You wrote: “As I have stated numerous times, viruses in culture infect and dissolve cells. In cell culture, an unregulated viral particle placed into culture will begin to dissolve cell walls. “
What I find confusing is that in this post you use the verb ‘infect’ to indicate action by the virus itself, while according to your ‘Viral Misconceptions” essay, it’s the cell that orchestrates the “infection”. Are you anthropomorphizing here? How can viruses infect and dissolve cells when put in culture?
Infection is what occurs when you have a toxin in the body that must be removed from the body, normally away from cells. Cells do orchestrate the infection, but the toxin is the cause. They produce the infection process where cells cohesively come together to produce an infection response to remove the toxin(s). Viral infection begins when cells produce the response to a toxin. If that toxin is caustic to cells, they must produce a non-living solvent to aid the cell in cleansing itself, since the cell cannot make contact with the toxin without being degenerated.
When cells begin to rapidly produce viruses, multiplying them, you will have a viral infection wherein the viral load is great. Because you have viral solvents now in the tissue, they will inevitably latch on to compatible tissues to dissolve toxin-permeated tissue. When you have a large degree of tissue being broken down, the body must remove the breakdown waste, along with viral debris left over from dissolution. This is viral infection.
The virus does not have action because it is not alive. Viral infection is different from infection by living entities, where those living entities live off matter. Viruses merely attach to surfaces by chance, due to the natural fluid movements of the body, and eventually bump into and dissolve compatible cell parts or entire cells. White blood cells help guide viruses and regulate their replication, as they do all infection. All these processes are guided by cellular surface proteins that communicate with each other, similarly to how a human verbalizes with speech, except cells use signals via transmission of energy.
In a culture, viruses cannot move on their own because they are not alive. They spread out from cells and enter and infect (dissolve cells) they contact by expanding outwardly from the cells themselves. It is a domino effect. Since there is no fluidity in the culture to carry viruses, or regulation, you always see outward expansion of viruses. When cells produce viruses, they produce many viruses per cell. As such, the culture becomes overloaded from this expansion of viruses, and thus dissolves all the cells as a result.
Science sees the dead cells in culture and claims that viruses are infecting the cells systematically and are responsible for their death. In the case of culture, they are responsible, but they are not the cause in a whole regulated body. In culture, cells have no regulatory agents, and thus self-dissolve. They have no modes to move toxins or viral solvents away from cells. Because one particular cell line is used in culture, all the viruses produced by those cells will be compatible with all cells in culture and will therefore eventually be dissolved.
I state that cells are inadvertently dissolving themselves by producing their own solvent chemicals (virus) to try to live.
Cell Biology of Virus Infection. The Role of Cytoskeletal Dynamics Integrity in the Effectiveness of Dengue Virus Infection https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/49374 There are many such books, from which you can learn things. And you can see that they have done a lot of work in laboratories.
Additionally David Martin is a great source on how the laboratories in many countries were making dangerous Corona-virus variants.
Note: The PCR tests with high cycle counts give over 99% false positives. This means that a lot of "infections with the SARS-Cov2" were something different. There can be some discussion in how much of the "Covid cases" were real or not. And this differs a lot per country, and changed over time. Maybe certain places never encountered the SARS-Cov2 virus or had herd-immunity very quickly.
Thanks for the links. The variants of viruses produced in labs does not have usage as a contagious entity. Those particles can only be injected or inserted into the body, wherein they may influence cell as foreign matter. Even in scientific literature, one viral particle would not cause viral infection. Only under certain lab conditions will a virus indescriminately dissolve cells. Any variants arising from lab conditions are the result of manmade influences on cells. Gain of function, for example, is used to produce future vaccines by finding infectious particles that dissolve cells, then building vaccines around those particles and their RNA parts, etc.
David Martin claims that viruses have been released from labs to infect whole populations. As such, he believes viruses are contagious. I disagree strongly with this.
That is a good discussion to have. Under what conditions can viruses spread, reproduce? And can a lab make a viable (weaponized) virus? Here is my line of thinking:
The making of a weaponized virus means that the infection of a human must be made possible. So you need mice or animals that have exactly the same ACE-2 receptors as humans. Which they did actually use, as shown in the publications. First they made SARS infect animals, then they mixed in some AIDS. Inserted a better cleavage-site. Then they made it adapt to the ACE-2 mice. All documented, because Pfizer and Moderna wanted to patent the viruses (and vaccines).
The virus must also be able to reproduce and avoid the immune system. This is harder than a lab-rat, because each human is very different. So the lab-virus would only be able to cause disease to weak humans with certain genetic conditions. Which is what we saw with Covid.. Hmm.
The lab virus probably does not last long in the sun or in a dry climate. Or maybe it will be eaten by helpful bacteria. Based on how Covid spread, it seems that there were locations where there were more and less Covid-like cases. Before they started doing all the weird testing and masking. Maybe the virus was spread on purpose via certain sprays?
There are several advanced laboratories that tested the changes in the RNA codes of the virus. I assuming they were exact, but that may not be true. The codes show a gradual evolutionary change from the Wuhan original to more and more mutations. The original was very pure in RNA-coding. Which would indicate an artificial virus that starts off with a perfect genetic code.
The spreading towards other places, like New York and Italy, was so extremely fast that they might have been spread on purpose. Not via symptomatic virus-spreading people as usual. Maybe via different laboratories. Fort Dietrich is well known. Even Ukraine might have been used as "superspreader". Or is this the first virus that was able to spread asymptomatic due to the AIDS component? An interesting path to investigate.
I tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (which is merely a normal coronavirus) in December of 2022. I can tell you right now that what I experienced was not unlike a flu. It began days before a huge winter storm, and I felt it coming on for weeks prior. This is how all detoxification works. There were no extreme symptoms that I couldn't handle. There is nothing unique about it. I addressed a lot of this in the article about my grandpa. I explore the timeline and prove that I did not catch it from anyone.
Viruses occur on a cyclical basis in accordance with climatic conditions. The illusion of viruses spreading is just that, an illusion. What you see as a fast spreading virus is merely the climate ripening throughout each part of the world to manifest a particular detoxification.
SARS-CoV-2 is 97% similar to SARS-CoV-1 from 2003 and started off that way. So, what you wrote about pure RNA coding doesn't match what they themselves report.
Let's explore this further: If the virus was spread via spray, why did it appear in cycles in the population? If you study the annual graphs of flu, you see that there is a major uptick in viral outbreaks every 6 months. This is typical of the body of animals because they work in conjunction with cyclical climatic conditions. They are inseparable.
Viral spread is an illusion and is something I have written about extensively as well. For example, I have shown that in one area there is suddenly a massive increase in viral illness. This could not be accounted for by spread, but by climatic conditions that bring about the conditions necessary for cells to express themselves via detoxification.
What has been spread is pollution of all types which has led to these cycles of outbreaks to increase in relation to the exponential increase of pollution around the world. Compound this with ever-increasing vaccination rates, and you have a cycle of viral outbreaks for some time to come. The higher the world's toxin accumulation becomes, the more you will have viral and bacterial outbreaks of all kinds.
External viruses are merely treated as toxic debris by the ecosystem of a whole body. They would be no more toxic than wood dust, or wood smoke. Those are still toxins and can accelerate detoxification. Because our body's live in nature, we are in accordance with nature at the microlevel. When weather changes, so too do our internal mechanisms. If this were not so, we would not be in harmony with nature and wouldn't survive the and ebbs and flows of nature.
Had it feb. 2020. No tests (of what exactly?) but never had been so sick. Was health and had no natural "detoxification" process. Both nose and lungs infected, strong fever trouble with breathing. Got some blood problems and low stamina right after. I think that was the original one. Similar to those reported by the more truthfull flccc doctors.
During the spring I saw reports of the disease becoming very mild and like the cold. Nature easily won over the artificial virus, but governments went insane.
I strongly agree with you. I’ve said this since the beginning: that the entire lab-leak paradigm is just another distraction.
The assumption that a virus spread into the whole population, suddenly takes over bodies and kills them in throngs, shows the huge disconnect and vanity existent in modern science. A result of the distorted ‘mind over body’ paradigm distorting everything in our consciousness.
When it comes to Covid, I don’t believe the answer is either here or there. I don’t believe it’s just another flu.
Yes, it’s true the vast majority have experienced very mild symptoms similar to the flu. But others have experienced really bizarre things. I, for instance, have completely lost the sense of smell and taste for a few months. Only after a year plus, I started to fully regain them. Even when I had it, I felt most of the “action” in my gut and I remember feeling that I’ve never experienced such a thing before. I’m not someone who gets sick easily. I’m fairly active, no health issues or family history of diseases. Not overweight. No diabetes. Never taken medications.
The problem in the world right now is that for every topic examined, it’s immediately broken down to an extreme binary of ones and zeros. This inadvertently leads to massive confusion and misunderstandings which in turn exacerbate them exponentially until eventually something pops.
In lieu of Covid, this manifests itself in the fact that we have one camp that believes that Covid is merely a flu. This was due to the fact that the absolute majority of those who contracted the disease had very negligible symptoms and therefore, from their point of view, humanity's response to the disease was disproportionate and irrational.
Add to the equation the fact that we live in the Information Age which provides all of us a rich fodder of details from every possible nook and cranny of human life and history, by which we can rearrange to suit one's emotional climate. This, in turn, creates a perfect setup for all kinds of rich theories in order to contain the dissonance between humanity's response and the negligence of the disease, from the point of view of the aforementioned group.
