may even be able to verify or disconfirm some things for yourself if you're so inclined. If you're not so inclined, no problem. But asking for "proof" is kind of like asking for proof that the I-Ching works, IMO, or "proof" that an afterlife communication really comes from the dead dude in question. It's not that simple or easy.
No... but sott is a psyop... and that's the only take away. The sooner people realise this the bettersays the hen to the rooster...fly away hen if you don't want a rooster around.
Would it not be fair to apply the same rigor to Lauraโs claims of being a multi dimensional channeler? How can one possibly prove that they are capable of such things?Apples and oranges. One is the domain of observation and investigation of extant reality, the other in the domain of faith.
Joe Go back to sucking on psi crystals, crybaby. Waaaa waaaa.muahahah priceless!!
Meanwhile in session 17 July, 2022 [Link]
Q: 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.
The Science has spoken
While I'm genuinely into honest debate and reasoning, and ready to accept the shortcomings of the science , can anyone who dismisses the virus theory explain rabies? Get bitten by a mad dog and turn into a water fearing lunatic ( like some hippies i know๐ ) Once the symptoms appear you are leaving soon in a pine overcoat. If it isn't a virus,what the hell is it?How does the terrain theory explain it?
A self-replicating potentially poisonous microbe.Sooo, a virus?
Terrain theory vs. germ theory is a false dichotomy.Agreed. It not either/or but both/and. Similar to the "nature vs nurture" debate which quite clearly is "nature and nuture".
Snow Exactly. Now the person has been poisoned ( very similar to a vaccine injection actually). Now the terrain is toxic and sickness will occur.You guys are just... stunning in your delusions. It is an interesting case study in what a left hemisphere run amok based on silly ideas can do to people.
Snow I don't think that's an ad hominem...Agreed, it wasn't.
This is the same rationalization hamster wheel spinning here that has gotten this no-virus theory traction.Indeed, the same inability to think clearly and critically about whether or not what Luke said was actually attacking the people or commenting on their shallow and disjointed thinking when applied elsewhere is what gets people into the gravity well of things like flat-earth, no-virus, etc.
Trying to characterize that as left-brain delusion run amok is not ad hominem. You do then seem to go on to ad hominem at Luke , and I find the preponderance of "logical fallacy" claims being bandied about in this thread to be interesting... Why would that pop up here so much?One wonders why, indeed.
Snow I don't think that's an ad hominem...Yes it is. Just take the trouble reading his other responses. The rest of your text I cannot make head or tails out if it. Although I know a fair bit of English, I cannot understand what you try to convey. As for Luke, after all his negative reactions, he happened to respond to one of mine and I called him out for what he did: bullying. You see, courtesy and open, honest listening and responding to other people has been lost here, it seems.
This is the same rationalization hamster wheel spinning here that has gotten this no-virus theory traction. Trying to characterize that as left-brain delusion run amok is not ad hominem. You do then seem to go on to ad hominem at Luke , and I find the preponderance of "logical fallacy" claims being bandied about in this thread to be interesting... Why would that pop up here so much?
I am sorry, but the video seems to me more like damage-control than an actual logical / objective rebuttal. Instead they start falling over each other in calling everybody who doubts the virus theory to be crazy and throw them on the heap of the flat earthers. So, crazy by association. Very nice.You watched the presentation and came away with that? I doubt you watched their video.
revolve2evolve why should they? The Cassiopeians teach that deadly contagious viruses exist. They cant be wrong so that's the end of the debate. No evidence to the contrary is capable of persuading the True Believers."Evidence" LOL
Tsidkenu why should they? The Cassiopeians teach that deadly contagious viruses exist. They cant be wrong so that's the end of the debate. No evidence to the contrary is capable of persuading the True Believers.More arrogant, deluded BS from you. Yeah, "the Cassiopeians teach that deadly contagious viruses exist" so that's the only reason we think viruses exist, because we have never heard of viruses before, never researched virology before... gawd you're such an idiot.
... But you guys, along with Laura, claim to TALK TO ALIENS. LIKE REGULARLY.JohnnyQuest, I might have missed something, but I don't think Laura claims that she talks to aliens. She allows for the possibility that it is possible to communicate with other worldly beings, but you will be hard pressed to find her claiming anything. There is a big difference between claiming something and for allowing something as being possible.
