The entire system of medicine and all that comes with it is controlled.
It quite literally is a business venture....
Having a clear understanding of Rockefeller Medicine I cannot really see how anything can be trusted.
Does biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology have Rockefeller Medicine Men fingerprints on it? Sure it does.
Knowing how Flexner (a Rockefeller Medicine Man) went around the country funded by John D Rockefeller basically went out and remade medical schools to benefit Rockefeller Medicine Men makes it untrustworthy.
So why in the world knowing the history of Rockefeller with respect to Medicine and Banking would I trust any aspect of the aforementioned 'ologies'
If any of the cited studies need federal reserve notes (funding) with the federal reserve notes come from a private bank in which the Rockefellers help establish which quite literally has zero government oversight....I just cannot see how a logical thinking man or women could ever conclude these scientific endeavors has any legitimacy.
Eating an apple a day to keep the doctor away was not said for no reason at all.
The object is to stay away from doctors, scientist and the like.
HEALth starts at the end of a fork and between your ears.....
Since i stopped allowing toxins, chemicals in and on my body via medicines, foods I have had tremendous health and the only time i see the doctor is to set a bone, stitch a wound....you know heal, remedy, cure my issue........
You're certainly entitled to believe in any conspiracy theory you choose, but I don't share your perspective. While I may have entertained such ideas in the past, my growing knowledge has led me to realize that many conspiracy theories often stem from fear and misinformation and are often false.
Suggesting that fields such as biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology are influenced by 'Rockefeller Medicine Men' reveals a misguided assumption that conflates these disciplines with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In reality, such claims are inaccurate and fail to acknowledge the distinct complexities within each scientific field.
Lastly, what does your comment have to do with No-Virus, which is the topic of this article? Are you a No-Virus proponent?
Using the term 'conspiracy theory' does you no favors with me. It quite literally means you do not think for yourself and that you mindlessly parrot, regurgitate and repeat that phrase as oppose to addressing what i said with something other than 'conspiracy theory' which is a term that became part of the american vernacular, as it found its way into magazines, books, newspapers, TELL A VISION, Bernays Motion Pictures largely after 1967 due to criticism of the warren reports and CE #399 (magic bullet) which only a fool would think is closer to the truth than not. This was further cemented in the 1970 with the Church Hearings when it is revealed the CIA has 1000's of paid and unpaid contacts authors, writers, reporters, professors, directors, newscasters, screen writers, actors. It was the CIA that authored the memo concerning criticism of the warren report where the term has its birth
Apparently you are versed in some things and not others.
Clearly you do not understand the influence wielded by John D Rockefeller. There is nothing conspiracy theory about Rockefeller Medicine Men as the Book written by E Richard Brown of the same name thanks the Rockefeller Foundation itself for allowing E.Richard Brown to go through the Rockefeller Archives otherwise the book could have never been written, so I suggest nothing...read the book but the facts are science and medicine are nothing more than a business model for these types.
What does my comment have to do with no virus?
Well you are relying on an 'industry' 'educational system', 'private banking (loans the gov its money) system' 'medical system (allopathy) created by the few that is well documented despite your parroting 'conspiracy theory' for that which you either do not understand, have zero knowledge of or refuse to address because it might impugn what you speak of.
by the way I believe in nothing....to believe means to not know, because if you knew you would not use the word believe.....Medicine and science are closer to fraudulent than not......... there is too much historical proof....clearly it is not a 100% honest, pure endeavor. All one has to do is look back on the fake fraud covid pandemic....... is this the medical scientific types you speak of and there various ologies??
I'm well aware of the origin of the term, but 'conspiracy theory' is still a legitimate term. You've presented numerous BELIEFS on irrelevant topics through a conspiratorial lens.
You still haven't answered my question. Are you a No-Virus proponent?
The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test. So you are going to call something Isolated when it is not....OK if you say so and cite the study that says so it must be true.
I like many other make that claim of no isolation, but that has zero to do with whether or not a virus actually exist, or whether a virus is something other than what the people have been led to believe.
I presented no beliefs.
If so Impugn them!
It should not be hard.
What I said about the banking system, the education system, allopathy is not wrong or incorrect nor is it a belief.
