THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Post Reply
rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:59 pm

Altair wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 6:18 pm
Maybe it was not quite right after I did some research. That reasoning applies only to retrovirus as HIV, which "insert" their RNA into the host cell's DNA. That would be akin to randomly matching a key with a lock having billions of possible combinations.
"Normal" virus supposedly are simpler in that their genetic material just gets into the cell and lets their enzimes do the work of replicating the virus building blocks. A simpler mechanism, but still would require a lot of luck.
It should be entirely clear that nothing of this can happen entirely by chance. If it really works like this, this must be a mechanism cells have been designed for. A virus, which has no life, no intelligence of its own, can never pursue any goal, it does not need to "survive" or replicate, it's not a living species. It's just a complex piece of information. A virus cannot "decide" it has to mutate. It cannot "trick" a cell into reproducing its information. It can't move. It can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. All of this is built-in into the program of nature.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Tue Apr 14, 2020 12:50 am

rusty wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:59 pm
If it really works like this, this must be a mechanism cells have been designed for. A virus, which has no life, no intelligence of its own, can never pursue any goal, it does not need to "survive" or replicate, it's not a living species. It's just a complex piece of information. A virus cannot "decide" it has to mutate. It cannot "trick" a cell into reproducing its information. It can't move. It can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. All of this is built-in into the program of nature.
Bravo. That´s clear thinking!

alovas1980
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:26 am

rusty wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:37 pm
alovas1980 wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:02 am
So, what are antibodies really?
...
I think these things are relevant to any viruses, so I put it in the general discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up, alovas. We know that antibodies are the ONLY way to claim a vaccine "works". To me it seems that these proteins are at least partially what we are told: They neutralize other proteins by binding to them. If you combine "foreign" proteins with toxic substances (such as aluminium hydroxide) in a vaccine you may well be able to trick the body into producing these "antibody" proteins in order to get rid of the unwanted "toxic" proteins.

After an "infection" like measles there are also life-long elevated levels of (more or less) specific antibodies. It may well be that the virus hypothesis is at least partially true in this point: These proteins are part of the innate disease program. Maybe they are actually there to stop the propagation of the exosomes ("viral particles") produced by the cells which keep the program running. Maybe they are part of the cell repair process.

So there may be some truth in the claim that by producing those "antibodies" artificially beforehand by some kind of vaccine you can prevent the body from running the program in full speed. The program is hindered, runs differently, less intense or something like that, because the typical exosomes which are needed in the process are being hampered with. In any case, many people agree that running these disease programs in their original form is the most beneficial way.

In the corona case, our beloved German expert Mr. Drosten said something along the line of "antibody tests are useless, because you can't tell to which type of Corona virus the antibodies belong", at least the test may cross-react with antibodies for other C.-viruses. Currently those viruses are only distinguished by their RNA. I'm not sure if they claim there are significant differences in the "envelope" or "spike" proteins. It seems that this is a major problem we need to be aware of when they claim they have an antibody test or even a vaccine.
Thank you Rusty, this is the best theory I have seen till know.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:03 pm

Any apologies for my comments here can be taken as read. I never mean any offence.

This thread seems to be getting out of hand.

It still seems that some members are hanging on to the notion that ‘viruses’ exist (in whatever form). It they don’t exist, there is no point in discussing ‘anti-bodies’, ‘D.N.A.’, ‘R.N.A.’ or anything else (which are not ‘proven’ but theories which have successfully been debunked if you do your own serious research). If you insist that these ‘viruses’ exist, I for one, want absolute proof that they do so with viable, repeatable evidence which I can perform for myself without all the paraphernalia attributed to their existence. If they don’t exist, ‘anti-bodies’ (which presume a ‘body’ (draw me a picture) to which to be ‘anti’)) then all this other stuff you insist upon peddling here is redundant.

You can attach all sorts of bogus nonsense if you believe that ‘viruses’ exist in the first place, which they can’t. As I have said many times, Nature is not self-destructive, why would it want to be? Nature is not directed by anything. However, if you attribute the nature of an ‘amorphous omniscience’ (a.k.a. some god-worship) to all this drivel, then fine but there are other implications (religious) into which I am not willing to go.

