Very well explained, Michael. Thank you. This is how I learn; without all the ego. Much appreciated. Essentially the test is the blueprint of a manufactured sequence. And, it makes sense that if you begin constructing it from a person with symptoms, you will more likely see positive tests in people with symptoms. No coincidence there. St…
Very well explained, Michael. Thank you. This is how I learn; without all the ego. Much appreciated. Essentially the test is the blueprint of a manufactured sequence. And, it makes sense that if you begin constructing it from a person with symptoms, you will more likely see positive tests in people with symptoms. No coincidence there. Still, there are more than enough positives in asymptomatic people and negatives in symptomatic to dismiss any notion that a virus is responsible for the results. In fact, even just one example either way should completely destroy the virus theory.
Not so sure about the "match the blueprint please" sequence. Do you really think all scientists are looking for the "original" patient strain but did not test any of the other millions of patients with symptoms to SEE IF they all match, but are not in healthy subjects? Highly unlikely, but prove me wrong.
Further, a false positive or negative do not invalidate this theory as resistance to disease runs a bell-shaped curve (ie, there will always be outliers in nature).
Ridiculously enough, that is EXACTLY what they do. There is DEF no alignment between sequencing and illness. We have seen the PCR testing fraud in plain daylight. MIllions of non-sick people tested "positive." Its the same in the more rarified world of the whole genome sequencing. there is not a single study out there that shows in any statistically significant way that sick people have "the virus" and healthy people don't. Not a single study. As I have mentioned earlier, they never even did the obscenely simple study of testing contagion by injecting a mouse with "sars cov2" and then seeing how many other mice get sick. Would have cost less than 10 grand. And yes they DO posit that mice get covid - a study they did with injecting a handful of mice with a lung fluid mixture and seeing them lose 10% of their weight was considered seminal in the field of covid studies - even though there were very good reasons beside "a virus" that the mice might have lost weight in the experiment (which were ignored of course). Its all smoke and mirrors. Cheap easy clear experiments which could show clear conclusions are not done. Expensive complex experiments which have faulty reasoning behind them are done instead.
I also saw a specific study of COVID that was referenced (could have been Mike Stone's Substack), but I don't remember) to try to prove COVID was contagious. The infected could not infect the others. It failed. We have seen the same thing in the real world outside of studies, such as on cruise ships or even in schools or persons' households which I alluded to earlier.
yes and it was so ridiculous to see kirsch lying during the interview about barnstable county - claiming they whole genome sequenced the whole county. shows how little he knows about this. that would have taken YEARS. Realty: they pcr tested a few hundred people... and the whole cruise ship thing - uhhh, people get sick on cruise ships. no news there. only news was this time they were pcr testing everyone and discovering a bunch were "positive."
Scientific method doesn’t allow for outliers. If I drop the same ball 100 times in the same room I am sitting in right now, the law of gravity will prove it drops to the floor 100 times. Similarly, If said virus truly exists then a valid test should yield 100% consistent results. This was addressed in Koch’s postulates from the very beginning of germ theory. When things didn’t go as proponents hoped they abandoned the postulates and made exceptions to explain the “outliers”: “asymptomatic carriers, disease resistance immune systems, viral load, etc.” they not only abandoned the postulates, but scientific method as well. Note none of the outliers have been scientifically validated either. It’s all inferred.
Rob, bear with me while we look at the differences between the living and non-living matter.
Man is not a machine that behaves 100% predictably; he is spontaneous while at the same time follows species specific behaviors. Thus outliers (if you want to call "spontaneity" that) exist, unlike a thrown ball or a laser beam.
Not everybody gets sick from a microbe while others get very ill, and generally most get some symptoms. This depends on their constitution--and the Terrain Theory is correct here. There are ALSO other factors not considered by Terrain, but are pertinent.
I see what you're saying, but the tests are supposedly showing us the presence of a sub-microscopic entity known as a virus. Either it's there or it isn't, right? We can see this with other organisms.
Actually, I think it all does come down to terrain. There are indeed outliers in the degree and symptoms of which one gets sick and it has everything to do with the environment of the person's health and their surroundings.
Just to add to the point. The other side of it is that folks like Kirsch are claiming not only that there is a lego sasquatch in every messy home, but that it is the cause of why the home is messy (sick). So even IF it could be validated that a sasquatch was found in a home (let alone every messy home), it would still have to validated that the sasquatch was the one messing up everybody's living room and leaving a pile of dishes in the sink. This is why folks like Kaufman say we have no reason to rule out that all we are looking at is cell debris. And since we know that cell debris has the same shape under a micrograph that the theoretical virus has, and since we know that cell debris is a common output from other "virus" "isolation" processes, then it seems we are consistently just looking at cell debris. And since we know that increased cell debris is a common output from sick people, our first assumption until proven wrong should obviously be that there is cell debris in the sample BALF and that is what we are "sequencing".