Medical science is far from pure, honest, moral, ethical, it is driven by the root of evil, not health,remedy, cure. Nothing I may say about the Rockefeller Foundation in untrue for i get it from their own mouths... thus it is not a belief...Think about how the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the many things you cite....guarantee the fingerprints of said foundation can be found somewhere, if not everywhere.
and conspiracy theory is not a legitimate term due to its usage in modern times.
It was crafted to expressly to cancel out the people that would ask questions and dare to refute the governmental nonsense. By the way have you ever looked at Warren Commission CE #399?
Search Google images for "CE#399"
The bullet pictured is suppose to have made Four entry wounds, three exit wounds and was found rolling around on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital. It went through JFK's back and exited through his throat, traversed a back brace, seven layers of skin, 15 layers of clothes, a neck tie knot, 15 inches of muscle tissue, pulverized 4 inches Gov Connally's rib, shattered his radius bone and embedded itself in Gov Connally's thigh and other than the damage caused by the FBI in testing the supposed bullet looks like it never was fired.
All one has to do is read the damage the Bullet supposedly cause and then take a look at the bullet to know that bullet did not cause that damage.
The story is a lie, it does not make any sense and there is no logic in the explanation given the people, so you are NOT well aware because if you were you would cite NOTHING Government, because as we all know Government cannot be trusted, neither its politicians, agencies, bureaus, departments, officers, employees, commissions and yet you cite so much Government medical scientific stuff to back up what you say as if it is fact but when these reference are read what I notice is that this studies are written and edited in ways that makes the conclusion look legitimate when they are not causing me to have even more question than before i start.
So now you are well aware of the CT term you have validated that it is not a belief I hold but in fact has real.
Nothing I said about the Frank Church Hearings/CIA is wrong or a belief.
The Rockefeller Medicine Men Book by E Richard Brown is real not a belief.
Health starts at the end of a fork.....You really think that is a belief Jeff Green?
Really what did I say that actually is a Belief....humor me...
Is eating an apple a day to stay away from the doctor a belief when you realize that throughout the history of mankind doctors have been looked down on and it is only in the past century with the advent of TELL A VISION and Motion Pictures that people have been brainwashed, programmed and broadcasted the notion that Dr are great and always save you?
Lastly I live amongst the amish, work on an organic regenerative Amish farm. I spend 99% of my week with the amish and I can confidently tell you there was no such thing known as COVID.
Medical science is distinct from virology and other scientific disciplines. While it draws upon various branches of science for validation and support, it remains a separate field. It is inaccurate to conflate the two as if they are the same.
You seem to believe that I lack understanding of the topics you reference. In reality, I am well-versed in them. However, none of these topics are directly pertinent to the study of viruses.
"The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test."
It actually makes perfect sense because microorganisms, and other biological entities, do not have to be completely pure to be studied—It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. You cannot name one instance where 100% purity is necessary, or even possible to achieve. The claim that viruses have never been isolated is unequivocally incorrect. This claim is the direct opposite of all scientific evidence and stems from a misinformed and ignorant perspective.
Regarding the 1972 study in Claim 3...I understand you are citing this to point out that a nearly pure virus sample has been taken directly from a human host in the past, but the researchers in the paper assert they caused gastroenteritis by passing Norovirus from one person to another. I would expect you to disagree with this conclusion based on your alignment with Terrain Theory, or have you modified your position on this upon further research? Thanks.
I have long held that viruses, when introduced in certain ways, such as vaccinations, oncolytic vaccines, orally, etc., can indeed influence the body in various ways; both negatively and positively. Most negative effects from vaccinations are due to adjuvants and chemical stabilizers, with attenuated tissue being a secondary factor.
Initially, I maintained that attenuated RNA tissue from outside the body would not be fully recognized because RNA in this form is usually not identifiable by the body due to incompatibility of RNA 'keys'—while the body might indeed recognize it as a protein, the protein is not in its natural whole form, and thus, does not have RNA that is fully compatible with the body it enters. Therefore, it is merely treated by the innate immune system as a form of foreign debris that cannot be utilized or integrated by the body due to its incomplete form.