On the other hand, we have a camp that believed that Covid was the new Spanish flu. This belief was due to the fact that a minority of people experienced very unusual and severe symptoms and therefore, from their point of view, humanity's response to the disease was absolutely justified, "full stop!"
Add to the equation the fact that we live in the midst of the Information Age in which the virtual has surpassed the actual, as a result of the fact that we are all connected 24/7 through our dumbphones, the 1% can be always presented (virtually) as the 99% and thus, be able to justify the totalitarian decisions on society.
Therefore, it is clear to me that choosing either one, as an assumption that everything must be always funneled through mutually exclusive rule-set in order to find the truth, is a trap. I believe that as we march forward, if one wants to find the truth, in any topic, it will always be somewhere in the middle, or the synthesis of both sides, depending how you want to look at it. And in order to be able to reach it, one must let go in order to be able to see things for what they are.
.
.
.
I do agree that there is a connection between seasonality and the proliferation of viral load. My hypothesis goes a bit deeper but it is on the same track. It says that Covid originated within all of us and that Covid represents “insemination” of information.
It’s called evolution. It’s just that our current understanding of evolution is very limited. We usually look at it from a rear view mirror, as a very long process, mitigated through heredity. But in my view, pandemics are simply a real-time procession of evolutionary changes within an organism. They are in essence mutations that occur within a species over a relatively short period.
Mutation is neither good nor bad. It initiates a transformation; it brings in a change. The “old” dies and something “new” emerges. In between we see sickness and death because this is the way the human body deals with the transition.
Since viruses are not the cause but an effect, it is clear to me that Covid, as any other pandemic or virus we want to take a look at from the past, is merely a marker for mutation instilled by resonance.
Both the magnetic field of the planet and the changes in radiation within the ionosphere communicate with all organisms through the DNA molecule. More than the belief that the DNA molecule is just a “bead necklace” made of four nucleotides stringed together, the molecule is actually a fractal antenna. In motion, its double spiral forms a resonance field that both transmits and receives information from the environment (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21457072/).
So to me, it’s very clear that Covid is coming from within us all. Whether we got sick or not, whether we got a positive test or not makes no difference. All of us were “seeded” with information. The drastic change over the past 3 years, expressed as supposedly separate phenomena such as: racism, schism, the polarization in society, the identity crisis, mass formation, the rise in mental illness, the rise in body dimorphism and eating disorders in the young, censorship and more, are all a byproduct of the transformation ensuing within the human species affecting its psychology, its behavior and obviously its biology.
.
.
.
The reason why humanity can’t connect the dots is because over the last 200 years we have been losing the connection to various existence of dimensions in exchange for the blind adoration of linear datasets rooted in rational thinking. This has led to the advent of the mechanistic science as we know it today, trying to impose a linear formula on a quantum system - the human body.
Over time, we deconstructed our observed reality into subjects from which we developed a huge variety of systems and methodologies: medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, economics, sociology, environmental sciences, etc. This is all ok. We need to organize our frameworks. However, we are currently on the other side of the efficiency arc.
These systems have become extremely complex, flooded with redundant language and horribly rigid. Each and every one of them can no longer communicate with the other, as each has become a world of its own.
Today, bringing to the attention of a virologist the possible connection between proliferation of disease to anomalies in the magnetic field of the planet, or alternatively, the connection between eating disorders to the loss of morality and trust in humanity to a psychiatrist, renders them to either paint that information as pseudoscientific or indulge in an automatic rebuttal as a shield for being deviated off-guard from one’s "box" (set rules)
Thus, we've reached a time in which ignorance can be masked by knowledge. We have reached the point where we have to invest millions of dollars in redundant research to reach the conclusion that our ancestors knew intuitively 100 years ago.
Instead of understanding the underlying mechanism (w)holistically, we try to adapt everyone to the rigidity of our closed systems. We try to make everyone see the same thing by repeating boxed explanations over and over again until things are assimilated as "truths"; a collective consensus.
.
.
.
All in all, I come from a place of understanding that the truth is always simple. Everything around us can be broken down to a simple language that anyone can understand without preconceived conditions, because universal principles are inherently simple by nature. It is us who complicate everything due to the lack of awareness of the mechanics of mind and how the mind distorts the reality it observes.
When I recognize someone who has dedicated themselves to providing clarity by breaking down the mechanics of some topic into a consumable language that everyone can understand, it gives me great joy. In between the clutter of redundancies rooted in "official" explanations out there, I value it as an immense contribution.
And so, I commend you for the valuable work and effort in bringing us these "gems" as explanations. I know that it helped me a lot in my personal process of discovery.
As yourself, I consider myself an educator. I believe humanity has to be (re)educated on the true nature of being and on the universal principles that underlie everything around us. Therefore, I am open to an exchange and/or collaboration if you so feel inclined. My ultimate wish is to gather people from different aspects of life who are on the same wavelength for the ultimate purpose of education.
Viruses have, throughout their beginning, been a major role in the evolution of all living organisms. They carry DNA information and share it between cells—not as living entities, but as non-living intermediaries between living cells. But broadly speaking, virus are solvent enzymes like other enzymes used in the body to dissolve or break down something. Lysosomes, digestive enzymes, and so forth, are all more simple enzymes. Viruses, on the other hand, are more specific in that they must be utilized in many tissues, but not dissolve everything they contact. Thus, the RNA lock-and-key system becomes a vitally important piece of the virus.
Any time someone has a viral illness, the body is strengthened. That is a good thing. The only time it is not beneficial is when the body is so toxic that it cannot recover. But the body would have met its demise regardless of the virus or not. And that is the whole point of viruses created by cells, which is to resolve a toxic insult. They are the body's soaps, just as we would use soaps to clean our skin. The cell uses its own soaps. What occurs outwardly in our world, also occurs at the microlevel internally on a much smaller scale.
Loss of smell is very common in any respiratory virus. I also had it for weeks, but it was not the first time I experienced the issue. It eventually resolved. I became healthier than before I had the detoxification.
The reason for loss of smell has to do with the olfactory lobe being congested—the organ that helps us sense smell and taste. Drying of mucus and sinus fluids leads to that congestion. Mucus thickens in order to trap toxins within its web-like structure. Mucus is predominately protein, and protein properties are changed to thicken or thin the mucus. Solvents are used by the body in order to make mucus runnier. Mucus is very important in binding with toxicity and escorting it out of the body. When the sinus cavity becomes congested, one will experience loss of smell and taste at varying levels and durations. I also wrote about this in my article on my grandpa. Do read that if you haven't.
Another cause, which you partially hit upon in your comment, is depression. Increases in worldwide depression due to economic turmoil, violence, anger, and hate, has resulted in depression. Depression affects the muscles in the chest, while the body uses a large amount of nutrients to try to relax the muscles there. Depression leads to a drying of lung tissue due to available nutrients being utilized to relax tense muscles there. As a result, the body does not have enough nutrients to formulate mucus to properly bind with toxicity from our environment. The problem becomes compounded.
Outbreaks of viruses, especially respiratory coronaviruses, are merely the result of environmental pollution of all types, as well as mental disturbances that cause an increase in internal toxicity.
When I lost the sense of taste and smell it felt much deeper, irrespective of the flesh. What I mean by that is that, it wasn’t due to congestion, the drying of mucous or the sinus fluids. Taking a spoon of honey and literally tasting rubber or smelling onion as something completely different for a year, was not about the taste buds, the olfactory lobe or the mucus drying up.
This type of rationale was the most favored way in which scientists across the world have tried to solve the enigma. But at the same time, it’s important to note that the enthusiasm to draw an answer from under the belt as fast as possible, leads to further congestion (no pun intended) of redundant information that then makes it harder to find the root underlying cause.
.
.
Depression
I find it hard to ascribe depression as a root underlying cause. It’s true that depression is on the rise but ascribing economic turmoil, violence, anger and hate to depression, that then lead to a pandemic is not viable, especially given the fact that these were things that happened after Covid hit, not before.
For instance, the George Floyd fiasco in late May 2020 all throughout the summer, in my view was a result of the insemination of the information within the biology of humanity already several months prior. These racial tensions happened all over the world.
In other words, all what-appears-to-be separate phenomena that came right after Covid (steep rise in racism, mass formation - the entire world aligning to the same pattern psychologically, economic turmoil and censorship, to name a few), are a result of transformation in the genetic makeup of the human genome that then changes the psychology and decision making.
.
.
Pollution
I tend to deviate from the notion that pollution, and for that matter the advent of chemicals, metals and other synthetic compounds are a direct cause for a myriad of illnesses and sickness to which humanity is ascribing them.
I understand that such a view is considered eccentric, to say the least, as it’s totally not accepted within the collective consensus, but I come from a place of basic understanding to the nature of the law of polarity.
What that means in lieu of this subject is that we don’t invent stuff out of nowhere but merely filter information. That is, we can only invent that which is already in existence as potential within the consciousness field.
Our migration to big cities and the modern way of life that has come with it reflects a transition in the makeup of the human body to evolve to adapt to accommodate these elements. Otherwise we wouldn’t have been able to create them. One goes with the other.
Has anyone considered their existence in the body an effect rather than a cause? Has anyone considered the possibility that metals, and other relatively new material such as various synthetic chemicals, may all be a byproduct of our current sophistication of consciousness in form? And that their existence means we are ready in our bodies to coexist with them in a new way?
