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.
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.
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.