In a similar vein, viruses used in oncolytic cancer treatments employ modified viral RNA that is more compatible with an individual's cells. This enhances their ability to selectively infect and destroy cancer cells without influencing other cells. But in natural circumstances, with a general type of cells, viruses are primarily quite discriminate anyway.
Over time, it became more logical to me that the body functions as follows: when a whole viral protein containing RNA genomic blueprints for replication is introduced, the body's cells recognize the protein and "learn" how to replicate it if needed, subsequently producing more of it. Cells essentially say, "Oh! Now I know how to make that protein. I can use this for myself, so I will make more of it."
Ignoring this now at my stage of knowledge would disregard the evidence I have encountered. I am constantly expanding my knowledge and learning more about the body's nature. It would be unwise for me to have encountered new evidence and experiences and ignore it in favor of past theorems that were still incomplete at the time. That is the scientific process, after all.
Likewise, bacteria exhibit similar patterns; we successfully integrate bacteria or other microorganisms from external sources into our bodies. Most importantly, I have found that this process is harmonious in natural circumstances and is not the indiscriminate pathogenic or contagious disease-causing action often fearfully portrayed in media and society.
To answer the question more directly: viruses introduced orally would indeed make you sick if your cells were susceptible to that particular virus. In this case, norovirus primarily infects the cells lining the small intestine. This is primarily due to many toxic and susceptible cells normally present in the gastrointestinal tract in those who have years of toxin accumulation. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they were able to infect someone else with gastroenteritis virus.
Under normal conditions, no. Under artificial conditions, such as ingesting or injecting certain viruses, yes. However, is that process contagious? It seems highly improbable that a virus could bypass the body's highly protective membranes, including the immune system, and target specific cells, indiscriminately and pathogenically.
However, if man removes himself from the natural world for extended periods of time (generations) and reduces his relationship with bacteria, parasites, and viruses, eventually leading to the immune system being unable to analysis and recognize external entities easily, would it not stand to reason that such entities could cause imbalances or conflict due to them not being integrated with the bodily system? I surmise the answer to that is yes.
Furthermore, scientific literature indicates that viruses like influenza can manifest spontaneously in large geographically isolated populations, with outbreaks occurring within a few days of each other. This phenomenon shows, in part, that viruses are primarily environmentally induced and become active under certain environmental changes. I plan to address this study in an upcoming article.
It is important to distinguish between contagious and pathogenic. Pathogenic refers to the causation of disease, a concept with which I disagree with. There are conditions that are contagious: lice, fungus, yeast, and so forth, because they are living organisms that can feed off of a food source (like dead skin).
Viruses, if they were transmissible, are not indiscriminate, as has been proven in the science. Thus, I cannot call them contagious—they are highly specific and only infect certain types of cells, nor are they directly disease causing.
However, they do appear alongside disease, which gives the illusion that they cause disease. But as with all things in the body, there is a cause and effect, an action and reaction.
Regarding that picture of the things that were filtered out of the stool sample. How exactly do you know that those things were 'viruses'? Who knows what they are? You are just assuming they are 'viruses'.
""The 2% second human passage stool filtrate (8Fiia) used in these immune electron microscopy studies was derived from a stool specimen of a volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after oral administration of a stool filtrate derived from one of the two volunteers who became ill after receiving the original inoculum from the Norwalk outbreak (1, 11, 12). The 8FMa pool, which had been filtered through a 1,200- and a 450-nm membrane filter (Millipore Corp.) and prepared by previously described methods, was known to contain an infectious agent; it had induced gastroenteritis in 6 of 10 volunteers, but extensive attempts to recover or detect an etiological agent by conventional techniques were unsuccessful (11, 12; R. Dolin et al., unpublished studies). ""
Did they do any control experiments to see if the same particles could be obtained, by the same method, from 'uninfected' stool samples?
Or did they just 'assume' they wouldn't find them?
If you do not carry out proper control exeriments it's pseudoscience, not real science.
The entire system of medicine and all that comes with it is controlled.
It quite literally is a business venture....
Having a clear understanding of Rockefeller Medicine I cannot really see how anything can be trusted.
