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
patrix
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:54 pm

Dr Stefan Lanka Measles Virus On Trial


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWmRj1WWrSQ

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Fri Apr 17, 2020 7:23 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
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’.
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?
Dear Sharpstuff,

I appreciate that you have spent a long time on you reply.
In the last 20 year I never really believed in viruses and epidemics, and since the last “Ebola virus epidemic” I know that it is BS. So, there are no viruses. They don’t exist.
But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not. The tests are not 100%, I think more like 60% right. They say they are looking for antibodies. I know if viruses don’t exist then antibodies don’t exist either. Very logical.
But I want to know what the test does. Is it totally random or are they looking for some specific thing in the body? I don’t say that viruses and antibodies exist. I don’t say that they are looking for antibodies with the tests. I don’t care about proteins or if they exist or not.

I just want to know what the test really does.

I hope it is clearer like it.

Kind Regards,

Alovas1980

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:30 pm

Thanks, dear sharpstuff, for your elaboration.

I want to cover the topic of contagion a bit more, since it was brought up by Kham and others (hopefully not derailing the thread too much from the original topic). It was the following article that sparked my interest:
Source: Article from nzz.ch(German), translated by google and yours truly
...
Those who want to know how the coronavirus gets from one person to another are also confronted with them [challenges of contagion]: on the one hand, the virus cannot be observed directly on its way, on the other hand, we can only examine the transmission in the rear-view mirror. Only when someone gets sick or at least has detectable amounts of virus in the body, do we realize that they must have been infected a few days before
...
In other words: It's pure guesswork. If you are positive and had contact with an infected person 10 days before, that's claimed as the source of contagion without further ado. If you don't know if you had contact with someone who was infected, it's simply claimed that you had contact with a "silent carrier". If you did not have any contact at all for four weeks they either assume "the virus must be airborne", or "the incubation period can be very long, longer than assumed so far" or you are simply ignored or declared as "false positive". Either way, the contagion theory is never given up on.

To confirm my point on chickenpox and other "contagious diseases", I want to cite the following:
John H. Tilden (1851-1940) wrote: Source
Chickenpox
Definition.--This is a slightly contagious disease of children, characterized by an eruption of vesicles on the surface of the body....

Etiology.--The disease occurs in epidemic, endemic, and sporadic forms; that is to say, it may spread all over the country, it may be confined to just one locality, and then again a case may occur in a community without any other cases developing. This is true of all so-called contagious diseases, showing that contagion requires a proper physical state of the one taking the disease before it will manifest itself. No one will take any of the so-called epidemic or contagious diseases who is not in a favorable condition to be stricken down.
Also, in former times, there were bold physicians who weren't afraid to run contagion experiments both with themselves and their contacts:
Dr. Rodermund in The Searchlight 1901 wrote: Source
DR. RODERMUND'S EXPERIMENT

On Monday, Jan. 21, 1901, about 11.30 A. M., I entered the residence of Mr.___ , where Miss Stark was confined with the smallpox.
... I then stated that I came to see the smallpox patient.
... "But the doctors say this disease is very contagious; are they not very careless and negligent in not keeping this patient away from the rest of the family? This is a genuine case of smallpox, just see the large pustules full of pus..."
... I broke open several of the large pustules on her face and arms and took the pus out of them and smeared it all over my face, hands, beard and clothes, and at the same time remarked that I would now go home to dinner.
I mentioned nothing of the affair to my family during the meal and went directly to my office without telling anyone. The first person who came in the office was an old friend, .... We shook hands heartily ; in fact, I had entirely forgotten that I was covered with smallpox poison. I presented him with one of my books and, ..., I must have covered the book and gentleman with smallpox germs, and he in return must have exposed many people in Appleton, those he met on the train, and finally his whole congregation.
... During the same afternoon I touched the faces of several persons in my office while treating their eyes and fitting glasses. From 4 to 6 and from 8 to 10 o'clock the same afternoon I was at the Business Men's Club, where I mingled and played cards with the members.
...The sanctimonious frauds and deceivers of the public (doctors) tried in every way, shape and manner, to trace a case of smallpox to my actions, but with no avail. Even after I had exposed 50,000 people, and rubbed my pus-covered hands over thirty-seven faces, they could find nothing against me. In the near future I will publish a few similar incidents which have happened to me the past years, and which are far more interesting than this one.
... Why is not one out of the thousands of these medical scoundrels, murderers, and deceivers, ever turned up to win the prize which reads as follows:
One thousand dollars will be given to anyone who can prove that disease is contagious; also ten dollars for each day it takes him to prove it.
The doctors know that by superstition the people can best be held. Then, I want to ask you, are not the people more to blame than the doctors ?
... Does any sane man believe that God created such laws which, if disobeyed at any time by one person, would spread a loathsome disease over a whole nation? This superstition is a blasphemy upon Almighty justice.
Blasphemous superstition, indeed.