Can you see why someone might have trouble taking you seriously? I DO take you all seriously and have for a very long time. Though youโd have to admit that Laura and her Cassiopeian conversations seem a little fucking weird.
revolve2evolve: The doctors from the so-called "no virus camp" are not your typical flat earthers. {which does not mean they get things wrong} They have done the work and know {and you know this, how?} what they are talking about when it comes to proper isolation techniques of any particles. They also do not shy away from criticism or debate {maybe they welcome it for distracting reasons - reasons that may not even be apparent to them?}.I guess you did not read the SOTT comment in the article you posted with a link to Mercola on the subject? Just in case you missed it:
Do the authors at SOTT even read their own articles that they are linking to? {seems they indeed did - see below}
If you want a better understanding of why people are questioning the existence of viruses, then I would recommend watching Dr. Cowan's most recent response to all of this drama that Steve Kirsch has recently started: [Link]
I've been following SOTT for more than a decade now and it's absolutely disheartening to see you all draw such a line in the sand when you clearly haven't taken the time to understand what this is really all about.
Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.Thanks for the show guys.
JohnnyQuest This is what you and the entire SOTT team will have to deal with from time to time. Tsidkenu may be completely wrong regarding viruses. He may be wrong in assuming that you and the team only believe in viruses because thatโs what the Cโs say.Yeah, we've only been dealing with it on and off for 20+ years. I don't care what that guy thinks about viruses, but I'll call him out on his BS when he claims to know the origins of our opinions on a given topic Talk about arrogance.
Unless there is a hidden agenda.
IRON GATES is a sci-fi horror / post-apocalyptic novel, detailing a bleak view of the spiritual horrors of the world-to-come.
Set seventy years after a worldwide nuclear conflagration, IRON GATES allows the reader a sight into a nightmarish landscape populated by even more nightmarish characters in a hideous future which leaves little to the imagination.
Brutal and unsparing, it is not suitable for readers under 18.
Readers should be advised of extreme graphic content.
The vaccines have been designed to help with this. It's an incredible plan. Holy shit!
I refuse to participate in this thread that appears to be set up to cause divisiveness. I'd rather focus on the increase of illness and death due to the agent that is being forced upon men, women, and children. It is this which needs to be addressed:Indeed, you are right. But the origin of this divisiveness is the no-virus crowd who fanatically shove their talking points into the face of everyone who accepts that viruses are real, or that Covid is real and based on a viral infection. Without them, the anti-Covid-fascism movement wouldn't be so divided, and people would be more focused on the real issues. That should be obvious to anyone observing the dynamics.
*
'Athlete Deaths are 1700% higher than expected since COVID Vaccine roll-out' BY THE EXPOSร ON JULY 30, 2022 [Link]
I refuse to participate in this thread that appears to be set up to cause divisiveness. I'd rather focus on the increase of illness and death due to the agent that is being forced upon men, women, and children. It is this which needs to be addressed:Absolutely. There's clearly something going on in that respect.
I'm all for focusing on what is mutually beneficial to the most amount of people that has Service To Others as the main objective as opposed to Service To Self, which only feeds egoism...and people would be more focused on the real issues. That should be obvious to anyone observing the dynamics.
luke Did your boss send you here by any chance? You are like an employee in training. So, what will you get after you pass your exam? Donuts? Free coffee? A promotion? More training somewhere else? You are obviously here to trigger people, but the thing is that most of us here don't give a rat's ass what your kind has to say, because we are beyond the programming. There is absolutely nothing your kind can say to us to change our minds about the toxic jab. If the Covid virus existed I should be the first one to be dead, but actually I am more alive than ever.You guys, seriously. Did I ever say the vax is harmless? Or that Covid is a deadly pandemic? Why is it that your "kind" can't get beyond the most primitive black and white thinking?
Buffalo_Ken A great Senator from the great State of North Carolina! I remember the collective sigh of relief from a nation in turmoil following the Nixon debacle and his running on a platform of ending the war. Then it became peace with honor, and there was the major illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos. Those poor people in Laos still suffering these days from the unexploded ordinance that lies dormant until some living thing happens upon it. Thanks for the link. As a history buff, I appreciate the retrospective, as a poetry lover the verse...Ken, as parzival said (had read from your link earlier), much appreciated.