Indeed, outbreaks of viruses can be linked to mental disturbances, to depression and basically to any prolonged imbalance, but when it comes to worldwide pandemics propagated in a relatively short time and in such concentration, my view is that these explanations are not viable enough.
Some reasons for cycles: (1) Vitamin-D and sun. There is a direct relationship there. Vit-D helps immune cells, and sun kills viruses. (2) According to lung expert Gordon Lauc, the lung's immune system is different during the seasons. (3) I suspect bacteria eat viruses. (4) Healthier food and more exercise during summer.
When earth orbits the sun, the seasons change. Everyone on the earth is subjected to those changes, whether it is hot or cold. Different viruses manifest in different temperatures. Viruses occur in summer just as they do in winter. However, in winter they tend to appear in a larger portion of a population. This is due to a few reasons. In winter, indoor heating and air dries cilia, making the body more prone to airborne pollution. The difference between indoor and outdoor air becomes unnatural for the body. Less humid air leads to the drying of mucus membranes, which leads to the inability to not produce adequate mucus to bind with toxicity in the lungs. There is also a reduction of vitamin D in winter, which does not kill viruses internally but strengthens the health of the cell and organs in order to combat toxicity more effectively. It also allows optimal liver health, which is involved in reducing toxic load throughout the body.
Other reasons include humidity permutation of cells, and oxygen absorption, all of which influences cells.
You can sit in the sun all day long and have the most vitamin D in the world, but it will not totally prevent or stop viral detoxification if your body needs to do so. Only a reduction of toxin intake will reduce viral detoxification episodes.
Thank you Jeff for being one of the few islands on the net of sanity and genuine intellectual honesty and inquiry when it comes to Terrain Theory. While I do appreciate a lot of what the 'No-Virus' crowd has done to poke holes in the Germ Theory, they seem to be stuck in their own dogmas, which will hurt the cause ultimately. I can only speculate as to why they aren't sticking to the facts. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you watch Christine Massey's debate on "Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYWAD5URrU].
I recognise Massey's laudable work through her hundreds of FOI requests that demonstrate the authorities that should have had a sample of SARS-COV-2 didn't have it, but she performed very poorly in this debate and as an advocate for Terrain Theory in general. She comes across as completely close minded and refuses to engage with Dr. Wilson's presentation.
Although I'm sure your readers would disagree with Dr. Wilson about the covid virus being a pathogen, it's hard to debate what he's saying about gene sequencing. I'm not that knowledgable about this, but obviously lab technicians are sequencing something and repeating it in different labs. This presentation has convinced me that Andrew Kaufman's critique of gene sequencing being random and ambiguous is wrong: he compared it to reconstructing a novel by gluing short sentence fragments back together and matching the words on the ends, but Dr Wilson's presentation shows there's a lot more overlap in the RNA fragments than Kaufman is implying. Kaufman's right that the sequencing technique starts from millions of RNA fragments, but the large overlap between the matches takes the randomness out of the reconstruction.
Thank you, Ryan. I have watched Dan Wilson's (Debunk the Funk) debate with Massey more than once. I think Dan Wilson did a good job of exposing her arguments, even though I do not agree with Dan Wilson on many of his beliefs on vaccines and viruses. Nevertheless, I find him to be intelligent in many ways, even though I consider much of that intelligence is being misused.
Hopefully others will watch the debate now that you posted the link. Massey and friends are living 50+ years ago and relying on outdated techniques to make their argument that viruses cannot be isolated and thus shown to exist. I thought Dan did a good job of explaining why this is completely wrong.
The end comments by Massey were very revealing, when she claimed she did not care how proteins are made. Without that knowledge, one cannot begin to disprove viruses. Just as Dan said, you cannot tell a pilot how to fly a plane if you do not even know what a wing is.
With regard to Massey's FOI requests: Those too are not what she advertises. She is poorly wording her requests in order to send back the answer she wants. The studies themselves are the proof of the research.
Don't the missing samples demonstrate that no one could have proven pathogenicity and contagion without them? As you've been rightly pointing out, this is a separate issue from the existence of the virus. Could be a good subject for another article. It's certainly something I could use more clarity on.
There are no missing samples though (if you're referring to the FOI requests). She is improperly requesting information that does not exist and misleading her audience.
She requests evidence of a virus that has been purified and isolated without any other source of genetic material. That is an absurd request which returns no results, obviously. You have to have a base medium (liquid food, which contains bovine serum) for the cells to live in. You also have to have enough fluid added in order to carry out filtration of the sample, and/or layer the sample into a gradient for centrifugation.
When the institution comes back and says "Sorry, we cannot fulfill your request because viruses are not isolated as you require." She tells her audience (paraphrasing) "See, this virus doesn't exist!"
This shows just one of the many games these people are playing. It is not logical. They expect you can take a sample from a human being and throw it in a tube and centrifuge it and get a 100% pure virus without using fluids to suspend the sample. And if it's not done exactly as they say, as if they're the authorities that wrote the procedures, then viruses do not exist. Except for bacteriophages, which they now have to renege and try to claim bacteriophages are not viruses. They're making leaps and bounds in logic.
Also, they have formulated clever and deceitful paths to wiggle out of conceding something is true. For example, they claim a sample must be pure to be sequenced, yet modern sequencing procedures allow for crude samples to be taken and analyzed without extensive purification procedures.
They also claim that there is no adherence to the scientific method because researchers do not use a control. And yet, they do use controls. They are called 'mock infection' in study language.
They also claim that if a virus is not 100% pure of all debris, then it cannot be seen, characterized, or isolated. This is an impossible threshold to meet because you cannot purify something in the body 100%. You can't even purify gold 100%. So, as you can see, their arguments are deceitful.
I do recall you mentioning the gold purity example in one of your newsletters.
Let me see if I understand your position: you agree with the orthodoxy that viruses exist and have been identified with gene sequencing and electron microscopy, and that mock infections in the lab get results because viruses are designed to dissolve 'sick' cells. You differ from the orthodoxy in that saying these viruses are pathogenic and contagious, but instead contend that viruses are created endogenously by the body and are genetically designed to target and dissolve certain cells that are no longer viable. Is that fair?
I also hear you're saying, like your gold example, is the isolation usually used in virology is 'good enough' to demonstrate the cytopathic effects are being caused by the virus, unlike the 'no-virus' camp that demands pure virus to do it because they argue other things mixed in are poisoning the cell. Is that also fair?
That's close. Although, I do not state that viruses are pathogenic. I state that they can infect and dissolve unstable cells in the body when those unhealthy cells present surface receptor danger signals on their surface which allows viruses to latch on to and dissolve specific parts of those unhealthy cells or help carry out apoptosis of the entire cell. I state that in a lab condition, you have an artificial environment that is devoid of all regulatory agents as would appear in the body. As such, cells will dissolve themselves by their own solvents (virus). If you add a virus to the mix, that virus will begin to dissolve cells. Cells will analyze the foreign tissue and formulate a similar solvent structure to try to dissolve it. Given enough time, you will find that every cell in culture will have become infected by virus.
Other components of culture, like overuse of antibiotics, can cause cell degeneration if you are heavy handed with the procedures. Given the right amounts, those substances themselves can cause cells to produce viral solvents as a response. But so too will any added foreign viral tissue. So, both of those things can cause cells to degenerate. In culture, cells have no ability to remove toxins and disperse them away from themselves. They can only use their own solvents to try to dilute the substances to maintain homeostasis of the cell. But that will always fail in culture because cells exist naturally in a complex environment inside a real living body and cannot exist in singularity for long. Cellular behavior is different in reality.
The no-virus group demands an impossible threshold. You cannot purify a virus to the level of 100%. Nor is that required to prove the particle actually exists. They are stating false rules that must be followed, and pretending as if those rules are necessary. That is the entire argument I have made, more or less. There are many other ways, visually, to tell that a virus is not cell debris, or aberrations.
The argument is not whether this or that virus exists. It is about the principle of the matter: Do viruses exist at all? The answer is, yes, they do. Therefore, if even one virus exists, they have been proven wrong. They also make the mistake of lumping in supposed pathogenicity with virus purification, when they are two different branches of virology. Proving something exists and proving the purpose of that thing in the greater whole, is different. They miss this minutia completely because it does not fit into their agenda.
In seeking clarity, I believe the word 'infect' is misused. The verb 'infect' strongly implies 'actively invading, attacking or otherwise violently imposing itself' on something else. Since so-called viruses are not living entities, they cannot actively/forcefully infect. With viruses it is totally passive and random... rather akin to chemical bonding.
It is a similar misnomer when medics speak of their drugs 'curing' a disease. No such thing happens. Drug chemicals are inert; non-living. They cannot 'do' anything other than randomly chemically bond with other elements/molecules/tissues within the body. The body, in response to foreign chemical presence and bonding, does whatever is necessary to isolate, sequester, detoxify and eliminate the foreign chemical.
Further, I don't follow your train of thought that suggests viruses are 'dissolving' cells. Again, the virus is non-living... it cannot 'do' anything other than passively link/bond with cell receptors. The living cell senses this bonding and proceeds to communicate and act accordingly to deal with the situation as necessary for health and survival... which may include 'dissolving itself' via its own internal lysozymes.