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Kham » Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:02 am

Hello Rusty,

What an in incredible account of trying to spread smallpox To test a theory! Great find. Another confirmation that the terrain is everything.

I have been thinking a lot about how books, movies, and tv shows portray the spreading of so called viral diseases. Seems these portrayals of super virulent viruses were necessary to get us to believe the non-demic we have before us today.

Nice work Rusty.

Take care,

KHam

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:39 am

Alovas 1980 wrote:


Dear Sharpstuff,

I appreciate that you have spent a long time on you reply.
In the last 20 year I never really believed in viruses and epidemics, and since the last “Ebola virus epidemic” I know that it is BS. So, there are no viruses. They don’t exist.
But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not. The tests are not 100%, I think more like 60% right. They say they are looking for antibodies. I know if viruses don’t exist then antibodies don’t exist either. Very logical.
But I want to know what the test does. Is it totally random or are they looking for some specific thing in the body? I don’t say that viruses and antibodies exist. I don’t say that they are looking for antibodies with the tests. I don’t care about proteins or if they exist or not.

I just want to know what the test really does.

I hope it is clearer like it.

Kind Regards,

Alovas1980
Dear Alovas thank you so much for your appreciation. I am not medically trained (thank goodness) I merely studied many medical subjects in my youth (and continue to do so). Therefore I can only offer what I have learned over the many years. You say:
But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not.
My questions are:
Are there really diseases?
Are there really tests?
What precisely are these tests and how exactly are they accomplished?
How can you construct a test for something that does not exist?

I would love to know for myself.

Here are a few definitions of ‘test’:

1. A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.
2. An examination of part of the body or a body fluid for medical purposes, especially by means of a chemical or mechanical procedure rather than simple inspection.
3. Chemistry: a procedure employed to identify a substance or to reveal the presence or absence of a constituent within a substance.
4. The result of a medical examination or analytical procedure. "A positive test for protein (for example)".
5. A means of establishing whether an action, item, or situation is an instance of a specified quality, especially one held to be undesirable. "A statutory test of obscenity".


Definitions do not tell us what something is (or isn’t) they merely ‘name’ something. None of the above definitions tell us how these so-called tests are accomplished! We have been brain-washed with all these notions of ‘tests’. We have been bombarded by all the (possible/probably deceitful) images, videos of all these marvellous gowned personages in apparent pristine laboratories who spend their ‘lives’ putting ‘things’ into petri dishes and so forth, shoving them under unsuspecting ‘microscopes’ of some kind; adding and subtracting unknown chemicals, attaching spurious labels to spurious reactions. How could you make sense of that? We are relying on what we are led to believe that these people ‘know what they are doing’.

A strictly ‘Google’ definition of the Litmus test:

Noun: litmus test; plural noun: litmus tests

1. Chemistry: a test for acidity or alkalinity using litmus.
2. a decisively indicative test.
Example: "effectiveness in these areas is often a good litmus test of overall quality”

I remember this test from early school-boy days.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... mus%20test

Litmus Test Has Scientific Origins

It was in the 14th century that scientists discovered that litmus, a mixture of colored organic compounds obtained from lichen, turns red in acid solutions and blue in alkaline solutions and, thus, can be used as an acid-base indicator. Six centuries later, people began using litmus test figuratively. It can now refer to any single factor that establishes the true character of something or causes it to be assigned to one category or another. Often it refers to something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that can be used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable or not.