Clove (Syzygium aromaticum): a precious spice The antiviral activity of eugeniin, a compound isolated from S. aromaticum and from Geum japonicum, was tested against herpes virus strains being effective at 5 ยตg/mL, and it was deducted that one of the major targets of eugeniin is the viral DNA synthesis by the inhibition of the viral DNA polymerase [34].
In another study, aqueous extracts of S. aromaticum (L.) Merr. et Perry and other plants as Geum japonicum Thunb., Rhus javanica L., and Terminalia chebula Retzus among others showed strong antiherpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) activity when combined with acyclovir. This synergic activity was stronger in the brain that in the skin and it was also proved that those combinations were not toxic to mice[35].
[Link]
The chemical composition and biological activity of clove essential oil, Eugenia caryophyllata (Syzigium aromaticum L. Myrtaceae): a short review
Eugenia caryophyllata has been investigated on several microorganisms and parasites, including pathogenic bacteria, Herpes simplex and hepatitis C viruses. In addition to its antimicrobial, antioxidant, antifungal and antiviral activity, clove essential oil possesses antiinflammatory, cytotoxic, insect repellent and anaesthetic properties.
[Link]
Why does it have to be 100% terrain theory or 100% germ theory???It doesn't. It isn't. Only those suffering from the Black And White Thinking Retardation Virus think it does. Its a lifelong disease, with the only possibility of a cure sprouting from within the infected patient's otherwise barren 'inner terrain'.
โWhen you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.โ George R. R. Martin, A Clash of Kings .CENSOR CENSOR CENSOR!!!! Just like the totalitarian psychopaths Mr. Koehli writes about! Turns out it was SOTT all along!!!
Rโowan would take your head I can't post on my Tsidkenu account; the hypocrites banned it mate and they deleted all the evidence I compiled of their religious belief in viruses.Eternal coward.
THE TRUTH HURTS AY.
This is a sacrificial account which I don't give a shit if they ban and remove (which they 100% will because they're hypocrites)
17 July, 2022 [Link]Dude can't even do enough research to find out what SOTT editors thought about viruses before July 17. What a clown.
-------------------------
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.
------------------------
Still no evidence that the C's are instrumental to SOTT virus beliefs. Nope. None.
Dude can't even do enough research to find out what SOTT editors thought about viruses before July 17.Help me out a tad here: where might I find what the eds thought pre-July 17th ?
"the only ones that can be useful are; if you are symptomatic stay away from other people until you are better..."He's dancing with the wording. Because why would that be useful if the governments could just say stay at home if you are symptomatic, feeling ill? Which the governments did. As per insisting people with symptoms stay at home for 7 or 10 or 14 or 20+ days or face severe penalties. So the way he volunteered that was wobbly and that bothers me because it was needless and 'off' to say that, like that, and it made him come across a bit slippery there... Which suggest to me Yeadon is not trustworthy.
I'll trade that virus belief anyday, it's worthless anyway as it's fear foremost - [....] What's the point of living in constant fear of death by some unstoppable invisible particlesThat seems to be the crux of it: Those who are most rigid in their belief of no-virus theory seem not to have come to terms with their own mortality yet, and/or they don't like the idea of not having any tangible control over their own mortal destiny while here on this Earth. Which a seemingly unstoppable 'invisible enemy' will surely, seriously undermine - and especially so if one is already anti BigPharma (and rightly so) and therefore cannot turn to, or rely on, any external artificial 'cure', either, as per presented to us by our Dark Overlords.
It is estimated that one needs to inhale 1000 virions of the SARS-COV-2 virus before infection takes place (less and the immune system should kill them off (though they are not living matter))
It only takes 10 minutes for a virion to infect a cell
The burst rate is estimated at 1000 and the elapsed time at 10 hours - This means that 10 hours after a cell being infected with a single virion, after 10 hours the cell will generate 1000 new virions
Its called the "burst rate" because the "cell creates viral replicates until the cell bursts from the high volume of new viral particles" ... which doesn't sound like good news for the cell
Multiplying by 1000 every 10 hours, after 40 hours a single virion is expected to have generated 1,000,000,000,000 virions (10 ^ 12)
There are estimated to be between 10^12 and 10^15 cells in the human body
As viruses are obligate intracellular pathogens they cannot replicate without the machinery and metabolism of a host cell. Although the replicative life cycle of viruses differs greatly between species and category of virus, there are six basic stages that are essential for viral replication.