It seems to me that the fundamental issue to understand is that it is only the living body and living cells that have intelligence and capability to 'act'. Viruses don't 'do' anything; the body does unto the virus, and/or creates it outright for its own purposes. Food doesn't 'do' anything to or for the body; the body acts upon the food raw material to create what it needs from it. Drugs do not 'do' anything; it is the aggressive action of the cells of the body that act upon foreign chemicals in order to neutralize and expel them as quickly as possible. these elimination processes within the body are wrongly ascribed as the 'curing' actions of the drug.
If the literature detailing infection, contagion and curing is reframed into the reality that only the living body 'acts with intention and purpose', then all these sorts of discussions take on a new light.
Viruses do not infect. Foods do not heal. Drugs do not cure.
The misuse of these words only serves to cloud the picture and cause confusion.
Exosomes are not to be mistaken for viruses. Rather, they serve as extracellular components that facilitate intercellular communication. What you have been told about their similarities to viruses by the 'no-virus' group, is erroneous. While exosomes and viruses both possess lipid membranes, this superficial similarity can lead to initial confusion. However, it is crucial to recognize that other viruses exhibit distinct morphologies, such as those devoid of lipid membranes.
The definition of viruses revolves around their classification as "obligate intercellular parasites." Yet, this label necessitates context. Viruses are considered obligate intracellular parasites due to their inherent reliance on host cells for replication and the completion of their 'life cycle'. In this context, the term "parasite" describes the relationship between the virus and the host cell, rather than implying that the virus itself is a living organism.
"The definition of viruses revolves around their classification as "obligate intercellular parasites." "
Where does this definition come from and is it still used?
Is the Webster definition wrong? As that is how most people define a virus and do you agree that these do not exist?
"to their inherent reliance on host cells for replication" where has this been proven to happen in reality?
The idea of a dead peace of genetic material penetrating a cell and taking control of it to replicate itself is science fiction as far as I know.
The virus scam and no virus groups should find common ground to work together instead of fighting each other as they are both part of the 'covid hoax / no pandemic group'.
Yes, that is still the definition used. However, there are multiple definitions for viruses that encompass more details than such a limited definition as used in Webster. The same is true for the term "isolation". I have never said, nor do I now, that viruses are able to do what you just described. Viruses are non-living entities that arise from a state of disease and are cellular survival solvents.
Moreover, I'm not fighting anyone—they are fighting me. In my humble opinion, they should cease their unscientific narrative and focus on understanding biology and why we need viruses.
The CDC, politicians and media are using a definition more like the Webster definition of disease causing particles responsible for the transmission of disease.
If scientists and regular people use different definitions for 'virus', there will never be agreement on if these exist or not as both are right by their definition.
As 'virologists' abused or redefined the word 'isolation' and lie about contagious or transmissible disease, they probably have lied about their idea of virus replication to.
Has a virus ever been observed hijacking a cell and replicating itself?
As far as I know this is and other assumption, like contagion and then your definition of virus has also never been proven to exist.
.
Do you have a suggestion on how to close this definition gap?
"Contagion" is not part of the definition of viruses. Sorry, but you're wrong. However, "infectious" is. Moreover, there are viruses that exist which are claimed to not be contagious, and they are still called viruses by science. Your statement is invalid.
Contagious means infectious. They are synonyms. Why are you deliberately twisting the words? You're doing same thing as 'virologists' do.
A virus, by definition, is contagious, and pathogenic.
By Wikipedia:
"A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses infect all life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea."
So if your definition of a virus doesn't include infection (or contagion, whatever you may wanna call it), then it's NOT a virus, by common definition.
Again, you're using your own definition of a 'virus'.
If you persist in arguing in bad faith, you will face a ban. Posting on my Substack comes with certain rules, one of which is that if you disagree with me, you must provide evidence to support your claim. You have not done so. Additionally, making false claims about my statements or intentions is grounds for being banned from commenting.
'Infectious' and 'contagious' are not synonymous. Bacterial infection, for example, can exist outside of any supposed contagion. Not all infectious diseases are considered contagious. Once again, your point is invalid.
"A virus, by definition, is contagious, and pathogenic."
False. There are viruses within the realm of science that are not classed as pathogenic, such as Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV), nonpathogenic enteroviruses, latent herpes viruses, and Pegivirus C or GBV-C and many bacteriophages.
Lanka's experiments shows that same result is achieved by not using any sample of a 'virus' whatsoever. Thus, there is no pathogen that caused the cells to die, but the conditions of the experiments, did it.
For the layman, there is no 'virus' that is cause of disease. Those particles which are released by a dying cell are just exosomes or cell debris. They're NOT 'virus' by common definition. Only by your definition, which NO ONE in the mainstream virology accepts as valid definition.
Hi Jeff - forgive me if I might have asked similar questions before, but here goes: are you implying that a human being's cells will produce a specific virus, i.e.: SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, MERS, Zika, etc. according to the specific type of toxin they are exposed to? If so, this means any and all humans will produce these exact same viruses if they are exposed to the same toxin, yes? Also, how exactly are these viruses accurately identified - using electron microscopy alone?
I am saying that if a toxin influences an epithelial lung cell, those cells will produce coronavirus. If a toxin influences a hepatocyte, they will produce hepatitis. If a toxin influences spinal cells, they will produce poliomyelitis, and so on. If pollution has been inhaled over a period of time, an entire population will express detoxification in the epithelial lung cells, and thus produce coronavirus or flu, which is inherent to those cells.
If a group of people are exposed to a particular toxin, it is possible that everyone exposed could potentially react in the same way by producing a coronavirus to help cells dissolve that compound. It does depend on the robustness of each individual which determines viral load. Even so, each person may produce a variant of coronavirus. They will not share the same virus as if there is one identical virus. Viral types are not identical. If they were, there would not be so many discovered viral mutations. Each cell in someone's body will produce a viral type with unique RNA parts. 98% of the virus will be similar, just as each person is similar in nature. But those last 2% that make up the individual RNA of the virus is what makes it unique to that person (the lock-and-key system). Just like two eyes are not the same.
Viruses are like seeds. Each time you plant the same type of seed, each plant that grows up will be slightly different than the next. Within the confines of a human body, this becomes a critical complexity, since each cell type produces unique viral mutations to deal with toxicity.
To identify or characterize a virus, a tissue sample is first run through purification, which involves filtration and normally centrifugation. This is repeated depending on the desired purity level (to a degree). This separates viral particles from the rest of the debris in a sample. When you have a relatively pure sample, you can view the sample under microscopy and characterize the sample, but being able to do this is also heavily dependent on the type of virus. Some viruses require lab culture to do this in order to give a high enough yield to study.
Mostly insect and plant viruses are able to be viewed without culture because you can gather many insects together and then have a high yield from that alone. Higher organisms, like humans, require other methods.
Thanks for the detailed response, Jeff. One other thing - do you give any credence to Béchamp's microzymian theory and if so does it overlap at all with your theory on how viruses are created by cells?
Hi Jeff, im continually confused by this seeming endless debate over the existence of viruses, which isnt helped by my admitted bias, to which I just don't want them to exist. This is mainly because life, and getting those government fucks to do one would be much easier if this whole sorry episode of our civilization would conclude. Due to my complete novice stance, i remain on the fence to this day, however, with regards to contagion, i am no fence sitter. There is no contagion, which i believe is also your stance. This, as a guy just living his life, id all that really matters to me. I do wish all of you guys fighting the good fight could all come together over a few beers and thrash this out in a friendly manner. I like to think you all have good intentions.
Unfortunately, Rob, not everyone out there has good intentions. My intentions are to help people understand the reality of the human body so that they are no longer afraid of it, so they can live healthy lives. In order to live healthy lives, one must understand the purpose of internal viruses and bacteria, among others, so that they do not do things that are detrimental to their health. Ignoring our reality is not how we approach life—at least that's not how I approach it. This, however, has been the approach of those that claim that there are no viruses, including many other provable/proven things.
Another reason this is important to expose is because they are misleading tens of thousands of people, if not more. Most of their audience have absolutely no clue about the complexity of microorganisms, especially viruses. They are publicly slandering those that even mildly disagree with their stance, and trying to silence those that are actively trying to help others and be a source of knowledge. Their agenda is not the truth. If their agenda was to come together, they would not be conducting themselves as they are. Therefore, that is not their agenda, and likely it will never be. They behave exactly like the rabid pro-vaccine crowd in their arguments and in their behavior. They are about as personable as a cheese grater. Their agenda is largely money and business driven and they take advantage of their audiences' ignorance.
Thank you. I’m a bit confused though.
You wrote: “As I have stated numerous times, viruses in culture infect and dissolve cells. In cell culture, an unregulated viral particle placed into culture will begin to dissolve cell walls. “
What I find confusing is that in this post you use the verb ‘infect’ to indicate action by the virus itself, while according to your ‘Viral Misconceptions” essay, it’s the cell that orchestrates the “infection”. Are you anthropomorphizing here? How can viruses infect and dissolve cells when put in culture?
Infection is what occurs when you have a toxin in the body that must be removed from the body, normally away from cells. Cells do orchestrate the infection, but the toxin is the cause. They produce the infection process where cells cohesively come together to produce an infection response to remove the toxin(s). Viral infection begins when cells produce the response to a toxin. If that toxin is caustic to cells, they must produce a non-living solvent to aid the cell in cleansing itself, since the cell cannot make contact with the toxin without being degenerated.