Even this does not tell us what ‘organic compounds obtained from ’lichen’ are. The phrase ‘establishes the true character of something’ also begs the question what does ‘true’ mean and to whom?

We could go on endlessly with this.

Until we know exactly how and with what these ‘tests’ are carried out and with exactly what materials they use to construct them, so that unlike the ‘experts’, the ignorati (in this case the poor souls who are trying to make sense of this diabolical ‘virus’ scam), we must just keep going.

Be well (untested and un'vaccinated'!)

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Has anybody heard about Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova?

From https://aruchiropractic.com/health-libr ... and-dasha/:
The new mother was told that her twin babies had died after birth. However the truth was far different: they were sent to an institute near Moscow to be studied. This was to be the fate of “Masha” and “Dasha”, one of the most unusual sets of “Siamese” or conjoined twins ever born.

Identical twins are formed when a fertilized egg divides into two eggs. The two eggs grow into two babies that are identical in every respect. Conjoined or Siamese twins are formed in the same way as identical twins but the eggs, for some reason, don’t completely separate; instead, they remain partially attached. It was the unique way in which the twins were connected that caused Soviet scientists to take such an interest in them.

Although Masha and Dasha have four arms, they have only three legs. They stand on two of their legs, one controlled by Masha, one by Dasha (they were five before they learned how to walk) while a third, vestigial leg remains in the air behind them. Their upper intestines are separated but they share a single lower intestine and rectum. They have four kidneys and one bladder, and often disagree on when to urinate. They have a common reproductive system.

Because their circulatory systems are inter connected, the twins share each other’s blood. Therefore, a bacterium or virus that enters one twin’s bloodstream will soon be seen in the blood of her sister. Yet surprisingly, illness affects them differently. Dasha is short-sighted, prone to colds and right-handed. Masha smokes occasionally, has a healthier constitution, higher blood pressure than her sister, good eyesight and is left-handed.

The twins differing health patterns present a mystery. Why did one become ill with a childhood disease, like measles for example, while the other did not? The measles “bug” was in both of their bodies, in their collective bloodstream; so why didn’t both get the measles?

Evidently there is more to “getting the measles” than having the measles “bug”. This phenomenon was seen over and over again with the girls (flu, colds, other childhood diseases were all experienced separately). If germs alone had the power to cause infectious diseases, why would one of the twins be disease-free while the other was ill? What was it in their makeup that differentiated one from the other?

The answer was not far to seek. Although Masha and Dasha had common circulatory, digestive, excretory, lymphatic, endocrine and skeletal systems (they were joined at the hips), they had separate spinal columns and spinal cords [and brains, personalities, thoughts, experiences!]. This was the only important difference between the two girls.

In Masha and Dasha, nature’s “laboratory” devised an experiment that no human researcher could ever duplicate. These extraordinary twins are an invaluable example confirming that there is much more to “catching” a disease than simply breathing in germs; germs can make you sick if and only if your body provides fertile ground to grow in.
The state of your nerve system can determine whether you have high or low resistance to disease. If you are suffering from disease, the health of your nerve system will play a decisive role in whether or not (and how rapidly) you will recover. By keeping your spinal column and nerve system free of subluxations, chiropractic care helps you optimize your overall state of health.

Masha and Dasha became celebrities when they appeared on a popular national television program in Russia. They were reunited with their mother (their father had since died) and are hopeful: “The past forty years haven’t been so good, but things are looking up for the next forty,” said Dasha.