Does biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology have Rockefeller Medicine Men fingerprints on it? Sure it does.
Knowing how Flexner (a Rockefeller Medicine Man) went around the country funded by John D Rockefeller basically went out and remade medical schools to benefit Rockefeller Medicine Men makes it untrustworthy.
So why in the world knowing the history of Rockefeller with respect to Medicine and Banking would I trust any aspect of the aforementioned 'ologies'
If any of the cited studies need federal reserve notes (funding) with the federal reserve notes come from a private bank in which the Rockefellers help establish which quite literally has zero government oversight....I just cannot see how a logical thinking man or women could ever conclude these scientific endeavors has any legitimacy.
Eating an apple a day to keep the doctor away was not said for no reason at all.
The object is to stay away from doctors, scientist and the like.
HEALth starts at the end of a fork and between your ears.....
Since i stopped allowing toxins, chemicals in and on my body via medicines, foods I have had tremendous health and the only time i see the doctor is to set a bone, stitch a wound....you know heal, remedy, cure my issue........
You're certainly entitled to believe in any conspiracy theory you choose, but I don't share your perspective. While I may have entertained such ideas in the past, my growing knowledge has led me to realize that many conspiracy theories often stem from fear and misinformation and are often false.
Suggesting that fields such as biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology are influenced by 'Rockefeller Medicine Men' reveals a misguided assumption that conflates these disciplines with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In reality, such claims are inaccurate and fail to acknowledge the distinct complexities within each scientific field.
Lastly, what does your comment have to do with No-Virus, which is the topic of this article? Are you a No-Virus proponent?
Using the term 'conspiracy theory' does you no favors with me. It quite literally means you do not think for yourself and that you mindlessly parrot, regurgitate and repeat that phrase as oppose to addressing what i said with something other than 'conspiracy theory' which is a term that became part of the american vernacular, as it found its way into magazines, books, newspapers, TELL A VISION, Bernays Motion Pictures largely after 1967 due to criticism of the warren reports and CE #399 (magic bullet) which only a fool would think is closer to the truth than not. This was further cemented in the 1970 with the Church Hearings when it is revealed the CIA has 1000's of paid and unpaid contacts authors, writers, reporters, professors, directors, newscasters, screen writers, actors. It was the CIA that authored the memo concerning criticism of the warren report where the term has its birth
Apparently you are versed in some things and not others.
Clearly you do not understand the influence wielded by John D Rockefeller. There is nothing conspiracy theory about Rockefeller Medicine Men as the Book written by E Richard Brown of the same name thanks the Rockefeller Foundation itself for allowing E.Richard Brown to go through the Rockefeller Archives otherwise the book could have never been written, so I suggest nothing...read the book but the facts are science and medicine are nothing more than a business model for these types.
What does my comment have to do with no virus?
Well you are relying on an 'industry' 'educational system', 'private banking (loans the gov its money) system' 'medical system (allopathy) created by the few that is well documented despite your parroting 'conspiracy theory' for that which you either do not understand, have zero knowledge of or refuse to address because it might impugn what you speak of.
by the way I believe in nothing....to believe means to not know, because if you knew you would not use the word believe.....Medicine and science are closer to fraudulent than not......... there is too much historical proof....clearly it is not a 100% honest, pure endeavor. All one has to do is look back on the fake fraud covid pandemic....... is this the medical scientific types you speak of and there various ologies??
I'm well aware of the origin of the term, but 'conspiracy theory' is still a legitimate term. You've presented numerous BELIEFS on irrelevant topics through a conspiratorial lens.
You still haven't answered my question. Are you a No-Virus proponent?
I am confident a virus has never been 'isolated'
The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test. So you are going to call something Isolated when it is not....OK if you say so and cite the study that says so it must be true.
I like many other make that claim of no isolation, but that has zero to do with whether or not a virus actually exist, or whether a virus is something other than what the people have been led to believe.
I presented no beliefs.
If so Impugn them!
It should not be hard.
What I said about the banking system, the education system, allopathy is not wrong or incorrect nor is it a belief.