1. Attachment: Viral proteins on the capsid or phospholipid envelope interact with specific receptors on the host cellular surface. This specificity determines the host range ( tropism ) of a virus.
2. Penetration: The process of attachment to a specific receptor can induce conformational changes in viral capsid proteins, or the lipid envelope, that results in the fusion of viral and cellular membranes. Some DNA viruses can also enter the host cell through receptor-mediated endocytosis.
3. Uncoating: The viral capsid is removed and degraded by viral enzymes or host enzymes releasing the viral genomic nucleic acid.
4. Replication: After the viral genome has been uncoated, transcription or translation of the viral genome is initiated. It is this stage of viral replication that differs greatly between DNA and RNA viruses and viruses with opposite nucleic acid polarity. This process culminates in the de novo synthesis of viral proteins and genome.
5. Assembly: After de novo synthesis of viral genome and proteins, which can be post-transrciptionally modified, viral proteins are packaged with newly replicated viral genome into new virions that are ready for release from the host cell. This process can also be referred to as maturation.
6. Virion release: There are two methods of viral release: lysis or budding . Lysis results in the death of an infected host cell, these types of viruses are referred to as cytolytic . An example is variola major also known as smallpox. Enveloped viruses, such as influenza A virus, are typically released from the host cell by budding. It is this process that results in the acquisition of the viral phospholipid envelope. These types of virus do not usually kill the infected cell and are termed cytopathic viruses .
After virion release some viral proteins remain within the hostโs cell membrane, which acts as potential targets for circulating antibodies. Residual viral proteins that remain within the cytoplasm of the host cell can be processed and presented at the cell surface on MHC class-I molecules, where they are recognised by T cells.
Scientists from Institut Pasteur and CNRS laboratories have used state-of-the-art electron microscopy approaches to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks nanotubes, tiny bridges that link infected cells with neurons. The virus is therefore able to penetrate neurons despite the fact that they are lacking the ACE2 receptor that the virus usually binds to when infecting cells.
The virus uses nanotubes that form between infected cells and neurons to gain access to neurons. These transient dynamic structures are a result of membrane fusion in distant cells. They enable the exchange of cellular material without the need for membrane receptors
SARS-CoV-2 is also thought to be capable of inducing the formation of nanotubes between infected cells and neurons, as well as among neurons, which would explain how the brain is infected from the epithelium. The research team revealed multiple viral particles located both inside and on the surface of nanotubes. Since the virus spreads more rapidly and directly from within nanotubes than by exiting one cell to move to the next via a receptor, this mode of transmission therefore contributes to the infectious capacity of SARS-CoV-2 and its spread to neuronal cells
The virus also moves on the external surface of nanotubes, where it can be guided more quickly to cells that express compatible receptors. "Nanotubes can be seen as tunnels with a road on top, which enable the infection of nonpermissive cells like neurons but also facilitate the spread of infection between permissive cells."
Structures in the nanotubes have been identified as "virus factories." The nanotubes between neurons represent a propitious environment for SARS-CoV-2 to develop, since it is invisible to the immune system.
Also saw a UK radiologist on video saying all the sick people she saw in 2020 were suffering radiation sickness.Funny that, a few of us who used to watch for radiation events had the impression from goings on that a radiation release might have occurred at Chernobyl then. Zero proof, just indications. Bad rad days, they don't bother us anymore because we do daily Iodine. Iodine is the best protection for the thyroid, necessary for strong immunes and even red blood cell formation. Iodine is necessary for life. The cheap substitute of Bromine in our diets is toxic to the thyroid.
parzival octopuses are in the top 10 of my favorite sea creatures.I agree! They're on my short list of favorite creatures of ANY sort. They're absolutely amazing in every possible way. Problem-solving ability, physical features and capabilities, instantaneous color and pattern adaptation to their environment, curiosity. Just plain AMAZING!
Buffalo_Ken octopuses are in the top 10 of my favorite sea creatures. I never have and never will eat one...Iโm not trying to be difficult, but I put forth the octopus has one โmain brainโ and 8 ancillary ones. The human has a main brain as well I think and at least two (2) to too ancillary ones. One of the 2 being the gut and the other the heart. Donโt mean the main brain is more important than the gut or the heart - not in the least. Just means there is a primary processing organ - that be the main brain. Does that make any sense to you?