Very well stated. I do have a couple of unrelated questions on virus and germ theory, but I will stay on course here. Perhaps, I will catchup with you on your Substack. One big takeaway from this thread. According to Steve’s poll, 37% of his Substack followers do not believe in a Covid virus. Huge progress is being made in uncovering the truth. I imagine if he asked that question a year ago, it would be less than half of that. I fully believed in viruses when I first started following Steve 3 or 4 years ago. I’m a paid subscriber for his relentless pursuit against the vaccines, but then these no-virus people started having some not so friendly encounters first. Imán my pursuit to defend Steve, I started asking questions. Those answers to those questions led me to more questions and into reading a few books. I began with the history. The BeChamp Pasteur book put a new light on things I believed about germs and led me to read a few other books. I would say I became solidly against believing in viruses about a year ago now, so I am still a newbie.
How do you know that is the "truth"? If I had to bet my life on the TRUTH while God is watching, the COVID virus absolutely does exist regardless of all the crowd-pleasing emotionally appealing arguments otherwise, and the COVID virus although not "deadly" itself did put unprecedented numbers of people in the hospital which led to unprecedented excess deaths through murderous protocols. And the mRNA vaccines only made the excess death problem much, much worse. If you had to bet your life on the "truth" while God is watching, what is the truth?
I would prefer not to bet my life on anything, but if I had no choice, I would go with the belief that viruses do not exist. To your first point, I would say that COVID could well have been a thing, but not a virus that was passed on from person to person. Both controlled and environmental studies have failed to prove that one person could make another person sick with COVID.
I also don't wear masks without any concern because I know that the COVID virus is not deadly even though I would bet my life that it does exist, technicalities aside. Just like I never wore a mask in 2019 and before. So what's your point? And plus I already had COVID anyway, and it was a very minor inconvenience for all but one of my immediate family members young and old (we're all unvaccinated)- one family member was bedridden for a few days- they had never been bedridden in decades- but still nothing scary.
Most people I know in real life, unvaccinated or vaccinated, report very similar experiences with COVID as I described. I have not heard a single person IN REAL LIFE, off the internet, claim that COVID is a hoax (but for comparison, I HAVE heard many people in real life report unexpected deaths of people they know after taking the vaccines, and have witnessed such deaths myself). So I'm definitely not scared or concerned about COVID, but I absolutely believe it exists.
Very well explained, Michael. Thank you. This is how I learn; without all the ego. Much appreciated. Essentially the test is the blueprint of a manufactured sequence. And, it makes sense that if you begin constructing it from a person with symptoms, you will more likely see positive tests in people with symptoms. No coincidence there. Still, there are more than enough positives in asymptomatic people and negatives in symptomatic to dismiss any notion that a virus is responsible for the results. In fact, even just one example either way should completely destroy the virus theory.
Not so sure about the "match the blueprint please" sequence. Do you really think all scientists are looking for the "original" patient strain but did not test any of the other millions of patients with symptoms to SEE IF they all match, but are not in healthy subjects? Highly unlikely, but prove me wrong.
Further, a false positive or negative do not invalidate this theory as resistance to disease runs a bell-shaped curve (ie, there will always be outliers in nature).
Ridiculously enough, that is EXACTLY what they do. There is DEF no alignment between sequencing and illness. We have seen the PCR testing fraud in plain daylight. MIllions of non-sick people tested "positive." Its the same in the more rarified world of the whole genome sequencing. there is not a single study out there that shows in any statistically significant way that sick people have "the virus" and healthy people don't. Not a single study. As I have mentioned earlier, they never even did the obscenely simple study of testing contagion by injecting a mouse with "sars cov2" and then seeing how many other mice get sick. Would have cost less than 10 grand. And yes they DO posit that mice get covid - a study they did with injecting a handful of mice with a lung fluid mixture and seeing them lose 10% of their weight was considered seminal in the field of covid studies - even though there were very good reasons beside "a virus" that the mice might have lost weight in the experiment (which were ignored of course). Its all smoke and mirrors. Cheap easy clear experiments which could show clear conclusions are not done. Expensive complex experiments which have faulty reasoning behind them are done instead.
I also saw a specific study of COVID that was referenced (could have been Mike Stone's Substack), but I don't remember) to try to prove COVID was contagious. The infected could not infect the others. It failed. We have seen the same thing in the real world outside of studies, such as on cruise ships or even in schools or persons' households which I alluded to earlier.
yes and it was so ridiculous to see kirsch lying during the interview about barnstable county - claiming they whole genome sequenced the whole county. shows how little he knows about this. that would have taken YEARS. Realty: they pcr tested a few hundred people... and the whole cruise ship thing - uhhh, people get sick on cruise ships. no news there. only news was this time they were pcr testing everyone and discovering a bunch were "positive."