Medical science is far from pure, honest, moral, ethical, it is driven by the root of evil, not health,remedy, cure. Nothing I may say about the Rockefeller Foundation in untrue for i get it from their own mouths... thus it is not a belief...Think about how the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the many things you cite....guarantee the fingerprints of said foundation can be found somewhere, if not everywhere.
and conspiracy theory is not a legitimate term due to its usage in modern times.
It was crafted to expressly to cancel out the people that would ask questions and dare to refute the governmental nonsense. By the way have you ever looked at Warren Commission CE #399?
Search Google images for "CE#399"
The bullet pictured is suppose to have made Four entry wounds, three exit wounds and was found rolling around on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital. It went through JFK's back and exited through his throat, traversed a back brace, seven layers of skin, 15 layers of clothes, a neck tie knot, 15 inches of muscle tissue, pulverized 4 inches Gov Connally's rib, shattered his radius bone and embedded itself in Gov Connally's thigh and other than the damage caused by the FBI in testing the supposed bullet looks like it never was fired.
All one has to do is read the damage the Bullet supposedly cause and then take a look at the bullet to know that bullet did not cause that damage.
The story is a lie, it does not make any sense and there is no logic in the explanation given the people, so you are NOT well aware because if you were you would cite NOTHING Government, because as we all know Government cannot be trusted, neither its politicians, agencies, bureaus, departments, officers, employees, commissions and yet you cite so much Government medical scientific stuff to back up what you say as if it is fact but when these reference are read what I notice is that this studies are written and edited in ways that makes the conclusion look legitimate when they are not causing me to have even more question than before i start.
So now you are well aware of the CT term you have validated that it is not a belief I hold but in fact has real.
Nothing I said about the Frank Church Hearings/CIA is wrong or a belief.
The Rockefeller Medicine Men Book by E Richard Brown is real not a belief.
Health starts at the end of a fork.....You really think that is a belief Jeff Green?
Really what did I say that actually is a Belief....humor me...
Is eating an apple a day to stay away from the doctor a belief when you realize that throughout the history of mankind doctors have been looked down on and it is only in the past century with the advent of TELL A VISION and Motion Pictures that people have been brainwashed, programmed and broadcasted the notion that Dr are great and always save you?
Lastly I live amongst the amish, work on an organic regenerative Amish farm. I spend 99% of my week with the amish and I can confidently tell you there was no such thing known as COVID.
Medical science is distinct from virology and other scientific disciplines. While it draws upon various branches of science for validation and support, it remains a separate field. It is inaccurate to conflate the two as if they are the same.
You seem to believe that I lack understanding of the topics you reference. In reality, I am well-versed in them. However, none of these topics are directly pertinent to the study of viruses.
"The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test."
It actually makes perfect sense because microorganisms, and other biological entities, do not have to be completely pure to be studied—It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. You cannot name one instance where 100% purity is necessary, or even possible to achieve. The claim that viruses have never been isolated is unequivocally incorrect. This claim is the direct opposite of all scientific evidence and stems from a misinformed and ignorant perspective.
Regarding the 1972 study in Claim 3...I understand you are citing this to point out that a nearly pure virus sample has been taken directly from a human host in the past, but the researchers in the paper assert they caused gastroenteritis by passing Norovirus from one person to another. I would expect you to disagree with this conclusion based on your alignment with Terrain Theory, or have you modified your position on this upon further research? Thanks.
I have long held that viruses, when introduced in certain ways, such as vaccinations, oncolytic vaccines, orally, etc., can indeed influence the body in various ways; both negatively and positively. Most negative effects from vaccinations are due to adjuvants and chemical stabilizers, with attenuated tissue being a secondary factor.
Initially, I maintained that attenuated RNA tissue from outside the body would not be fully recognized because RNA in this form is usually not identifiable by the body due to incompatibility of RNA 'keys'—while the body might indeed recognize it as a protein, the protein is not in its natural whole form, and thus, does not have RNA that is fully compatible with the body it enters. Therefore, it is merely treated by the innate immune system as a form of foreign debris that cannot be utilized or integrated by the body due to its incomplete form.