It is estimated that one needs to inhale 1000 virions of the SARS-COV-2 virus before infection takesSomewhere in all the above comments the various scientific processes are used to allegedly isolate the "virus"
DeliciousTears "how many virions" to infect...is worded to get you thinking that infection is entirely the result of exposure, instead of exposure + susceptibility.
The problem is that they certainly spend a vast amount of money on biolabs and engineering things that could potentially wipe us all outOr so we are told. I wait to see what they achieved in almost one century of research.
Was the "Covid" virus pathetic because they Chinese understood what the Americans were up to and released it earlyThere is still no proof of a "corona virus", neither statistical (hospitalisation & mortality rates), nor demonstrative (the "isolation" and "in-silico sequencing" methods are just elaborate deceptions and self-deceptions).
Apparently one of the easiest ways of getting US funding is to set up biolabsI have never seen one from the inside. And I consider that the term "biolab" could be a cover story.
"We are shocked the injection didn't stay in the shoulder muscle" - Medical scienceMe too ...
How about "I' was surprised how long it took for WTC7 to collapse given the office fires had been burning all day"Another example of offically approved cartoon science, and coopted "scientists". And a very good one.
Actually, scrap that, they would freak out at the thought that more than 2 towers collapsed
" NIST have proven minor office fires can melt steel buildings - is it still safe to use my oven?"Yes, it is still safe.
"Is the 7.65 Mauser rifle as originally found in the TSBD, really the Argentinian version of theTSBD ?!?NaziGerman Rifle?"
Psychology.A new atheio-religion is what the globalists want to create. Therefore it stands to reason No Virus theory might be part of that.
And Faith.
If the terrain theory was true
A new atheio-religion is what the globalists want to create. Therefore it stands to reasonNo VirusGerm Theory might be part of that.
Here is a recent excellent interview with a virologist and Dr. Merritt. [Link] Virology is a joke. The whole medical mafia is just that a 'mafia'.Thanks for the link. Will watch later. Totally agree on the medical mafia--pure EVIL,.
Also, for all those who crave more information, read "What really makes you ill" by Lester and Parker
AmandaMay I watched a similar scenario unfold with my father being subjected to EST (electric shock treatment) for depression. I had to fight like hell to get the procedure stopped. He was turning into a vegetable right before our eyes. The worst part was debating/arguing with these sacrosanct M&Ferโs. I had to use threats and engage a lawyer. It was serious but obviously not as serious as your situation. My gut tells me you should definitely enlist some legal help on the fly. I hope this helpsโฆBluLiteDancing--So sorry to hear what you went through with your father--that's absolutely horrific. But good for you on fighting back. I totally agree with you on this "The worst part was debating/arguing with these sacrosanct M&Ferโs." I'm not sure what we are going to do now. Dr. Marik's protocol has to be started within 32 hours (the sooner the better the outcome), but now we are past that window, so it won't help now. We have no choice but to wait and see what happens. I'm still trying to make calls to see if I can find any doctor in this big-pharma controlled state that knows about Dr. Marik's protocol
Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at EVMS, believes he has found the cure for sepsis, a common infection that gets into the blood and kills 1,000 people a day in the U.S. alone.So, he has a cure that could save 365,000 people a year in the US and big-pharma death cult medicine refuses to use it--PURE EVIL!!!
AmandaMay - I wish good health to him through you....like most other day-to-day challenges I can sense that this is complicated. Regardless of how things unfold, your Dad must be proud of you. I'm sorry you are having to go through all this and my thoughts and prayers are with you and family.Thanks for the well wishes. I just got a call from my mother and he's is very bad shape. It's just torturous knowing that there was something that could have helped and turned this around.
My Mom is 89 and lately she has been very tired. Recently we went for a visit to the place she is staying in for assisted care and the attendant at the door the first day we visited was flexible in enforcing various rules (known to be stupid) and so I got to come in and visit directly with my mom along with my brother and his wife and son. We played a game of Scrabble and I came in last place I'm embarrassed to say. I just wanted to get a 7-letter word and it never happened for me, but my Mom loves scrabble and we had a good time there. The next day, a different attendant was on the job and rumor was she was a mask-enforcer type employee, and so I said I'll sit outside and Mom could come out there for us all to have a chance to be together. I did this to avoid needless acrimony.
I'm lucky in a way because I have family members who have experience with the medical establishment and they know my views, but at the end of the day, we all know that family is paramount. I think things are going to get better, slowly but surely, and I think the medical establishment will NEVER ever be trusted again until they pay their debt to society and change their ways.
