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
Only2perCent
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Only2perCent » Thu May 21, 2020 2:12 am

News from the frontlines. Some symptomatic behavior manifested itself today. An innocent YouTube video was taken down. Here it is:

Comparing the projectory of the PLANdemic before and after Lockdown shows no saved lives
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iDEiLt ... sp=sharing

But I think it's the Description that struck the nerve:

Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impact on the COVID-19 PLANdemic
____________

"Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918-1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69

His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients.

Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza.

Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: 'We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.' "
Direct Link:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/ or https://1clickurls.com/hifTNnl

The Technocrats are planning to structure our future lives around false assumptions that are in direct contradiction to the findings above.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu May 21, 2020 10:11 am

Rounding up the 'virus' issue (so far as I am concerned).

Let us pretend that a virus actually exists.

What is a virus?

According to the 'official' view, a virus is an entity (since the word is a noun and names a 'thing') that requires a host 'cell' before it can weave its evil magic, (which to all intents and purposes must be an 'evil' entity) because it will cause some sort of destructive 'dis-ease' (or even symptoms of a full-blown 'disease').

It is the requires a host 'cell' that is most important here.

The virus enters (?) the cell and apparently creates havoc to the cell's original intention (to keep itself alive via suitable nutrients). How it can actually do this, again to all intents, purposes, verification and credibility, unknowable in any real terms.

Also, how does it get into other cells? (Some Star Trekian Transporter?) How did it get to the original cell in the first place? 'Mutations', you say? Mutations of what, exactly? One cannot create something from nothing, unless I have been mistaken somewhere along my long lines of the acquisition of data.

We are not apparently talking about a cell changing its structure for some reason, we are talking about an invasion!

Again, how then is it able to transport itself outside the cell to 'infect' anyone else, even though it apparently requires a living 'cell' to do anything at all? The same Star Trekian Transporter?

Is this virus (within a cell) then able to break out from the environment it requires for its existence, grow some sort of wings to be able to drone-fly themselves over minuscule or vast distances (considering their apparent microscopic size) to 'infect' those outside their domain?

For what it is worth...

Be well.

rusty
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Thu May 21, 2020 12:59 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 10:11 am
We are not apparently talking about a cell changing its structure for some reason, we are talking about an invasion!

Again, how then is it able to transport itself outside the cell to 'infect' anyone else, even though it apparently requires a living 'cell' to do anything at all? The same Star Trekian Transporter?

Is this virus (within a cell) then able to break out from the environment it requires for its existence, grow some sort of wings to be able to drone-fly themselves over minuscule or vast distances (considering their apparent microscopic size) to 'infect' those outside their domain?
They talk about the virus disintegrating within the cell, merging its genetical codes into the genes of the cell and thus "trick" the cell into producing many more of the same virus particles. These will then leave the cell (how?) into the intracellular fluid and randomly infect other cells, until stopped by the antibodies produced by our immune system.

All the implausibilities this involves aside ... if it was in fact true this means nothing else than:
1. Cells (and only cells!) have the ability to produce "viral particles", and they do this all the time
2. The viral particle is nothing more than some piece of information transmitted from one cell to another. It's not alive, it can't be vicious or "try to survive" or anything.

In my opionion, this is the first information you have to "hammer home" into everyone who believes viruses are real causes of disease. Then add the information that there is no scientific proof that even two of those particles are absolutely identical. This may be at the core of the belief that "viruses mutate". Then hammer home the fact that it has not been proven that ISOLATED viral particles can cause disease.

Altair
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Thu May 21, 2020 2:58 pm

It's even more difficult according to the accepted hypotheses: the viral RNA fools the enzymes in the cell to produce the virus building blocks (proteins, lipids, and replicated RNA) and they magically assemble in the cell into neat spheres that contain more RNA.

Altair
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Mon May 25, 2020 6:41 pm

The more I research, the more fishy it looks...
It seems that the process of virus "assembly" and release is greatly unknown. Yet there seems to be no obstacle for vaccine production. In short, producing vaccines would require purposely infecting human or animal cells with the virus, then extracting the virus and debilitating or fragmenting it with a chemical agent. Now, if it's not possible to isolate viruses, that means the whole thing (cells and viruses) must be processed together... and injected. So we have here a flagrant contradiction: viruses cannot be isolated, but they can be sort-of processed to make vaccines.

rusty
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Tue May 26, 2020 10:34 am

Altair wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 6:41 pm
The more I research, the more fishy it looks...
It seems that the process of virus "assembly" and release is greatly unknown. Yet there seems to be no obstacle for vaccine production. In short, producing vaccines would require purposely infecting human or animal cells with the virus, then extracting the virus and debilitating or fragmenting it with a chemical agent. Now, if it's not possible to isolate viruses, that means the whole thing (cells and viruses) must be processed together... and injected. So we have here a flagrant contradiction: viruses cannot be isolated, but they can be sort-of processed to make vaccines.
Absolutely. I know that for the production of some vaccines they simply injected some of the non-isolated "viral" material into chicken eggs in large amounts, hatched the eggs up to a certain point, then simply broke down all the chicken embryos and put the result through some kind of filter, then added additional ingredients. So this mixture will contain lots of foreign material (chicken embryo soup). You have to wonder who in their right mind would have something like this injected into their own body or those of their children.

On the topic of "debilitating or fragmenting" viruses, or all the talk about "live" viruses, which are still virulent or not ... you have to wonder how anything of this is possible. Either the particle has its initial structure with the protein shell and the contained "genetic material" or the structure is broken somehow, rendering it non-functional (you'll only have some of the proteins from the shell and the genetic material floating around). If the protein structure is corrupted, you have to wonder how "antibodies" agains this corrupted structure are supposed to work against the real thing.

Post Reply