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 10:23 am

sharpstuff wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:39 am
Alovas 1980 wrote:
But there are tests which can show if someone has had a certain disease or not.
My questions are:
Are there really diseases?
If we take this definition: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dic ... #disease_4
an illness that affects people or animals, especially one that is caused by an infection
Then there are no diseases.
Are there really tests?
Not everybody is on in these scams. So, there should be something which reacts to something and gives a result. 99% of doctors, virologists etc. has no clue what any „test” really do. So, These “tests” are not testing for the thing they say they are. But there are things or processes they call tests. They just do something totally different what they claimed to do.
What precisely are these tests and how exactly are they accomplished?
Yeah, I don’t know, this is what I really would like to know. Either they are totally random. They can somehow engineer it, that it shows something in 5% of the cases and it shows something else 95% of the cases. Or it can react to something in the body, what not everybody has in their body.
Or it can react if someone has a certain amount of something in their body.
How can you construct a test for something that does not exist?
It is constructed, to measure something else, or just totally random. But it does not do what it claims to do
Until we know exactly how and with what these ‘tests’ are carried out and with exactly what materials they use to construct them, so that unlike the ‘experts’, the ignorati (in this case the poor souls who are trying to make sense of this diabolical ‘virus’ scam), we must just keep going.

Be well (untested and un'vaccinated'!)
Yeah, I am sure these „tests” are constructed such a way, that ordinary people, doctors, virologists etc., cannot find out what they really do.

Kind Regards,
Alovas1980

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:21 pm

rusty wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:37 pm
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.
Dear rusty,

Do you have a link to something where Mr. Drosten discusses this? Thanks in advance.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:10 pm

More from Dr. Kaufman, proving again that nobody has ever isolated a virus.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvcEIarencM

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:44 pm

Find the Similarities, comparing Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) and Coronavirus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350779/
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) including exosomes, are small membrane vesicles derived from multivesicular bodies or from the plasma membrane. Most, if not all, cell types release EVs that then enter the bodily fluids. These vesicles contain a subset of proteins, lipids and nucleic acids that are derived from the parent cell. It is postulated that EVs have important roles in intercellular communication, both locally and systemically, by transferring their contents, including protein, lipids and RNAs, between cells. EVs are involved in numerous physiological processes, and vesicles from both non-immune and immune cells have important roles in immune regulation.
Images of Extracellular Vesicles, see especially C and D:
Image
Full article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3895263/

Coronavirus:
Image
More pictures: https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/images.html

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:53 am

I am posting this as serious humour. It relates to all forms of ‘testing’ for alleged ‘bacteria’, viruses’ and other imaginative concoctions by the so-called ‘scientific’ community and heralded as ‘fact’ by the Main Sewer News and its supporters.


Review of an article from Pathway Genomics

Foreword

When I read this article, I was astounded by the methods by which they allegedly extract ‘D.N.A.’ from a living body and thus the standard and now virtually ‘set in concrete’ texts regarding ‘genes’, ‘genomes’ and so forth. I remember reading their book (via a Penguin Book in the early 1960’s) and was fascinated by it; so fascinated that I could eventually draw the sequence from memory and I still have my original notes.

I now, after many years refute this notion of ‘genetics’ as portrayed and apparently accepted by the masses (including so-called scholars) because of the methods used for ‘extraction’ of any substance from the human body (‘cells’ or fluid) and its viability as an explanation for biological processes.

My contention is that you cannot explain a life-form from its constituent extracted ‘parts’ since they are linked together in toto and something which would be ‘dead’ cannot be seen to be part of a living structure. To me, at least, this would be inexplicable.

The same notion for any sort of ‘test’ requiring the extraction of anything from a human body and manipulated by any means outside of it, is simply ludicrous.

My comments are equally suitable for any other so-called tests.

Comments in Times New Roman between […]. Article in Bold.

Sharpstuff
April, 2020

*******************************

Pathway Genomics


Over the years, DNA tests have been continuously refined to the point where people, in the comforts of their own home, can provide a sample that lab technicians can use to map out a comprehensive report of their genome. Through a small sample of blood, saliva, cheek cells, or a hair follicle, you can better understand your body and its needs.


[WoW! Exciting stuff!]

When you use a DNA test [does that mean I can do it myself?], you provide a sample, usually either blood or saliva. Once this sample arrives at the lab, technicians [Yippee!] extract the DNA from this sample. Known as DNA extraction, this is a process by which DNA is isolated from the nucleus of cells. [Hmmm.]Along with DNA testing, DNA extraction is also used to detect bacteria or viruses in the environment. [Please define ‘bacteria’ and ‘viruses’.]