As I said in my piece on ‘processes’, (if anyone read it), ‘Life’ as we know it is a process into which it goes what we call ‘forward’. To be self-destructive, it would need to go backwards. Is this too hard to understand?

Be well.
‘ave no fear, no viruses ’ere…

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:28 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:03 pm
As I have said many times, Nature is not self-destructive, why would it want to be?
But we age and die. Or is that our own fault?

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:51 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:03 pm
It still seems that some members are hanging on to the notion that ‘viruses’ exist (in whatever form). It they don’t exist, there is no point in discussing ‘anti-bodies’, ‘D.N.A.’, ‘R.N.A.’ or anything else (which are not ‘proven’ but theories which have successfully been debunked if you do your own serious research).
...
As I have said many times, Nature is not self-destructive, why would it want to be?
I think it's very important to clarify and agree on a common terminology before we move onward. Let's make one thing clear: Viruses exist only by DEFINITION. The topic is comparable to the dinosaurs: Nobody has ever seen one, but because of DEFINITIONs almost everyone believes they once existed.

So, here is my knowledge about what is known to exist:
- Proteins in the blood which everyone has to some extent
- Tiny particles that can be photographed in an electron microscope
- Short strands of polynucleotides which are detectable by PCR
- "Disease" programs with mostly unkown causes and effects
Virology combines these to the claim of tiny particles which contain RNA/DNA and a protein shell, produced by cells, causing disease.

Modern science focuses on CORRELATION analysis. Correlation between nucleotides, between nucleotides and proteins, between proteins and disease, between nucleotides and disease. Evidently, it's possible to find all sorts of CORRELATIONS if you just try hard enough. However, everything else is just speculation, especially the question of CAUSE AND EFFECT.

I totally agree nature is not self-desctructive. There is a purpose in everything. But this does of course not exclude the possibility that "tiny particles", proteins and "strands of polynucleotides" are part of natural processes.

Kham
Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Kham » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:45 am

Indeed Rusty,

Correlation is not causation. But what about causation? Assumimg that viruses don’t exist, I would like to see an explanation of how chicken pox or mumps or measles spread because they all have separate and unique symptoms.

Take care,

KHam

alovas1980
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:03 am

sharpstuff wrote:
Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:03 pm
It still seems that some members are hanging on to the notion that ‘viruses’ exist ... If they don’t exist, ‘anti-bodies’ (which presume a ‘body’ (draw me a picture) to which to be ‘anti’)) then all this other stuff you insist upon peddling here is redundant.
I wasn’t clear enough it seems.
So, there are no viruses and no antibodies.
But there are/will be tests which test if someone has antibodies against a virus. Whatever they claim they are.
So, what I would like to know. What will the test do? What are the tiny things they claim are antibodies?

Altair
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:40 pm

In any case, this "epidemic" has a quite strange distribution. It seems to have a quite anomalous and erratic distribution. If we give some benefit of doubt to media reports, it doesn't look very natural. Let's see:
- China: cases heavily concentrated in Wuhan region, relatively few cases in other very populated and very comunicated areas.
- Italy: Most cases in Lombardy. Why not in Rome, a main tourist destination with lots of chinese people visiting all year round?
- Spain: Madrid is quite logical due to high population density and being a communications hub. But other "hot spots" have been rather small, unconnected cities like Vitoria, Igualada, and some others.

Still, it's not clear what can be believed and what not from media. I think the disease is real (known of several cases first-hand), but for ruling out the virus hypothesis, another one should be found. Some toxic agent maybe?

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:36 pm

Altair wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:40 pm
It seems to have a quite anomalous and erratic distribution.
Proof that it is not a pandemic.

The "hot spots" are likely regions which are under particularly effective information control, making them suitable drill hubs.
Altair wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:40 pm
Still, it's not clear what can be believed and what not from media.
Oh, it´s pretty clear to me.

