I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles …
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."
Was that meant for me? I am not arguing for, or against, the "existence" of DNA fragments which people choose to refer to as a "virus." I am simply arguing that there is no hard evidence that these particular particles (standing alone) are the actual cause of disease. It appears to me that it's irrelevant whether or not a particle can be isolated or identified, or whether or not a "sequence" from a DNA fragment can actually be copied. What matters to me is CAUSE. And I have yet to see any hard evidence that these particular particles (whether or not they "exist") are actually the root/underlying cause of any disease.
I am not arguing one way or the other as to the "existence" of any particular particles, DNA-fragments, or anything related to "viruses."
I am WAY past this. My ONLY argument is that no matter WHAT people are calling these things, and whether or not they've actually been "isolated" it makes ZERO difference to me. My argument is as follows:
Even IF these particles "exist" then where is the evidence that these particular particles, standing alone, are IN FACT the actual CAUSE of disease?
I'm NOT joining the argument that the proving the existence of a DNA fragment supplies evidence that it causes disease. And I'm also not joining the argument that DNA fragments do not "exist" at all. Neither argument makes ANY sense to me, because neither argument is relevant to the question.
Exactly. And the fact is, the WHO once published a measles study in Africa which proved that it was instantly remedied with Vitamin A.
Sounds like a vitamin A deficiency to me, rather than a "virus."
Sadly, the WHO refuses to to supply starving children with either vitamin A or foods that might remedy this deficiency. Instead, they use the allegation that a particular DNA fragment/particle, (which appears to express more fully when one is deficient in vitamin A) is the ONLY possible cause of measles. Nevermind that there could be 400 million OTHER DNA fragments present at the same time that someone appears to have measles.
Of course, the WHO is more than happy to spend 1,000 times the amount of $$ injecting African kids with vaccines, than they already know it would've cost to just make sure they're getting enough vitamin A.
Vitamins are not proven as well. Never shown in food.
They just create some chemical substance and they declared it as Vitamin A.
Also it is not known if this chemical substance is balancing chemicals in the body or it helps in removal of something, or helps to build something, or stops/slow downs some cleansing processes.
Nucleotides are not proven. Thus DNA is not proven either.
And yet, when given vitamin A, the kids were safe from measles. It immediately resolved it, and was also proven to prevent it. So who cares what it's called, what the real cause of the "disease" (red rash and fever) was, or what it really is? It worked to both reverse and prevent health problems. Best if people are well-nourished wit actual food, either way. Sadly, there are many nasty (fake/synthetic) versions of supplements that people do not benefit from, or are even injured by.
But this "nothing at all exists or ever did" line of "science" doesn't do a thing to help anyone recover or improve health. For instance, I almost exclusively eat meat and animal fats. These are "real" (so far as anything can be in a world that's probably just a hologram anyway;-). And eating this way has eliminated my health problems - or the holograms of them, which I seriously did NOT like. You can argue that cows don't exist, and that I am delusional for believing they do, but such arguments are not going to improve my health at all.
Now, do I believe in mind over matter? ABSOLUTELY. But I have yet to achieve
"Neo" status in terms of my ability to control the Matrix at will. Glad you made these arguments though. Sparks are going off in my head over your perspectives on all of this, good, and happy sparks. Nice that people have the courage to speak their mind, explain to others how they truly see things, even if to others, it might seem "out there."
I like your thinking. I have not personally determined exactly what vitamin A is.
However, I also am not an extreme expert at electricity. But this doesn't stop me from observing that the light comes on when I flip a switch. Being that I do not always wish to be in the dark at night, I resort to flipping the switch to get to that light.
Often, there are people around me who claim they "caught" something that made them sick. But I don't catch anything, no matter how close I am to these people, and no matter how many other people (seemingly everywhere) are "catching" it. If I eat what I know to be crappy food, I get sick, no matter what "bug" is, or is not, purportedly "going around." If I eat healthy, (for me, this means meat and fat only, and mostly extremely rare or raw) my health is good.
So yeah, screw what other people try to tell us, or "authority." We can plainly see for ourselves the consequences of taking one action over another. What's real to us, is real to us. The rest of it is irrelevant.
Good you eat only raw meat. I'm getting closer to that now. I honestly do believe it's better raw, based upon how it makes me feel. Some reports claim that the aminos which are the most easily destroyed by heat, are also the most imperative for detoxing. Based upon what I have experienced, it explains a great deal.
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."
Please provide irrefutable evidence of alleged nucleotides.
Just no BS. Only valid evidence.
Was that meant for me? I am not arguing for, or against, the "existence" of DNA fragments which people choose to refer to as a "virus." I am simply arguing that there is no hard evidence that these particular particles (standing alone) are the actual cause of disease. It appears to me that it's irrelevant whether or not a particle can be isolated or identified, or whether or not a "sequence" from a DNA fragment can actually be copied. What matters to me is CAUSE. And I have yet to see any hard evidence that these particular particles (whether or not they "exist") are actually the root/underlying cause of any disease.