Best Regards,
Ken
This is a rather long video with Poornima Wagh about the Jab, what's in it, how it effects your body, and why avoid it at all costs. She also provides a detained examination of each of the known Jabs...they are full of chemicals and particles that harm the body. If you feel overwhelmed because of the detail, fast forward to the last 30 minutes... but be sure to watch to the very end.It's the same link that Earthwatcher posted above
Particles of graphene oxide, when it is by definition a 2-d sheet structure?One layer does not equal "two dimensions". There are no real 2D object in this world.
Our neighbor is a rich man and the local undertaker. He definitely notices the uptick over the past year in middle aged people. He's noticed no such unusual "clots" when I asked.Where does he live, and what do undertakers usually do with the bodies there ?
Main results of GO interaction with blood components are summarized in this illustration of the injection of GO flakes in the bloodstream .The formation of the BC (1) prevents the hemolysis of red blood cells (2a). Thrombosis (2b) and interaction with complement proteins (2c) are ascribed to GO . In (2d) some of the possible fates after macrophage encounters are shown: extracellular blocking or intracellular uptake. The release of cytokines occurs when macrophages uptake GO . Aggregates of GO in macrophage cytoplasm induce the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines . Dendritic cells fail to present antigens to lymphocytes when they uptake GO (2e). Lymphocyte activity is not inhibited, and BC protects[?] lymphocytes from apoptosis.
Frankly, viral theory appears to account for most of the observable phenomena RE infection, the symptomatic presentation, spread, and treatment response. Sorry, but it can't be denied.because what's in bold is exactly the opinion I would share. I think the difficulty is in strict definition, and there is a background assumption that our sciences be very cut and dry in terms, and clean in explanatory power. It follows I think from the materialism basis for science, and furthermore from the perception of biology as mechanistic. I doubt that you're strictly of such opinions, but there is a perceived need to be able to explain virus/bacteria pathogenicity very mechanistically by direct cause->effect relation.
Is it completely accurate? Doubtful. Do virologists have a reductionist and materialist conception of virus-as-pathogen? Yep. Are viruses "pathogens" in the sense of bacterial pathogens? I don't think so. But what even is a pathogen?
Immunology has progressed to such an extent over the past few decades the even the concept "pathogen" has become murky and difficult to define . Potential pathogens don't appear to have the capacity to trigger disease in every subject.
I'll have to look up the court case you referred to re: Ervin. I'm not aware of it but it sounds significant.Ervin's case was one of the military against citizens and the choice made by the justices was in favor of the military and this was a big mistake.
BluLiteDancing I remember the same video I think. He did seem honest but with tens of thousands of young people murdered around the world already by these toxins you'd think there would be a lot more noticing something like that.Alright, I know this is over the top, but a few months ago there was some discourse here that only Christian, myself, and somebody else whose name I can't remember delved into deeply and it had to do with excoriating some fluids out of young bodies.....and my guess is some elite ones have gotten addicted to controlling the bodily fluids of all around them and they think they are gods....well, in the maze when you think that way your death beckons and it is upon you soon......so, best not to suck on the blood and body parts of innocence because innocence holds power reminiscent and it is fearsome.....so fearsome it can't be typed....good riddance elitist mother fucker. Good by and the virus of fear is fixing to turn around on the perpetrators and is that not justice?
They embalm the dead here too if they're getting buried but not if they're getting cremated apparently. Something about the chemicals getting burned being toxic. My neighbor is busier now that he's been in 30+ years..... Lots of 40-60 year old's and a few more stillborn/infant deaths. The infants/kids he does just for cost of materials which is pretty nice I think.
I'm not sure what your question is.I mean, is it standard procedure to "clean the pipes", i.e. drain the blood from the corpses ? Or optional ? After all, their work must hold up until the funeral service is over, not for eternity as with the Egyptian mummies.
Come on central europe....you are playing the fool for sure so far.Do you think people really have a say in what happens ?!?
'Infectious agents' are those things which disrupt health and replaces health with sickness.
Categorize them, define them, microscope them, slap them with labels and 'capture' them any way you like, or are able.
Put them back in the bottle.
Back in the box!
There is a long history of this and it appears there will be yet a very long and dragged out future.
What is health?
ned,
OUT