When cells begin to rapidly produce viruses, multiplying them, you will have a viral infection wherein the viral load is great. Because you have viral solvents now in the tissue, they will inevitably latch on to compatible tissues to dissolve toxin-permeated tissue. When you have a large degree of tissue being broken down, the body must remove the breakdown waste, along with viral debris left over from dissolution. This is viral infection.
The virus does not have action because it is not alive. Viral infection is different from infection by living entities, where those living entities live off matter. Viruses merely attach to surfaces by chance, due to the natural fluid movements of the body, and eventually bump into and dissolve compatible cell parts or entire cells. White blood cells help guide viruses and regulate their replication, as they do all infection. All these processes are guided by cellular surface proteins that communicate with each other, similarly to how a human verbalizes with speech, except cells use signals via transmission of energy.
In a culture, viruses cannot move on their own because they are not alive. They spread out from cells and enter and infect (dissolve cells) they contact by expanding outwardly from the cells themselves. It is a domino effect. Since there is no fluidity in the culture to carry viruses, or regulation, you always see outward expansion of viruses. When cells produce viruses, they produce many viruses per cell. As such, the culture becomes overloaded from this expansion of viruses, and thus dissolves all the cells as a result.
Science sees the dead cells in culture and claims that viruses are infecting the cells systematically and are responsible for their death. In the case of culture, they are responsible, but they are not the cause in a whole regulated body. In culture, cells have no regulatory agents, and thus self-dissolve. They have no modes to move toxins or viral solvents away from cells. Because one particular cell line is used in culture, all the viruses produced by those cells will be compatible with all cells in culture and will therefore eventually be dissolved.
I state that cells are inadvertently dissolving themselves by producing their own solvent chemicals (virus) to try to live.
Thank you for the clarification.
For the no-virus people I made a list of physical evidence, outside the Covid propaganda. It is far from complete, but easy to find.
Here is a plant virus visualized in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOxeJ0aEptU&t=1084s YouTube
Viruses can also be very big. Giant virus infects Ameoba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3476UHJAFQ YouTube
Cell Biology of Virus Infection. The Role of Cytoskeletal Dynamics Integrity in the Effectiveness of Dengue Virus Infection https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/49374 There are many such books, from which you can learn things. And you can see that they have done a lot of work in laboratories.
Here is some discussion about exosomes and viruses. https://www.cellgs.com/blog/exosomes-and-viruses.html
Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1605146113
Additionally David Martin is a great source on how the laboratories in many countries were making dangerous Corona-virus variants.
Note: The PCR tests with high cycle counts give over 99% false positives. This means that a lot of "infections with the SARS-Cov2" were something different. There can be some discussion in how much of the "Covid cases" were real or not. And this differs a lot per country, and changed over time. Maybe certain places never encountered the SARS-Cov2 virus or had herd-immunity very quickly.
Thanks for the links. The variants of viruses produced in labs does not have usage as a contagious entity. Those particles can only be injected or inserted into the body, wherein they may influence cell as foreign matter. Even in scientific literature, one viral particle would not cause viral infection. Only under certain lab conditions will a virus indescriminately dissolve cells. Any variants arising from lab conditions are the result of manmade influences on cells. Gain of function, for example, is used to produce future vaccines by finding infectious particles that dissolve cells, then building vaccines around those particles and their RNA parts, etc.
David Martin claims that viruses have been released from labs to infect whole populations. As such, he believes viruses are contagious. I disagree strongly with this.
That is a good discussion to have. Under what conditions can viruses spread, reproduce? And can a lab make a viable (weaponized) virus? Here is my line of thinking:
The making of a weaponized virus means that the infection of a human must be made possible. So you need mice or animals that have exactly the same ACE-2 receptors as humans. Which they did actually use, as shown in the publications. First they made SARS infect animals, then they mixed in some AIDS. Inserted a better cleavage-site. Then they made it adapt to the ACE-2 mice. All documented, because Pfizer and Moderna wanted to patent the viruses (and vaccines).
Full process explained here: https://www.brighteon.com/54df7739-3056-4cc3-a17a-4d0873e4d733
The virus must also be able to reproduce and avoid the immune system. This is harder than a lab-rat, because each human is very different. So the lab-virus would only be able to cause disease to weak humans with certain genetic conditions. Which is what we saw with Covid.. Hmm.
The lab virus probably does not last long in the sun or in a dry climate. Or maybe it will be eaten by helpful bacteria. Based on how Covid spread, it seems that there were locations where there were more and less Covid-like cases. Before they started doing all the weird testing and masking. Maybe the virus was spread on purpose via certain sprays?
There are several advanced laboratories that tested the changes in the RNA codes of the virus. I assuming they were exact, but that may not be true. The codes show a gradual evolutionary change from the Wuhan original to more and more mutations. The original was very pure in RNA-coding. Which would indicate an artificial virus that starts off with a perfect genetic code.
The spreading towards other places, like New York and Italy, was so extremely fast that they might have been spread on purpose. Not via symptomatic virus-spreading people as usual. Maybe via different laboratories. Fort Dietrich is well known. Even Ukraine might have been used as "superspreader". Or is this the first virus that was able to spread asymptomatic due to the AIDS component? An interesting path to investigate.
I tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (which is merely a normal coronavirus) in December of 2022. I can tell you right now that what I experienced was not unlike a flu. It began days before a huge winter storm, and I felt it coming on for weeks prior. This is how all detoxification works. There were no extreme symptoms that I couldn't handle. There is nothing unique about it. I addressed a lot of this in the article about my grandpa. I explore the timeline and prove that I did not catch it from anyone.
Viruses occur on a cyclical basis in accordance with climatic conditions. The illusion of viruses spreading is just that, an illusion. What you see as a fast spreading virus is merely the climate ripening throughout each part of the world to manifest a particular detoxification.
SARS-CoV-2 is 97% similar to SARS-CoV-1 from 2003 and started off that way. So, what you wrote about pure RNA coding doesn't match what they themselves report.
Let's explore this further: If the virus was spread via spray, why did it appear in cycles in the population? If you study the annual graphs of flu, you see that there is a major uptick in viral outbreaks every 6 months. This is typical of the body of animals because they work in conjunction with cyclical climatic conditions. They are inseparable.
Viral spread is an illusion and is something I have written about extensively as well. For example, I have shown that in one area there is suddenly a massive increase in viral illness. This could not be accounted for by spread, but by climatic conditions that bring about the conditions necessary for cells to express themselves via detoxification.
What has been spread is pollution of all types which has led to these cycles of outbreaks to increase in relation to the exponential increase of pollution around the world. Compound this with ever-increasing vaccination rates, and you have a cycle of viral outbreaks for some time to come. The higher the world's toxin accumulation becomes, the more you will have viral and bacterial outbreaks of all kinds.
External viruses are merely treated as toxic debris by the ecosystem of a whole body. They would be no more toxic than wood dust, or wood smoke. Those are still toxins and can accelerate detoxification. Because our body's live in nature, we are in accordance with nature at the microlevel. When weather changes, so too do our internal mechanisms. If this were not so, we would not be in harmony with nature and wouldn't survive the and ebbs and flows of nature.
Had it feb. 2020. No tests (of what exactly?) but never had been so sick. Was health and had no natural "detoxification" process. Both nose and lungs infected, strong fever trouble with breathing. Got some blood problems and low stamina right after. I think that was the original one. Similar to those reported by the more truthfull flccc doctors.
During the spring I saw reports of the disease becoming very mild and like the cold. Nature easily won over the artificial virus, but governments went insane.
I strongly agree with you. I’ve said this since the beginning: that the entire lab-leak paradigm is just another distraction.
The assumption that a virus spread into the whole population, suddenly takes over bodies and kills them in throngs, shows the huge disconnect and vanity existent in modern science. A result of the distorted ‘mind over body’ paradigm distorting everything in our consciousness.
When it comes to Covid, I don’t believe the answer is either here or there. I don’t believe it’s just another flu.
Yes, it’s true the vast majority have experienced very mild symptoms similar to the flu. But others have experienced really bizarre things. I, for instance, have completely lost the sense of smell and taste for a few months. Only after a year plus, I started to fully regain them. Even when I had it, I felt most of the “action” in my gut and I remember feeling that I’ve never experienced such a thing before. I’m not someone who gets sick easily. I’m fairly active, no health issues or family history of diseases. Not overweight. No diabetes. Never taken medications.
The problem in the world right now is that for every topic examined, it’s immediately broken down to an extreme binary of ones and zeros. This inadvertently leads to massive confusion and misunderstandings which in turn exacerbate them exponentially until eventually something pops.
In lieu of Covid, this manifests itself in the fact that we have one camp that believes that Covid is merely a flu. This was due to the fact that the absolute majority of those who contracted the disease had very negligible symptoms and therefore, from their point of view, humanity's response to the disease was disproportionate and irrational.
Add to the equation the fact that we live in the Information Age which provides all of us a rich fodder of details from every possible nook and cranny of human life and history, by which we can rearrange to suit one's emotional climate. This, in turn, creates a perfect setup for all kinds of rich theories in order to contain the dissonance between humanity's response and the negligence of the disease, from the point of view of the aforementioned group.
On the other hand, we have a camp that believed that Covid was the new Spanish flu. This belief was due to the fact that a minority of people experienced very unusual and severe symptoms and therefore, from their point of view, humanity's response to the disease was absolutely justified, "full stop!"
Add to the equation the fact that we live in the midst of the Information Age in which the virtual has surpassed the actual, as a result of the fact that we are all connected 24/7 through our dumbphones, the 1% can be always presented (virtually) as the 99% and thus, be able to justify the totalitarian decisions on society.
