Be aware that a lot of the “thought leaders” in such things are clandestinely placed to discredit & marginalize non-mainstream movements. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have done well in employing tactics once utilized by Big Tobacco and still utilized by intelligence agencies & militaries against their detractors.
The big difference between you and Steve Kirsch is that you present a compelling argument for viruses. Steve doesn’t. He also never questions the infectious disease theory. Personally I doubt he’s an ally. I posit he only posted your article link because it focuses on what Massey et al are getting wrong in terms of isolation and virus existence. Have you contacted him? His email address can be found on Christine Masseys articles on her correspondence with him.
A percentage will hopefully. But most will likely read it or skim it and assume viruses are still contagious. It’s quite a technical article and with all due respect isn’t the best advertisement for your main work. You should perhaps consider editing it (if doing so doesn’t destroy the current hyper link) to include some other snippets more likely to entice further reading. And perhaps include that you agree with Christine on the contagious part. That way you will soften her fans into a more open minded headspace. My two cents anyway.
Worth noting: Massey doesn't believe contagion exists because she doesn't believe viruses exist. I, however, state viruses exist and are the same particles claimed to be pathogenic, but I state they arise in a state of disease. So, I couldn't agree with her on that point. That is why I left out my foundational theory in the 'challenge' article to Massey. It was intended, not to promote my position, but to technically and systematically disprove their claims that viruses do not exist.
As well, she has already said she doesn't care what I have to say about viruses.
I don’t know mate, I think she along with her fans probably haven’t heard a compelling argument for the functionality and purpose of viruses as you put forth. If someone doesn’t believe that bacteria and viruses cause disease, and she doesn’t, then by default they don’t believe they’re contagious. The non-existence belief is secondary. Again I think it’s worth making a point of agreeing on that. Not for her but her followers. In fact I would do that when addressing all the gang. Again it just opens the minds of the followers who as observers can more easily pivot on their current beliefs. The gang will most likely dig in and double down because they’ve invested so much of themselves in their theory. That’s human nature. But it’s not about reaching them. It’s about those who follow them who are able to discern from a distance. And again just my two cents, as a detached observer and consumer of your content and theirs.
I had the same thought while reading through the various threads constituting this conflict. Those who are heavily invested, when confronted head-on with unrelenting disagreement, will of course be inclined to react defensively. None of us is immune to this, though it is possible to receive such jarring criticism with open arms given sufficient humility and genuine care for truth.
But in only deconstructing the deconstructionists' arguments, you are playing the game by their rules; use only a sledgehammer, destroy, and leave the rubble for others to worry about. People seeking truth are generally more attracted to truth than the mere destruction of lies and misconceptions (unless they're in an emotional/defensive state). I think this article does a great job of destroying that which should be destroyed, and then helping the reader build a better structure from the rubble.
Be aware that a lot of the “thought leaders” in such things are clandestinely placed to discredit & marginalize non-mainstream movements. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have done well in employing tactics once utilized by Big Tobacco and still utilized by intelligence agencies & militaries against their detractors.
The big difference between you and Steve Kirsch is that you present a compelling argument for viruses. Steve doesn’t. He also never questions the infectious disease theory. Personally I doubt he’s an ally. I posit he only posted your article link because it focuses on what Massey et al are getting wrong in terms of isolation and virus existence. Have you contacted him? His email address can be found on Christine Masseys articles on her correspondence with him.
You're likely right, though I sense he's open to a different perspective, and I respect that. And no, I've never communicated with him before.
He has an audience that can be directed toward my material though, which is what I was mainly shooting for when I left a comment on his article.
A percentage will hopefully. But most will likely read it or skim it and assume viruses are still contagious. It’s quite a technical article and with all due respect isn’t the best advertisement for your main work. You should perhaps consider editing it (if doing so doesn’t destroy the current hyper link) to include some other snippets more likely to entice further reading. And perhaps include that you agree with Christine on the contagious part. That way you will soften her fans into a more open minded headspace. My two cents anyway.
Thanks...
Worth noting: Massey doesn't believe contagion exists because she doesn't believe viruses exist. I, however, state viruses exist and are the same particles claimed to be pathogenic, but I state they arise in a state of disease. So, I couldn't agree with her on that point. That is why I left out my foundational theory in the 'challenge' article to Massey. It was intended, not to promote my position, but to technically and systematically disprove their claims that viruses do not exist.
As well, she has already said she doesn't care what I have to say about viruses.
Read her rebuttal, if you haven't already, and you will see she is completely unwilling to address any of my points. https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/
I don’t know mate, I think she along with her fans probably haven’t heard a compelling argument for the functionality and purpose of viruses as you put forth. If someone doesn’t believe that bacteria and viruses cause disease, and she doesn’t, then by default they don’t believe they’re contagious. The non-existence belief is secondary. Again I think it’s worth making a point of agreeing on that. Not for her but her followers. In fact I would do that when addressing all the gang. Again it just opens the minds of the followers who as observers can more easily pivot on their current beliefs. The gang will most likely dig in and double down because they’ve invested so much of themselves in their theory. That’s human nature. But it’s not about reaching them. It’s about those who follow them who are able to discern from a distance. And again just my two cents, as a detached observer and consumer of your content and theirs.
I had the same thought while reading through the various threads constituting this conflict. Those who are heavily invested, when confronted head-on with unrelenting disagreement, will of course be inclined to react defensively. None of us is immune to this, though it is possible to receive such jarring criticism with open arms given sufficient humility and genuine care for truth.
But in only deconstructing the deconstructionists' arguments, you are playing the game by their rules; use only a sledgehammer, destroy, and leave the rubble for others to worry about. People seeking truth are generally more attracted to truth than the mere destruction of lies and misconceptions (unless they're in an emotional/defensive state). I think this article does a great job of destroying that which should be destroyed, and then helping the reader build a better structure from the rubble.