There are a number of techniques for DNA extraction. For example, the molecular technique FISH (Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization) is used to identify and itemize particular bacterial groups, [How?] whereas sequencing is done to compare portions of or whole genomes with existing sequence in a public database. [Please show examples (bacterial groups, sequencing and explain what they mean. It sounds ‘fishy’ to me.]

[Nitty gritty.]The Five Steps for DNA Extraction

While there are DNA extraction kits available, which extract DNA from cell types, these can be expensive, so most scientists and labs develop their own method for extracting DNA. [El cheapo.]While there may be slight deviations, there are general steps labs follow to extract DNA from your sample. [Why would there be deviations? What difference does it make to the findings?]

Step 1: Technicians first break open the cells [To release the inmates?] in your sample to release the DNA. [You are assuming D.N.A. exists.] This process is known as lysing, as lysins are used to dissolve the cells. To separate the cells in your sample, technicians will grind them [!] and add them to a salt solution. [We are a long way from their alleged existence already.]The sodium ions in the salt, which are positively charged, help protect the phosphate groups that are found in the backbone of DNA, as they’re negatively charged. [How do you explain that?] Following, a detergent, such as SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), is added to remove lipids in the cell membrane and nuclei. [In other words, we batter once healthy ‘cells’ into oblivion and whatever is left is considered D.N.A.?] As these membranes break down, DNA is released.

Step 2: Next, DNA must be separated from proteins. [What ‘proteins’? Explain ‘proteins.]This cellular debris [It is certainly that!]can make it difficult to get a clean [!] [Sorry… of course it has been washed with detergent.] reading of DNA, so technicians [!] strive to get as clean a sample of DNA as they can. [If not, then what?]There are a few different ways to remove cellular debris and proteins. One method for precipitating the protein is to add ammonium, sodium acetate, or another salt. By vortexing with phenol-chloroform and centrifuging, the proteins can be drawn off. Alternatively, a protein enzyme may be added to the sample to degrade any proteins. [My mind is boggled at this atrocity towards what was living tissue before it was taken from a host.]

Step 3: After technicians have a clean sample of DNA, they add ice-cold ethanol or isopropanol. While DNA is soluble in water, it isn’t soluble when salt or alcohol are present. The alcohol helps wash the sample and remove the salt that was previously added. As they stir the alcohol in the sample, a white, stringy precipitate (imagine spit in a glass of water
[not really as far as I am concerned but then I am not a ‘technician’.) appears and it can be retrieved. [Lordy, lordy, how much of this drivel is one supposed to acquire before I expire from laughter?]

Step 4: Once the DNA sample is extracted, technicians will further purify and clean it. [By now, whatever it is, cannot possibly be anything of value in a biological sense.] Once clean, it’s resuspended in a buffer that’s slightly alkaline, such as Tris, and is ready to use. [One might ask for what!]

Step 5: Even when it’s ready to use, technicians still need to determine the quality and concentration of the DNA. For example, if not enough DNA is extracted, an additional swab may be needed. [Perhaps a whole living body?] Using a spectrophotometer [?], technicians for an optical density reading[??] , technicians can confirm the presence of the DNA. [Yipee!]Alternatively, instead of an optical density reading, technicians may use gel electrophoresis to indicate the presence of DNA. [Now that is very clever. What is gel electrophoresis? It certainly sounds pretty clever to me.]

Once technicians [Those dear boys and girls work very hard washing things, don’t they, especially having been brain-washed into believing what they do is anything near real.] have a clean DNA sample extracted from your swab, they can review your DNA for a number of factors. [Which might be?] While 99.9% of DNA from two people will be identical, that 0.1% varies, and it’s what makes us unique. [The %’s are staggering! Really?] Known as genetic markers, these are what scientists focus on when conducting a DNA test.

DNA testing can reveal your genetic ethnicity and risk factors and potential diseases you may have inherited (or may eventually inherit) from your parents, help you lose weight and more. [Oh, for goodness sake!] And as we’ve all seen on crime shows, [Well, you might have.] DNA samples can also be used to aid in crime scenes and trials, as fingerprints and blood samples can be used to determine the victim and perpetrator. [These have all been disputed many, many times.]