Scientific method doesn’t allow for outliers. If I drop the same ball 100 times in the same room I am sitting in right now, the law of gravity will prove it drops to the floor 100 times. Similarly, If said virus truly exists then a valid test should yield 100% consistent results. This was addressed in Koch’s postulates from the very beginning of germ theory. When things didn’t go as proponents hoped they abandoned the postulates and made exceptions to explain the “outliers”: “asymptomatic carriers, disease resistance immune systems, viral load, etc.” they not only abandoned the postulates, but scientific method as well. Note none of the outliers have been scientifically validated either. It’s all inferred.
Rob, bear with me while we look at the differences between the living and non-living matter.
Man is not a machine that behaves 100% predictably; he is spontaneous while at the same time follows species specific behaviors. Thus outliers (if you want to call "spontaneity" that) exist, unlike a thrown ball or a laser beam.
Not everybody gets sick from a microbe while others get very ill, and generally most get some symptoms. This depends on their constitution--and the Terrain Theory is correct here. There are ALSO other factors not considered by Terrain, but are pertinent.
I see what you're saying, but the tests are supposedly showing us the presence of a sub-microscopic entity known as a virus. Either it's there or it isn't, right? We can see this with other organisms.
Actually, I think it all does come down to terrain. There are indeed outliers in the degree and symptoms of which one gets sick and it has everything to do with the environment of the person's health and their surroundings.
just read the original papers for your answers.
Just to add to the point. The other side of it is that folks like Kirsch are claiming not only that there is a lego sasquatch in every messy home, but that it is the cause of why the home is messy (sick). So even IF it could be validated that a sasquatch was found in a home (let alone every messy home), it would still have to validated that the sasquatch was the one messing up everybody's living room and leaving a pile of dishes in the sink. This is why folks like Kaufman say we have no reason to rule out that all we are looking at is cell debris. And since we know that cell debris has the same shape under a micrograph that the theoretical virus has, and since we know that cell debris is a common output from other "virus" "isolation" processes, then it seems we are consistently just looking at cell debris. And since we know that increased cell debris is a common output from sick people, our first assumption until proven wrong should obviously be that there is cell debris in the sample BALF and that is what we are "sequencing".
Very well stated. I do have a couple of unrelated questions on virus and germ theory, but I will stay on course here. Perhaps, I will catchup with you on your Substack. One big takeaway from this thread. According to Steve’s poll, 37% of his Substack followers do not believe in a Covid virus. Huge progress is being made in uncovering the truth. I imagine if he asked that question a year ago, it would be less than half of that. I fully believed in viruses when I first started following Steve 3 or 4 years ago. I’m a paid subscriber for his relentless pursuit against the vaccines, but then these no-virus people started having some not so friendly encounters first. Imán my pursuit to defend Steve, I started asking questions. Those answers to those questions led me to more questions and into reading a few books. I began with the history. The BeChamp Pasteur book put a new light on things I believed about germs and led me to read a few other books. I would say I became solidly against believing in viruses about a year ago now, so I am still a newbie.
How do you know that is the "truth"? If I had to bet my life on the TRUTH while God is watching, the COVID virus absolutely does exist regardless of all the crowd-pleasing emotionally appealing arguments otherwise, and the COVID virus although not "deadly" itself did put unprecedented numbers of people in the hospital which led to unprecedented excess deaths through murderous protocols. And the mRNA vaccines only made the excess death problem much, much worse. If you had to bet your life on the "truth" while God is watching, what is the truth?
I would prefer not to bet my life on anything, but if I had no choice, I would go with the belief that viruses do not exist. To your first point, I would say that COVID could well have been a thing, but not a virus that was passed on from person to person. Both controlled and environmental studies have failed to prove that one person could make another person sick with COVID.
i "bet my life" every day by not wearing a mask without any concern at all :) it's a def is a joke, i am literally living proof ;)
I also don't wear masks without any concern because I know that the COVID virus is not deadly even though I would bet my life that it does exist, technicalities aside. Just like I never wore a mask in 2019 and before. So what's your point? And plus I already had COVID anyway, and it was a very minor inconvenience for all but one of my immediate family members young and old (we're all unvaccinated)- one family member was bedridden for a few days- they had never been bedridden in decades- but still nothing scary.
Most people I know in real life, unvaccinated or vaccinated, report very similar experiences with COVID as I described. I have not heard a single person IN REAL LIFE, off the internet, claim that COVID is a hoax (but for comparison, I HAVE heard many people in real life report unexpected deaths of people they know after taking the vaccines, and have witnessed such deaths myself). So I'm definitely not scared or concerned about COVID, but I absolutely believe it exists.
Exactly. Thanks for the kind words. Happy to keep going if you have other questions or thoughts.