What particles?
Are you claiming that there are such particles as nucleotides or things made of nucleotides?
FYI
There is no valid evidence of existence of any nucleotide or virus.
Yes, you should look for a cause. And if you can't find it, you should admit that you do not know instead of making up stories.
I am not arguing one way or the other as to the "existence" of any particular particles, DNA-fragments, or anything related to "viruses."
I am WAY past this. My ONLY argument is that no matter WHAT people are calling these things, and whether or not they've actually been "isolated" it makes ZERO difference to me. My argument is as follows:
Even IF these particles "exist" then where is the evidence that these particular particles, standing alone, are IN FACT the actual CAUSE of disease?
I'm NOT joining the argument that the proving the existence of a DNA fragment supplies evidence that it causes disease. And I'm also not joining the argument that DNA fragments do not "exist" at all. Neither argument makes ANY sense to me, because neither argument is relevant to the question.
All of us want to know what causes specific symptoms. This way we can know what to avoid or what to do if we get them.
Exactly. And the fact is, the WHO once published a measles study in Africa which proved that it was instantly remedied with Vitamin A.
Sounds like a vitamin A deficiency to me, rather than a "virus."
Sadly, the WHO refuses to to supply starving children with either vitamin A or foods that might remedy this deficiency. Instead, they use the allegation that a particular DNA fragment/particle, (which appears to express more fully when one is deficient in vitamin A) is the ONLY possible cause of measles. Nevermind that there could be 400 million OTHER DNA fragments present at the same time that someone appears to have measles.
Of course, the WHO is more than happy to spend 1,000 times the amount of $$ injecting African kids with vaccines, than they already know it would've cost to just make sure they're getting enough vitamin A.
Vitamins are not proven as well. Never shown in food.
They just create some chemical substance and they declared it as Vitamin A.
Also it is not known if this chemical substance is balancing chemicals in the body or it helps in removal of something, or helps to build something, or stops/slow downs some cleansing processes.
Nucleotides are not proven. Thus DNA is not proven either.
And yet, when given vitamin A, the kids were safe from measles. It immediately resolved it, and was also proven to prevent it. So who cares what it's called, what the real cause of the "disease" (red rash and fever) was, or what it really is? It worked to both reverse and prevent health problems. Best if people are well-nourished wit actual food, either way. Sadly, there are many nasty (fake/synthetic) versions of supplements that people do not benefit from, or are even injured by.
But this "nothing at all exists or ever did" line of "science" doesn't do a thing to help anyone recover or improve health. For instance, I almost exclusively eat meat and animal fats. These are "real" (so far as anything can be in a world that's probably just a hologram anyway;-). And eating this way has eliminated my health problems - or the holograms of them, which I seriously did NOT like. You can argue that cows don't exist, and that I am delusional for believing they do, but such arguments are not going to improve my health at all.
Now, do I believe in mind over matter? ABSOLUTELY. But I have yet to achieve
"Neo" status in terms of my ability to control the Matrix at will. Glad you made these arguments though. Sparks are going off in my head over your perspectives on all of this, good, and happy sparks. Nice that people have the courage to speak their mind, explain to others how they truly see things, even if to others, it might seem "out there."
THANK YOU!!!
What but vitamin A is?
Can you describe its structure and how it interacts with other variables?
What is measles?
What was resolved?
What was prevented? Can you describe mechanism of how it prevents something.
Truth seekers care.
I worked as well at dealing with health issues. But I do not make up stories if I do not know something.
I have been teaching people that malnutrition can lead to disease symptoms since the beginning of 2020.
Science is about proving what real variable leads to natural phenomenon.
It is good that you are doing a carnivore diet. I do this diet since the beginning of 2019 and in 2020 I moved to eating raw meat only.
My approach to reality is that I exist in a system of variables. It does not mean that I can perceive all of them or know everything about them.
I like your thinking. I have not personally determined exactly what vitamin A is.
However, I also am not an extreme expert at electricity. But this doesn't stop me from observing that the light comes on when I flip a switch. Being that I do not always wish to be in the dark at night, I resort to flipping the switch to get to that light.
Often, there are people around me who claim they "caught" something that made them sick. But I don't catch anything, no matter how close I am to these people, and no matter how many other people (seemingly everywhere) are "catching" it. If I eat what I know to be crappy food, I get sick, no matter what "bug" is, or is not, purportedly "going around." If I eat healthy, (for me, this means meat and fat only, and mostly extremely rare or raw) my health is good.
So yeah, screw what other people try to tell us, or "authority." We can plainly see for ourselves the consequences of taking one action over another. What's real to us, is real to us. The rest of it is irrelevant.
Good you eat only raw meat. I'm getting closer to that now. I honestly do believe it's better raw, based upon how it makes me feel. Some reports claim that the aminos which are the most easily destroyed by heat, are also the most imperative for detoxing. Based upon what I have experienced, it explains a great deal.
Glad you're well-nourished and telling others!