Therefore, it is clear to me that choosing either one, as an assumption that everything must be always funneled through mutually exclusive rule-set in order to find the truth, is a trap. I believe that as we march forward, if one wants to find the truth, in any topic, it will always be somewhere in the middle, or the synthesis of both sides, depending how you want to look at it. And in order to be able to reach it, one must let go in order to be able to see things for what they are.
.
.
.
I do agree that there is a connection between seasonality and the proliferation of viral load. My hypothesis goes a bit deeper but it is on the same track. It says that Covid originated within all of us and that Covid represents “insemination” of information.
It’s called evolution. It’s just that our current understanding of evolution is very limited. We usually look at it from a rear view mirror, as a very long process, mitigated through heredity. But in my view, pandemics are simply a real-time procession of evolutionary changes within an organism. They are in essence mutations that occur within a species over a relatively short period.
Mutation is neither good nor bad. It initiates a transformation; it brings in a change. The “old” dies and something “new” emerges. In between we see sickness and death because this is the way the human body deals with the transition.
Since viruses are not the cause but an effect, it is clear to me that Covid, as any other pandemic or virus we want to take a look at from the past, is merely a marker for mutation instilled by resonance.
Both the magnetic field of the planet and the changes in radiation within the ionosphere communicate with all organisms through the DNA molecule. More than the belief that the DNA molecule is just a “bead necklace” made of four nucleotides stringed together, the molecule is actually a fractal antenna. In motion, its double spiral forms a resonance field that both transmits and receives information from the environment (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21457072/).
So to me, it’s very clear that Covid is coming from within us all. Whether we got sick or not, whether we got a positive test or not makes no difference. All of us were “seeded” with information. The drastic change over the past 3 years, expressed as supposedly separate phenomena such as: racism, schism, the polarization in society, the identity crisis, mass formation, the rise in mental illness, the rise in body dimorphism and eating disorders in the young, censorship and more, are all a byproduct of the transformation ensuing within the human species affecting its psychology, its behavior and obviously its biology.
.
.
.
The reason why humanity can’t connect the dots is because over the last 200 years we have been losing the connection to various existence of dimensions in exchange for the blind adoration of linear datasets rooted in rational thinking. This has led to the advent of the mechanistic science as we know it today, trying to impose a linear formula on a quantum system - the human body.
Over time, we deconstructed our observed reality into subjects from which we developed a huge variety of systems and methodologies: medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, economics, sociology, environmental sciences, etc. This is all ok. We need to organize our frameworks. However, we are currently on the other side of the efficiency arc.
These systems have become extremely complex, flooded with redundant language and horribly rigid. Each and every one of them can no longer communicate with the other, as each has become a world of its own.
Today, bringing to the attention of a virologist the possible connection between proliferation of disease to anomalies in the magnetic field of the planet, or alternatively, the connection between eating disorders to the loss of morality and trust in humanity to a psychiatrist, renders them to either paint that information as pseudoscientific or indulge in an automatic rebuttal as a shield for being deviated off-guard from one’s "box" (set rules)
Thus, we've reached a time in which ignorance can be masked by knowledge. We have reached the point where we have to invest millions of dollars in redundant research to reach the conclusion that our ancestors knew intuitively 100 years ago.
Instead of understanding the underlying mechanism (w)holistically, we try to adapt everyone to the rigidity of our closed systems. We try to make everyone see the same thing by repeating boxed explanations over and over again until things are assimilated as "truths"; a collective consensus.
.
.
.
All in all, I come from a place of understanding that the truth is always simple. Everything around us can be broken down to a simple language that anyone can understand without preconceived conditions, because universal principles are inherently simple by nature. It is us who complicate everything due to the lack of awareness of the mechanics of mind and how the mind distorts the reality it observes.
When I recognize someone who has dedicated themselves to providing clarity by breaking down the mechanics of some topic into a consumable language that everyone can understand, it gives me great joy. In between the clutter of redundancies rooted in "official" explanations out there, I value it as an immense contribution.
And so, I commend you for the valuable work and effort in bringing us these "gems" as explanations. I know that it helped me a lot in my personal process of discovery.
As yourself, I consider myself an educator. I believe humanity has to be (re)educated on the true nature of being and on the universal principles that underlie everything around us. Therefore, I am open to an exchange and/or collaboration if you so feel inclined. My ultimate wish is to gather people from different aspects of life who are on the same wavelength for the ultimate purpose of education.
Thank you.
Viruses have, throughout their beginning, been a major role in the evolution of all living organisms. They carry DNA information and share it between cells—not as living entities, but as non-living intermediaries between living cells. But broadly speaking, virus are solvent enzymes like other enzymes used in the body to dissolve or break down something. Lysosomes, digestive enzymes, and so forth, are all more simple enzymes. Viruses, on the other hand, are more specific in that they must be utilized in many tissues, but not dissolve everything they contact. Thus, the RNA lock-and-key system becomes a vitally important piece of the virus.
Any time someone has a viral illness, the body is strengthened. That is a good thing. The only time it is not beneficial is when the body is so toxic that it cannot recover. But the body would have met its demise regardless of the virus or not. And that is the whole point of viruses created by cells, which is to resolve a toxic insult. They are the body's soaps, just as we would use soaps to clean our skin. The cell uses its own soaps. What occurs outwardly in our world, also occurs at the microlevel internally on a much smaller scale.
Loss of smell is very common in any respiratory virus. I also had it for weeks, but it was not the first time I experienced the issue. It eventually resolved. I became healthier than before I had the detoxification.
The reason for loss of smell has to do with the olfactory lobe being congested—the organ that helps us sense smell and taste. Drying of mucus and sinus fluids leads to that congestion. Mucus thickens in order to trap toxins within its web-like structure. Mucus is predominately protein, and protein properties are changed to thicken or thin the mucus. Solvents are used by the body in order to make mucus runnier. Mucus is very important in binding with toxicity and escorting it out of the body. When the sinus cavity becomes congested, one will experience loss of smell and taste at varying levels and durations. I also wrote about this in my article on my grandpa. Do read that if you haven't.
Another cause, which you partially hit upon in your comment, is depression. Increases in worldwide depression due to economic turmoil, violence, anger, and hate, has resulted in depression. Depression affects the muscles in the chest, while the body uses a large amount of nutrients to try to relax the muscles there. Depression leads to a drying of lung tissue due to available nutrients being utilized to relax tense muscles there. As a result, the body does not have enough nutrients to formulate mucus to properly bind with toxicity from our environment. The problem becomes compounded.
Outbreaks of viruses, especially respiratory coronaviruses, are merely the result of environmental pollution of all types, as well as mental disturbances that cause an increase in internal toxicity.
When I lost the sense of taste and smell it felt much deeper, irrespective of the flesh. What I mean by that is that, it wasn’t due to congestion, the drying of mucous or the sinus fluids. Taking a spoon of honey and literally tasting rubber or smelling onion as something completely different for a year, was not about the taste buds, the olfactory lobe or the mucus drying up.
This type of rationale was the most favored way in which scientists across the world have tried to solve the enigma. But at the same time, it’s important to note that the enthusiasm to draw an answer from under the belt as fast as possible, leads to further congestion (no pun intended) of redundant information that then makes it harder to find the root underlying cause.
.
.
Depression
I find it hard to ascribe depression as a root underlying cause. It’s true that depression is on the rise but ascribing economic turmoil, violence, anger and hate to depression, that then lead to a pandemic is not viable, especially given the fact that these were things that happened after Covid hit, not before.
For instance, the George Floyd fiasco in late May 2020 all throughout the summer, in my view was a result of the insemination of the information within the biology of humanity already several months prior. These racial tensions happened all over the world.
In other words, all what-appears-to-be separate phenomena that came right after Covid (steep rise in racism, mass formation - the entire world aligning to the same pattern psychologically, economic turmoil and censorship, to name a few), are a result of transformation in the genetic makeup of the human genome that then changes the psychology and decision making.
.
.
Pollution
I tend to deviate from the notion that pollution, and for that matter the advent of chemicals, metals and other synthetic compounds are a direct cause for a myriad of illnesses and sickness to which humanity is ascribing them.
I understand that such a view is considered eccentric, to say the least, as it’s totally not accepted within the collective consensus, but I come from a place of basic understanding to the nature of the law of polarity.
What that means in lieu of this subject is that we don’t invent stuff out of nowhere but merely filter information. That is, we can only invent that which is already in existence as potential within the consciousness field.
Our migration to big cities and the modern way of life that has come with it reflects a transition in the makeup of the human body to evolve to adapt to accommodate these elements. Otherwise we wouldn’t have been able to create them. One goes with the other.
Has anyone considered their existence in the body an effect rather than a cause? Has anyone considered the possibility that metals, and other relatively new material such as various synthetic chemicals, may all be a byproduct of our current sophistication of consciousness in form? And that their existence means we are ready in our bodies to coexist with them in a new way?
Indeed, outbreaks of viruses can be linked to mental disturbances, to depression and basically to any prolonged imbalance, but when it comes to worldwide pandemics propagated in a relatively short time and in such concentration, my view is that these explanations are not viable enough.
Some reasons for cycles: (1) Vitamin-D and sun. There is a direct relationship there. Vit-D helps immune cells, and sun kills viruses. (2) According to lung expert Gordon Lauc, the lung's immune system is different during the seasons. (3) I suspect bacteria eat viruses. (4) Healthier food and more exercise during summer.