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:06 pm

Kham wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:45 am
Assumimg that viruses don’t exist, I would like to see an explanation of how chicken pox or mumps or measles spread because they all have separate and unique symptoms.
Dear Kham,
I think I understand what you mean: they all have unique symptoms AND are known to "spread" from one person to another, such that the contact to a diseased person significantly increases the likelihood to "contract" those very same symptoms. I think this may especially be true for chickenpox, a bit less so for mumps and measles and rubella. And even less for the flu-like illnesses, which do not have very specific symptoms at all.
I'm sorry I can't really provide an explanation and proof it is 100% correct. I already laid out my personal opinion that these are programs innate to our biology and can be triggered somehow. These programs serve a purpose such as cleansing, adaptation, development, evolution, you name it. Everything else simply does not make sense to me.

Of course, everyone is free to define a "virus" by criteria like the following:
- Specific symptoms
- Contact to diseased persons increases probability to contract those symptoms
- After the disease you have increased levels of specific proteins ("antibodies") that you did not have before
- During the disease you have an increased likelihood to test positive for certain polynucleotides via PCR (but not so much for others)
Maybe it is even possible to trigger certain diseases using "samples" from a patient. I read something about some experimental "therapies" back in the day where they deliberately infected persons with measles in order to cure certain chronic diseases. I don't have any detailed accounts on whether this is true or not and how exactly they were able to "trigger" measles. But, OK, let's assume, it is possible in some cases only by using, say, sputum or blood serum of a diseased person. Then we still don't know what exactly it is within this sample that causes/triggers it. At least we cannot claim it is a single, uniform particle in large amounts if we are not able to isolate it. Maybe it's the sum of particles, maybe it's some sort of hidden "energetic" quality, who knows?

Also, I want to remind you that you'll always be able to find cases of any disease where you don't know from where "Patient 0" contracted it. Measles, mumps and chickenpox appear in waves. The influenza waves rise almost every winter and die out quickly in spring. Where does the "virus" hide between waves? This is something that puzzles the virologists and they always come up with ad hoc assumptions to save the theory.

By the way... it's even the same with disease stuff that has knows "vIsible" causes like head lice or scabies. I found it remarkable that even some old islamic teachings cover the issue:
https://en.islamway.net/article/42043/no-adwa-nor-haamah-nor-safar wrote:It was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, said: «There is no ‘Adwa (no disease is conveyed from the sick to the healthy without the Permission of Allaah), nor Haamah (i.e. owl), nor Safar». A Bedouin stood up and said, "Then what about my camels? They are like deer on the sand, but when a mangy camel comes and mixes with them, they all get infected with mangy". The Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, said: «Then who conveyed the (mange) disease to the first one?» (Reported by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim).
I guess you could say ... the terrain is everything, the germ (or the louse or mite or ...) is nothing.
Altair wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:40 pm
I think the disease is real (known of several cases first-hand), but for ruling out the virus hypothesis, another one should be found.
Dear Altair, disease is real, of course. But THIS disease? What precisely do you mean? I have not really found a COMMON, NEW symptom among those C. patients, let alone those who died from it (see the list from Hungary). Can you elaborate what you mean?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6953
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 pm

Altair wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:40 pm
I think the disease is real (known of several cases first-hand), but for ruling out the virus hypothesis, another one should be found. Some toxic agent maybe?
Dear Altair,

I also wonder what you mean by these words of yours: "I think the disease is real (known of several cases first-hand)..."

Please elaborate. Are you saying that you have known "first-hand" of people being diagnosed with "COVID-19"? What exactly do you mean to say?

You see, every single winter of my life, I have also known "first-hand" of several people around me catching a flu... Yet, I can't say that I know "first-hand" exactly what type of flu they had contracted !

Altair
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:03 am

I mean, I know personally of several cases of people having the symptoms attributed to COVID-19: fever, cough, extreme tiredness, that lasted for about 2-3 weeks. 8 people in France (one of them the relative who told me about it) who lived in a cottage with similar symptoms, made the test and were diagnosed as COVID-positive.
Also a family I know personally in my town, who developed a mild form, one member after another.
A 2nd generation contact (friend of a friend) died from the disease (similar symptoms), but have no more data.

Obviously, this doesn't prove the disease is caused by a virus, just that is real and doesn't like like a flu.