At Pathway Genomics, we offer a number of DNA tests centered on your health. From understanding your dietary and exercise needs to screening for potential cancer genes,[Oh, dear this is terrible. Who says there are ‘cancer’ genes? Where do you get the idea that ‘cancer’ is caused by genes?] DNA testing can empower you to make informed decisions about your health. [Sorry, bovine excrement.] With a small sample of DNA, you can uncover a number of things about your health and body you never knew. [Extremely doubtful.]

Be well.

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:58 am

Sharpstuff wrote:
When I read this article, I was astounded by the methods by which they allegedly extract ‘D.N.A.’ from a living body and thus the standard and now virtually ‘set in concrete’ texts regarding ‘genes’, ‘genomes’ and so forth. I remember reading their book (via a Penguin Book in the early 1960’s) and was fascinated by it; so fascinated that I could eventually draw the sequence from memory and I still have my original notes.
My apologies. When I said 'I remember reading their book', I was referring to the story of D.N.A. by Watson and Crick.

Be well.

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

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Kham » Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:16 am

What is a virus?

A more illuminating question is what isn’t a virus. College Human A&P professor Patty Lager discusses how Science is wrong about viruses. First she discusses why our lymph system is so important and how it relates to viruses, including the corona virus. Patty also discusses that she thinks we are in a ‘plandemic’. Even though she teaches at a college, pre-med courses, Patty says it like it is.

The more I talk about her I’m thinking she would be a wonderful addition here at Cluesforum.

The Immune System with Patty Lager


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1kuNL99kUA

Take care,

KHam

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 29, 2020 11:31 am

Quite an interesting video.

Much of this I have already said in my previous posts (if anyone actually reads them). I would like to interview this lady. She does, however, stick to the notion that you can study in vivo processes, in vitro, which I dispute. She also hangs onto the word 'immunity', again which I dispute, since if there are no actual 'germs' or 'viruses', there would be no need for an 'immune' system from which there would be no need to be immune.

Cambridge dictionary
Meaning of immune in English

1.
immune
(adjective) Protected against a particular disease by particular substances in the blood.

2.
immune
(after verb) Not affected or upset by a particular type of behaviour or emotion.

She is correct, of course, when she talks of natural things for a natural body, (otherwise we would not be here at all!) The less natural your life-style, the more you succumb to the lack of self-healing, bar, of course, accident and emergency.

I will give you my example of the difference between in vivo and in vitro. If you want to make a cake (for example), you obtain the ingredients (flour, milk, sugar, butter etc.) and you mix them together in a bowl, from which you produce a compound. You then bake it and it becomes a completed object which we then call a cake. The ingredients are in vivo. Now once the cake is made, there is no way possible to 'un-make' it and retrieve the original ingredients, is there? However you batter (?) it to pieces, you cannot deconstruct it and say, 'here is a grain of flour, drop of milk, sugar etc’.

This is precisely what these biologists/virologists (or whatever they call themselves) try to do with living tissue. What appears under a microscope as a cell unit, is not the cell as it was in the human body. Once leaving the body, it would immediately try to heal itself and become something else, much as a bleeding wound will immediately begin to coagulate to heal itself. Left alone it becomes what we call a ‘scab’ which eventually dissipates and if left untouched will leave no ‘scar’ (healing by first intention). Obviously if the wound is too deep then it may require intervention such a ‘stitch’ (healing by second intention) and there is no problem with that, of course. How can one dispute this notion?

We really must get to grips with the notion of a process (or transformation from one state to another) in the analogue.

Of course, we agree that there are biological processes which might go 'wrong' for one reason or another, but these must always be looked at in context with the whole person and studied separately.

Be well.

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 » Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:45 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:31 am

Much of this I have already said in my previous posts (if anyone actually reads them).
Dear Sharpstuff,

Just wish to thank you for the hearty laughs provoked by your above link (and commentary) to the Pathway Genomics DNA paper. My ribs are still sore.

Lordylord, you just can't make that stuff up. Oh, wait... those crafty lab technicians can !

And yes, it looks like your posts are indeed being read - even outside this forum : :)
http://fakeologist.com/blog/2020/04/28/ ... /#comments

Post Reply