When earth orbits the sun, the seasons change. Everyone on the earth is subjected to those changes, whether it is hot or cold. Different viruses manifest in different temperatures. Viruses occur in summer just as they do in winter. However, in winter they tend to appear in a larger portion of a population. This is due to a few reasons. In winter, indoor heating and air dries cilia, making the body more prone to airborne pollution. The difference between indoor and outdoor air becomes unnatural for the body. Less humid air leads to the drying of mucus membranes, which leads to the inability to not produce adequate mucus to bind with toxicity in the lungs. There is also a reduction of vitamin D in winter, which does not kill viruses internally but strengthens the health of the cell and organs in order to combat toxicity more effectively. It also allows optimal liver health, which is involved in reducing toxic load throughout the body.
Other reasons include humidity permutation of cells, and oxygen absorption, all of which influences cells.
You can sit in the sun all day long and have the most vitamin D in the world, but it will not totally prevent or stop viral detoxification if your body needs to do so. Only a reduction of toxin intake will reduce viral detoxification episodes.
Thank you Jeff for being one of the few islands on the net of sanity and genuine intellectual honesty and inquiry when it comes to Terrain Theory. While I do appreciate a lot of what the 'No-Virus' crowd has done to poke holes in the Germ Theory, they seem to be stuck in their own dogmas, which will hurt the cause ultimately. I can only speculate as to why they aren't sticking to the facts. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you watch Christine Massey's debate on "Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYWAD5URrU].
I recognise Massey's laudable work through her hundreds of FOI requests that demonstrate the authorities that should have had a sample of SARS-COV-2 didn't have it, but she performed very poorly in this debate and as an advocate for Terrain Theory in general. She comes across as completely close minded and refuses to engage with Dr. Wilson's presentation.
Although I'm sure your readers would disagree with Dr. Wilson about the covid virus being a pathogen, it's hard to debate what he's saying about gene sequencing. I'm not that knowledgable about this, but obviously lab technicians are sequencing something and repeating it in different labs. This presentation has convinced me that Andrew Kaufman's critique of gene sequencing being random and ambiguous is wrong: he compared it to reconstructing a novel by gluing short sentence fragments back together and matching the words on the ends, but Dr Wilson's presentation shows there's a lot more overlap in the RNA fragments than Kaufman is implying. Kaufman's right that the sequencing technique starts from millions of RNA fragments, but the large overlap between the matches takes the randomness out of the reconstruction.
Thank you, Ryan. I have watched Dan Wilson's (Debunk the Funk) debate with Massey more than once. I think Dan Wilson did a good job of exposing her arguments, even though I do not agree with Dan Wilson on many of his beliefs on vaccines and viruses. Nevertheless, I find him to be intelligent in many ways, even though I consider much of that intelligence is being misused.
Hopefully others will watch the debate now that you posted the link. Massey and friends are living 50+ years ago and relying on outdated techniques to make their argument that viruses cannot be isolated and thus shown to exist. I thought Dan did a good job of explaining why this is completely wrong.
The end comments by Massey were very revealing, when she claimed she did not care how proteins are made. Without that knowledge, one cannot begin to disprove viruses. Just as Dan said, you cannot tell a pilot how to fly a plane if you do not even know what a wing is.
With regard to Massey's FOI requests: Those too are not what she advertises. She is poorly wording her requests in order to send back the answer she wants. The studies themselves are the proof of the research.
Don't the missing samples demonstrate that no one could have proven pathogenicity and contagion without them? As you've been rightly pointing out, this is a separate issue from the existence of the virus. Could be a good subject for another article. It's certainly something I could use more clarity on.
There are no missing samples though (if you're referring to the FOI requests). She is improperly requesting information that does not exist and misleading her audience.
She requests evidence of a virus that has been purified and isolated without any other source of genetic material. That is an absurd request which returns no results, obviously. You have to have a base medium (liquid food, which contains bovine serum) for the cells to live in. You also have to have enough fluid added in order to carry out filtration of the sample, and/or layer the sample into a gradient for centrifugation.
When the institution comes back and says "Sorry, we cannot fulfill your request because viruses are not isolated as you require." She tells her audience (paraphrasing) "See, this virus doesn't exist!"
This shows just one of the many games these people are playing. It is not logical. They expect you can take a sample from a human being and throw it in a tube and centrifuge it and get a 100% pure virus without using fluids to suspend the sample. And if it's not done exactly as they say, as if they're the authorities that wrote the procedures, then viruses do not exist. Except for bacteriophages, which they now have to renege and try to claim bacteriophages are not viruses. They're making leaps and bounds in logic.
Also, they have formulated clever and deceitful paths to wiggle out of conceding something is true. For example, they claim a sample must be pure to be sequenced, yet modern sequencing procedures allow for crude samples to be taken and analyzed without extensive purification procedures.
They also claim that there is no adherence to the scientific method because researchers do not use a control. And yet, they do use controls. They are called 'mock infection' in study language.
They also claim that if a virus is not 100% pure of all debris, then it cannot be seen, characterized, or isolated. This is an impossible threshold to meet because you cannot purify something in the body 100%. You can't even purify gold 100%. So, as you can see, their arguments are deceitful.
And there's more than this even.
I do recall you mentioning the gold purity example in one of your newsletters.
Let me see if I understand your position: you agree with the orthodoxy that viruses exist and have been identified with gene sequencing and electron microscopy, and that mock infections in the lab get results because viruses are designed to dissolve 'sick' cells. You differ from the orthodoxy in that saying these viruses are pathogenic and contagious, but instead contend that viruses are created endogenously by the body and are genetically designed to target and dissolve certain cells that are no longer viable. Is that fair?
I also hear you're saying, like your gold example, is the isolation usually used in virology is 'good enough' to demonstrate the cytopathic effects are being caused by the virus, unlike the 'no-virus' camp that demands pure virus to do it because they argue other things mixed in are poisoning the cell. Is that also fair?
That's close. Although, I do not state that viruses are pathogenic. I state that they can infect and dissolve unstable cells in the body when those unhealthy cells present surface receptor danger signals on their surface which allows viruses to latch on to and dissolve specific parts of those unhealthy cells or help carry out apoptosis of the entire cell. I state that in a lab condition, you have an artificial environment that is devoid of all regulatory agents as would appear in the body. As such, cells will dissolve themselves by their own solvents (virus). If you add a virus to the mix, that virus will begin to dissolve cells. Cells will analyze the foreign tissue and formulate a similar solvent structure to try to dissolve it. Given enough time, you will find that every cell in culture will have become infected by virus.
Other components of culture, like overuse of antibiotics, can cause cell degeneration if you are heavy handed with the procedures. Given the right amounts, those substances themselves can cause cells to produce viral solvents as a response. But so too will any added foreign viral tissue. So, both of those things can cause cells to degenerate. In culture, cells have no ability to remove toxins and disperse them away from themselves. They can only use their own solvents to try to dilute the substances to maintain homeostasis of the cell. But that will always fail in culture because cells exist naturally in a complex environment inside a real living body and cannot exist in singularity for long. Cellular behavior is different in reality.
The no-virus group demands an impossible threshold. You cannot purify a virus to the level of 100%. Nor is that required to prove the particle actually exists. They are stating false rules that must be followed, and pretending as if those rules are necessary. That is the entire argument I have made, more or less. There are many other ways, visually, to tell that a virus is not cell debris, or aberrations.
The argument is not whether this or that virus exists. It is about the principle of the matter: Do viruses exist at all? The answer is, yes, they do. Therefore, if even one virus exists, they have been proven wrong. They also make the mistake of lumping in supposed pathogenicity with virus purification, when they are two different branches of virology. Proving something exists and proving the purpose of that thing in the greater whole, is different. They miss this minutia completely because it does not fit into their agenda.
In seeking clarity, I believe the word 'infect' is misused. The verb 'infect' strongly implies 'actively invading, attacking or otherwise violently imposing itself' on something else. Since so-called viruses are not living entities, they cannot actively/forcefully infect. With viruses it is totally passive and random... rather akin to chemical bonding.
It is a similar misnomer when medics speak of their drugs 'curing' a disease. No such thing happens. Drug chemicals are inert; non-living. They cannot 'do' anything other than randomly chemically bond with other elements/molecules/tissues within the body. The body, in response to foreign chemical presence and bonding, does whatever is necessary to isolate, sequester, detoxify and eliminate the foreign chemical.
Further, I don't follow your train of thought that suggests viruses are 'dissolving' cells. Again, the virus is non-living... it cannot 'do' anything other than passively link/bond with cell receptors. The living cell senses this bonding and proceeds to communicate and act accordingly to deal with the situation as necessary for health and survival... which may include 'dissolving itself' via its own internal lysozymes.
It seems to me that the fundamental issue to understand is that it is only the living body and living cells that have intelligence and capability to 'act'. Viruses don't 'do' anything; the body does unto the virus, and/or creates it outright for its own purposes. Food doesn't 'do' anything to or for the body; the body acts upon the food raw material to create what it needs from it. Drugs do not 'do' anything; it is the aggressive action of the cells of the body that act upon foreign chemicals in order to neutralize and expel them as quickly as possible. these elimination processes within the body are wrongly ascribed as the 'curing' actions of the drug.