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:26 am

Altair wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:03 am
...fever, cough, extreme tiredness, that lasted for about 2-3 weeks....
Obviously, this doesn't prove the disease is caused by a virus, just that is real and doesn't like like a flu.
Looks exactly like a flu to me.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:51 am

I hope readers appreciate that I have spent a long time on this reply to various members and any of the many people looking for some sense in the present as well as past endeavours of a group of insane individuals (to be kind) who have an anti-human agenda. I always write in good faith and with consideration and a great deal of research over many years. I could never claim to have answers, merely to give ‘food for thought’.
Rusty wrote:

I think it's very important to clarify and agree on a common terminology before we move onward. Let's make one thing clear: Viruses exist only by DEFINITION.
Answer: What would be a ‘common definition’? How would/could you accomplish a ‘common definition’? Who might agree with that definition? Definitions most often refer to dictionaries or encyclopaedias written by apparent ‘scholars’ according to their propensities at defining natural or other events according to the situation in which they live and in probable consequence of the nature of the work into which they place their thoughts according to the dictionary into which they insert their definition?
The topic is comparable to the dinosaurs: Nobody has ever seen one, but because of DEFINITIONs almost everyone believes they once existed.
Answer: Who defined ‘dinosaurs? How did they arrive at a definition? Why did the definition require a status as to their actuality?]

Rusty wrote:
So, here is my knowledge about what is known to exist:
- Proteins in the blood which everyone has to some extent
- Tiny particles that can be photographed in an electron microscope
- Short strands of polynucleotides which are detectable by PCR
- "Disease" programs with mostly unknown causes and effects
Virology combines these to the claim of tiny particles which contain RNA/DNA and a protein shell, produced by cells, causing disease.
Answer:
1. What exactly are ‘proteins’?
2. What exactly are the ‘tiny particles’ that can be ‘photographed (how?) in an electron microscope?
3. Do we know that such a device (an electron microscope) has been constructed or how it actually works?
4. Have you ever seen or used such a device or is it just a figment of someone’s imagination created to pretend that such small elements exist (especially taken from a so-called ‘living tissue’ that outside of its environment and therefore cannot exist as it was before its retrieval from a living source? ]
Rusty wrote: Modern science focuses on CORRELATION analysis. Correlation between nucleotides, between nucleotides and proteins, between proteins and disease, between nucleotides and disease.
Answer: So-called ‘modern’ science is a misnomer. ‘Modern science’ produces all the things (whatever they are) to create the notion of ‘disease’ and all the other tripe we are forced to consume, like ‘rocketry’ and so forth. If you replace ‘modern science’ with reason and perpetual allegiance to it you may acquire some sense (as in common sense). Common sense is that which, when, for example you cut the grass it will grow again (which is readily observable even by the blind).
Please explain: Correlation between nucleotides, between nucleotides and proteins, between proteins and disease, between nucleotides and disease in any sense that I/we can make of them. What on this planet are all these things that can make a sensible/coherent explanation to anyone else who is not versed in this religious mantra?
Rusty wrote: Evidently, it's possible to find all sorts of CORRELATIONS if you just try hard enough. However, everything else is just speculation, especially the question of CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Answer: ‘Correlations’ are not evidence unless they can be proven and visibly evident. There is certainly a notion that ‘patterns’ can be significant but only as markers for some things which need to be explored further, especially in terms of theories. Patterns as in art-forms, of course can be quite beautiful.
However, looking for patterns that are invisible to the naked eye that can only rely upon some form of magnification are a different matter. All very well looking through a magnifying glass (e.g. a rain-drop which is natural) and those that work well through other (very cleverly created from glass and other means, for example) they are always subject to interpretation of the object so magnified since they are, as I have said before are in vitro.
As to ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, one would have to explain precisely what is/the ‘cause’ and by a totally agreed definition (as well as practically demonstration to all who might agree or disagree) by the ‘cause’ and the ‘effect’ thus produced and both views described and recorded, in detail, that any of us can understand (without the teaching of ‘established’ views meant to disrupt alternative investigation.
Rusty wrote: I totally agree nature is not self-destructive.
Answer: Thank you. ‘Destruction is the dissolution of an apparent ’physical’ object (something that can be held and contemplated) that can be broken down, not into its apparent ’components’, since we cannot always comprehend its existence albeit with the ‘senses’ with which we have at any given time. ‘Dissolution’ is a process. Nature is a process from, as far as we can imagine, from whatever was here before us and whatever follow. We are ‘born’ and we ‘die’. It is purely a form of transformation from one thing to something else, however one might want to append a ‘god-theme’ of some description.
Rusty wrote: There is a purpose in everything.
Answer: How do you come by that statement? Who says?
Rusty wrote: But this does of course not exclude the possibility that "tiny particles", proteins and "strands of polynucleotides" are part of natural processes.
Answer: All these ‘tiny particles’, ‘proteins’ strands of polydoolackies and other trivia are part of the misinterpretation of what is seen under some sort of ‘microscope’ or other device. As I have said before, many times, out of a living structure you cannot remove it and ‘see’ what it is like outside of it without speculation as to its ‘purpose’. Nature does not have a ‘purpose’, it merely does what it does unless you believe in some form of direction from an amorphous omniscience. Is this not blatantly obvious?]
Quote:
Alovas1980 wrote: I wasn’t clear enough it seems.
So, there are no viruses and no antibodies.
But there are/will be tests which test if someone has antibodies against a virus. Whatever they claim they are.
So, what I would like to know. What will the test do? What are the tiny things they claim are antibodies?
Answer : Sanity! My dear Alovas1980, please be assured that there are no viruses, antibodies, germs to grab you during the night of a potentially restful sleep devoid of this nonsense. How can you ‘test’ something that is not ‘there’ in the first place? If there are no germs and viruses, then how can there be anti-bodies? If Nature does produce these entities, why are we all still here? If these things are ‘air-borne’ or ‘contact-borne’ then why are we all still here? If Nature can produce ‘bodies’ harmful to itself’, why then would Nature need to produce ‘anti-bodies’? Why would there be an unnecessary battle between the two factions? What is Nature up to?
Quote: Kham wrote:

Indeed Rusty,

Correlation is not causation. But what about causation? Assuming that viruses don’t exist, I would like to see an explanation of how chicken pox or mumps or measles spread because they all have separate and unique symptoms.
Answer: You are asking about ‘causes’. The only ‘cause’ of what we care to call ‘diseases’ are what I (and I am not alone) have always claimed as ‘dis-eases’. There is a significant discrepancy between the two terms. ‘Disease’ refers to a particular reference to which certain ‘symptoms’ (derived from whatever you wish to lump together to claim such) and the notion of an ‘unhealthy’ life-style, however this may come about.
The human body, as with all other life-forms, is, in simple, self-healing. That means that if one is injured (by whatever means, since we all react with another in some way) that is not conducive to our own particular welfare, the body reacts, so far as it can, to repair the damage thus caused.
All life-forms (however you define them) require particular ‘diets’ and circumstances (e.g. daylight) to maintain that self-healing. If the constituents of those diets and circumstances are not available, the body attempts to rectify that by whatever means are necessary. If it fails, then we can be in trouble.
When the required nutrients are not available and substitutes are added which are not conducive to the repair of your particular body, then the body will react and try to get rid of them.
Thus, when, after the Second (contrived) World War, during which I was born (mid 1944) there were, because of certain food shortages a lack of nutritious material which was available to us. We therefore (I imagine and given my parents care as much as could be) be received less nutrition than was necessary and that which was not, our bodies attempted to relieve themselves, hence our (what they called) ‘measles. Pustules, of any kind are a ’symptom’ of the body trying to rid itself of that which is not conducive to its natural function.
So-called ‘disease’ is a function (process) of getting rid of that which a particular substance is anathema to the particular body. Given enough of the incorrect food (data in technological terms) the output is a ‘dis-ease’.
In short, anything that you ‘inject’ into a human body, natural or otherwise, must result in a non-positive reaction. The body will reject these unnatural products, if it can. Pustules (or whatever) are the evidence that the body needs to get rid of unnatural products to survive (via self-healing so far as it is possible). If you inject ‘anti-biotics’, or ‘vaccinations’ (anti-life) into a body you cannot expect to have or produce, progeny who can expect an uncompromised body and therefore subjected to the mores of the progenitors of ill-health (W.H.O., the U.K. N.H.S., C.D.C. etcetera). Whatever they do, they do not promote health.

Post Reply