In a similar vein, viruses used in oncolytic cancer treatments employ modified viral RNA that is more compatible with an individual's cells. This enhances their ability to selectively infect and destroy cancer cells without influencing other cells. But in natural circumstances, with a general type of cells, viruses are primarily quite discriminate anyway.
Over time, it became more logical to me that the body functions as follows: when a whole viral protein containing RNA genomic blueprints for replication is introduced, the body's cells recognize the protein and "learn" how to replicate it if needed, subsequently producing more of it. Cells essentially say, "Oh! Now I know how to make that protein. I can use this for myself, so I will make more of it."
Ignoring this now at my stage of knowledge would disregard the evidence I have encountered. I am constantly expanding my knowledge and learning more about the body's nature. It would be unwise for me to have encountered new evidence and experiences and ignore it in favor of past theorems that were still incomplete at the time. That is the scientific process, after all.
Likewise, bacteria exhibit similar patterns; we successfully integrate bacteria or other microorganisms from external sources into our bodies. Most importantly, I have found that this process is harmonious in natural circumstances and is not the indiscriminate pathogenic or contagious disease-causing action often fearfully portrayed in media and society.
To answer the question more directly: viruses introduced orally would indeed make you sick if your cells were susceptible to that particular virus. In this case, norovirus primarily infects the cells lining the small intestine. This is primarily due to many toxic and susceptible cells normally present in the gastrointestinal tract in those who have years of toxin accumulation. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they were able to infect someone else with gastroenteritis virus.
It sounds like you're saying viruses are sometimes contagious and pathogenic, no?
Under normal conditions, no. Under artificial conditions, such as ingesting or injecting certain viruses, yes. However, is that process contagious? It seems highly improbable that a virus could bypass the body's highly protective membranes, including the immune system, and target specific cells, indiscriminately and pathogenically.
However, if man removes himself from the natural world for extended periods of time (generations) and reduces his relationship with bacteria, parasites, and viruses, eventually leading to the immune system being unable to analysis and recognize external entities easily, would it not stand to reason that such entities could cause imbalances or conflict due to them not being integrated with the bodily system? I surmise the answer to that is yes.
Furthermore, scientific literature indicates that viruses like influenza can manifest spontaneously in large geographically isolated populations, with outbreaks occurring within a few days of each other. This phenomenon shows, in part, that viruses are primarily environmentally induced and become active under certain environmental changes. I plan to address this study in an upcoming article.
It is important to distinguish between contagious and pathogenic. Pathogenic refers to the causation of disease, a concept with which I disagree with. There are conditions that are contagious: lice, fungus, yeast, and so forth, because they are living organisms that can feed off of a food source (like dead skin).
Viruses, if they were transmissible, are not indiscriminate, as has been proven in the science. Thus, I cannot call them contagious—they are highly specific and only infect certain types of cells, nor are they directly disease causing.
However, they do appear alongside disease, which gives the illusion that they cause disease. But as with all things in the body, there is a cause and effect, an action and reaction.
Regarding that picture of the things that were filtered out of the stool sample. How exactly do you know that those things were 'viruses'? Who knows what they are? You are just assuming they are 'viruses'.
Instead of asking me, why don't you read the studies yourself and you'll find out? It's all answered there.
Do you mean this?
""The 2% second human passage stool filtrate (8Fiia) used in these immune electron microscopy studies was derived from a stool specimen of a volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after oral administration of a stool filtrate derived from one of the two volunteers who became ill after receiving the original inoculum from the Norwalk outbreak (1, 11, 12). The 8FMa pool, which had been filtered through a 1,200- and a 450-nm membrane filter (Millipore Corp.) and prepared by previously described methods, was known to contain an infectious agent; it had induced gastroenteritis in 6 of 10 volunteers, but extensive attempts to recover or detect an etiological agent by conventional techniques were unsuccessful (11, 12; R. Dolin et al., unpublished studies). ""
Did they do any control experiments to see if the same particles could be obtained, by the same method, from 'uninfected' stool samples?
Or did they just 'assume' they wouldn't find them?
If you do not carry out proper control exeriments it's pseudoscience, not real science.
I quoted only a part of the study—that's not the entire study. This study has other studies related to it that answers all of your questions.
There are controls used in each related study, and they all describe the methods used.