If the literature detailing infection, contagion and curing is reframed into the reality that only the living body 'acts with intention and purpose', then all these sorts of discussions take on a new light.
Viruses do not infect. Foods do not heal. Drugs do not cure.
The misuse of these words only serves to cloud the picture and cause confusion.
Never mind the virus isolation which it isn't:
No evidence for contagious/transmittable disease, no evidence for 'viruses' by the current definition!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virus
.
A list of experiments proving transmission never happened how hard they tried:
dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence
.
The real virus is the idea viruses physically exist!
Viruses exist but they're not contagious.
If they're not contagious, they're not viruses, by mainstream definition. You're using your own definition of a 'virus'.
QED
By what definition of virus do you call these then viruses?
Exosomes are identical except they do not cause or transmit disease.
Exosomes are not to be mistaken for viruses. Rather, they serve as extracellular components that facilitate intercellular communication. What you have been told about their similarities to viruses by the 'no-virus' group, is erroneous. While exosomes and viruses both possess lipid membranes, this superficial similarity can lead to initial confusion. However, it is crucial to recognize that other viruses exhibit distinct morphologies, such as those devoid of lipid membranes.
The definition of viruses revolves around their classification as "obligate intercellular parasites." Yet, this label necessitates context. Viruses are considered obligate intracellular parasites due to their inherent reliance on host cells for replication and the completion of their 'life cycle'. In this context, the term "parasite" describes the relationship between the virus and the host cell, rather than implying that the virus itself is a living organism.
"The definition of viruses revolves around their classification as "obligate intercellular parasites." "
Where does this definition come from and is it still used?
Is the Webster definition wrong? As that is how most people define a virus and do you agree that these do not exist?
"to their inherent reliance on host cells for replication" where has this been proven to happen in reality?
The idea of a dead peace of genetic material penetrating a cell and taking control of it to replicate itself is science fiction as far as I know.
The virus scam and no virus groups should find common ground to work together instead of fighting each other as they are both part of the 'covid hoax / no pandemic group'.
Yes, that is still the definition used. However, there are multiple definitions for viruses that encompass more details than such a limited definition as used in Webster. The same is true for the term "isolation". I have never said, nor do I now, that viruses are able to do what you just described. Viruses are non-living entities that arise from a state of disease and are cellular survival solvents.
Moreover, I'm not fighting anyone—they are fighting me. In my humble opinion, they should cease their unscientific narrative and focus on understanding biology and why we need viruses.
Used by who?
The CDC, politicians and media are using a definition more like the Webster definition of disease causing particles responsible for the transmission of disease.
If scientists and regular people use different definitions for 'virus', there will never be agreement on if these exist or not as both are right by their definition.
As 'virologists' abused or redefined the word 'isolation' and lie about contagious or transmissible disease, they probably have lied about their idea of virus replication to.
Has a virus ever been observed hijacking a cell and replicating itself?
As far as I know this is and other assumption, like contagion and then your definition of virus has also never been proven to exist.
.
Do you have a suggestion on how to close this definition gap?
Jeff, show me a virology textbook which is using your definition of a 'virus'.
I'll wait.
For anyone who might be reading this post:
Jeff is using his own definition of a 'virus', which does not include contagion.
Contagion is a part of the mainstream definition of a 'virus'.
Therefore, Jeff agrees that viruses as depicted by mainstream virology, do NOT exist.
QED.
"Contagion" is not part of the definition of viruses. Sorry, but you're wrong. However, "infectious" is. Moreover, there are viruses that exist which are claimed to not be contagious, and they are still called viruses by science. Your statement is invalid.
contagion
(kənteɪdʒən IPA Pronunciation Guide)
UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
Contagion is the spreading of a particular disease by someone touching another person who is already affected by the disease.
They have been reluctant to admit AIDS patients, in part because of unfounded fears of contagion.
Synonyms: contamination, infection, corruption, pollution More Synonyms of contagion
Contagious means infectious. They are synonyms. Why are you deliberately twisting the words? You're doing same thing as 'virologists' do.
A virus, by definition, is contagious, and pathogenic.
By Wikipedia:
"A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses infect all life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea."
So if your definition of a virus doesn't include infection (or contagion, whatever you may wanna call it), then it's NOT a virus, by common definition.
Again, you're using your own definition of a 'virus'.
If you persist in arguing in bad faith, you will face a ban. Posting on my Substack comes with certain rules, one of which is that if you disagree with me, you must provide evidence to support your claim. You have not done so. Additionally, making false claims about my statements or intentions is grounds for being banned from commenting.
'Infectious' and 'contagious' are not synonymous. Bacterial infection, for example, can exist outside of any supposed contagion. Not all infectious diseases are considered contagious. Once again, your point is invalid.
"A virus, by definition, is contagious, and pathogenic."
False. There are viruses within the realm of science that are not classed as pathogenic, such as Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV), nonpathogenic enteroviruses, latent herpes viruses, and Pegivirus C or GBV-C and many bacteriophages.
"As I have stated numerous times, viruses in culture infect and dissolve cells."
No, they don't. The so-called 'viruses' are the results of a dying cell, not the other way around.
Stefan Lanka proved it, with controls experiments.
False. Lanka's experiments show no virus morphology whatsoever.
Lanka's experiments shows that same result is achieved by not using any sample of a 'virus' whatsoever. Thus, there is no pathogen that caused the cells to die, but the conditions of the experiments, did it.
For the layman, there is no 'virus' that is cause of disease. Those particles which are released by a dying cell are just exosomes or cell debris. They're NOT 'virus' by common definition. Only by your definition, which NO ONE in the mainstream virology accepts as valid definition.
Hi Jeff - forgive me if I might have asked similar questions before, but here goes: are you implying that a human being's cells will produce a specific virus, i.e.: SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, MERS, Zika, etc. according to the specific type of toxin they are exposed to? If so, this means any and all humans will produce these exact same viruses if they are exposed to the same toxin, yes? Also, how exactly are these viruses accurately identified - using electron microscopy alone?
I am saying that if a toxin influences an epithelial lung cell, those cells will produce coronavirus. If a toxin influences a hepatocyte, they will produce hepatitis. If a toxin influences spinal cells, they will produce poliomyelitis, and so on. If pollution has been inhaled over a period of time, an entire population will express detoxification in the epithelial lung cells, and thus produce coronavirus or flu, which is inherent to those cells.
If a group of people are exposed to a particular toxin, it is possible that everyone exposed could potentially react in the same way by producing a coronavirus to help cells dissolve that compound. It does depend on the robustness of each individual which determines viral load. Even so, each person may produce a variant of coronavirus. They will not share the same virus as if there is one identical virus. Viral types are not identical. If they were, there would not be so many discovered viral mutations. Each cell in someone's body will produce a viral type with unique RNA parts. 98% of the virus will be similar, just as each person is similar in nature. But those last 2% that make up the individual RNA of the virus is what makes it unique to that person (the lock-and-key system). Just like two eyes are not the same.
Viruses are like seeds. Each time you plant the same type of seed, each plant that grows up will be slightly different than the next. Within the confines of a human body, this becomes a critical complexity, since each cell type produces unique viral mutations to deal with toxicity.
To identify or characterize a virus, a tissue sample is first run through purification, which involves filtration and normally centrifugation. This is repeated depending on the desired purity level (to a degree). This separates viral particles from the rest of the debris in a sample. When you have a relatively pure sample, you can view the sample under microscopy and characterize the sample, but being able to do this is also heavily dependent on the type of virus. Some viruses require lab culture to do this in order to give a high enough yield to study.
Mostly insect and plant viruses are able to be viewed without culture because you can gather many insects together and then have a high yield from that alone. Higher organisms, like humans, require other methods.
Thanks for the detailed response, Jeff. One other thing - do you give any credence to Béchamp's microzymian theory and if so does it overlap at all with your theory on how viruses are created by cells?
Hi Jeff, im continually confused by this seeming endless debate over the existence of viruses, which isnt helped by my admitted bias, to which I just don't want them to exist. This is mainly because life, and getting those government fucks to do one would be much easier if this whole sorry episode of our civilization would conclude. Due to my complete novice stance, i remain on the fence to this day, however, with regards to contagion, i am no fence sitter. There is no contagion, which i believe is also your stance. This, as a guy just living his life, id all that really matters to me. I do wish all of you guys fighting the good fight could all come together over a few beers and thrash this out in a friendly manner. I like to think you all have good intentions.
Unfortunately, Rob, not everyone out there has good intentions. My intentions are to help people understand the reality of the human body so that they are no longer afraid of it, so they can live healthy lives. In order to live healthy lives, one must understand the purpose of internal viruses and bacteria, among others, so that they do not do things that are detrimental to their health. Ignoring our reality is not how we approach life—at least that's not how I approach it. This, however, has been the approach of those that claim that there are no viruses, including many other provable/proven things.
Another reason this is important to expose is because they are misleading tens of thousands of people, if not more. Most of their audience have absolutely no clue about the complexity of microorganisms, especially viruses. They are publicly slandering those that even mildly disagree with their stance, and trying to silence those that are actively trying to help others and be a source of knowledge. Their agenda is not the truth. If their agenda was to come together, they would not be conducting themselves as they are. Therefore, that is not their agenda, and likely it will never be. They behave exactly like the rabid pro-vaccine crowd in their arguments and in their behavior. They are about as personable as a cheese grater. Their agenda is largely money and business driven and they take advantage of their audiences' ignorance.