Please tell us if you know, can, and/or will what convinces you that the physicians in the original two papers reporting a novel coronavirus (n-CoV-19 later renamed as SARS-CoV-2) have carried out the proper investigations for the cause of admission of the patients complaining of respiratory symptoms.
As in, there is no such thing as a 'virus' defined as a pathogenic particle, which jumps from person to person, and cause a disease.
You are right, and they are right as well.
You are using a completely different definition of a 'virus', than what virologists are using. So in that sense, the 'no virus' camp is 100% correct. There's no such thing.
Now, if you define a virus (like you are doing), as being a defense mechanism of a cell under extreme stress or poisoning, then you may be correct as well.
But they are also correct in what they are claiming.
No, I am not using a completely different definition. I am stating viruses exist and are non-infectious and their actions are a result entirely of the disease process itself, and that they are soap-like solvents with the natural enzymatic ability to dissolve compounds discriminatorily. They do not believe in an intelligent cellularly created entity, so there is absolutely no way that our stances are close to being similar. They do not believe anything as such an intelligent structure exists. Listen to more of what they claim, this time with intent.
And they are not 100% correct, they are not even 50% correct. They are wholly wrong in their claims, in part, because they have no way to explain the vast evidence and characteristics of such particles which exist and can be seen under microscopy and are clearly not mere cell debris.
Here's an interview with Kaufman. The title of the interview is "Andrew Kaufman on viruses not existing" - starting at around minute 13:00.
Yes, you are using a different definition for viruses.
Virology claims there are such things are pathogenic viruses, which spread from human to human, infect people, multiply and cause disease.
That definition is NOT like yours AT ALL!
Your definition says they are NOT pathogenic in nature (don't cause disease), and also they don't spread from people to people, they don't infect anyone (they're just products of the cells when they are poisoned).
Literally the first thing on Google, when you type "viruses":
"A virus is an infectious microbe consisting of a segment of nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein coat. A virus cannot replicate alone; instead, it must infect cells and use components of the host cell to make copies of itself."
Science also claims there are non-infectious viruses. That definition is broad and generalistic in a sense. When I wrote 'definition', I meant that my stance is not completely opposite of all that science claims about viruses and how they function. Mainly, only the infectious parts of their theories differ quite a lot from my own.
Not necessarily, no. I was merely pointing out that science claims some viruses are beneficial. I am stating that all viruses are beneficial, even if they at first appear to be infectious. There is a deeper reasoning behind the illusory effect of infectiousness. The same is true for bacteria. If what science claims are true for so-called infectious bacteria, I'd be dead or always sick from consuming raw meat and animal foods. But in 16 years, it has never occurred, and I have only gotten healthier from those foods.
So, I am stating that their infectiousness theories are far more open to interpretation than the isolation/purification of viruses themselves, which is purely a mechanical process.
What they claim as infectious viruses are actually the ones that do the work in dissolving compounds. However, the modes of function of viruses, as appearing in the body itself, are quite different in nature to those in culture, as it is with many entities placed outside the body.
You are getting close! The ‘No Virus’ camp believes there is NO SUCH THING as viruses. Doesn’t matter if pathogenic or non-pathogenic is used in their definition if they claim they do not exist at all! Pretty simple. (In your last reply you also switched from the ‘No Virus’ camp to Virology which are not one and the same.)
Right, and I don't think people who have not extensively studied who I am talking about will admit this because they do not know what they really believe.
I really don't get from Cohen's talks (including this clip) that he literally does not think there is a particle that we can call a "virus." I get that he thinks they are not contagious. He talks about the particles that are being referring to as "virus" in many different videos. I get that his point is that they do not cause illness. I also get that these same particles somehow seem to be present even when using the standard virological protocol to identify "viruses", even when no actual human sample is used in the process. So, yes there are particles. I don't see that he is disputing that there are particles. I get that he's saying that they are not contagious. So the "virus" in terms of the medical establishments' understanding as that of a particle that infects the body from outside and thus causes illness... that "virus" does not exist, is the point. I like your book and your audio recordings, but I think you're misunderstanding just a bit what Cohen's real point is here. I really don't think he would argue that there is literally no particle there that is known as a "virus."
But Cowan and Kaufman have yet to acknowledge viruses as any useful entity other than random genetic material. They’ve left a major gap of knowledge. I agree they are saying viruses are not real as a contagion. What Jeff g has done is corner them logically and scientifically
Yes, Todd, you answered the question for me. They are certainly not claiming the existence of any intelligently created particle. And if they are, where is the evidence of it? If this were true, they would have detailed it already—characterizing, naming, and describing its function. There exists no such documentation on their behalf.
If, however, I am somehow mistaken, someone can steer me toward that information.
They are very careful with their phrasing so as to leave it open-ended. Things are inferred without being said definitely. Their audience certainly believe viruses do not exist, and they do not correct them. Therefore, they give their tacit approval.
This also allows them to backtrack and claim they never said it 'officially'. Which, I believe, is where they may eventually be forced to go.
Great observation, “open ended” and “denialism”. What an escape route! I believe the reason the contradictory main stream has to admit there is some entity which acts enzymatically in both the micro/macro, as you say viruses do, just cannot admit it yet due to the industry slight of hand and germ theory deception. It’ll take a 1000 years.
It’s been confirmed by my wife who works for Fischer Scientific that Monkey Pox is the next thing and the driver is the new “qPCR” machines.
Jeff although viruses don’t mutate like bacteria morph, what makes the virus mutate as you say? What has to go on? And if viruses Replicating once out of the cell by the numbers causes detox symptoms from toxicity of certain kinds what makes cyst appear from blunt force trauma…also the bodies own toxicity by products?
The genome of the cell contains all the blueprints for manufacturing proteins. Variants/mutations of viruses occur when cells alter their genomic blueprints by altering snippets of RNA during transcription of the viral genome core. Cells alter their protein creation to accommodate the tissue/environment they reside in. Viruses cannot replicate outside of a host cell.
The reason a trauma will produce cysts is because when tissue is injured or destroyed, it requires the need for white blood cells to rush into the area which helps to initiate the infection and inflammation processes to begin resolving the conflict. Inflammation draws nutrients to the area of damage. This will begin the process of renewing tissue. Dead and/or toxic tissues are engulfed by white cells, which are fat bound, binding with fat to help neutralize them. Those cells begin to push any toxins out through the skin around the wound, or from the wound itself. This is why pus is white—it is mainly fat lipids bound with toxins. Many white cells that do not leave the skin will reenter the body for use once more.
If skin tissue is naturally toxic from poor lifestyle/diet, cells will have to confront this toxicity as tissue is renewed and toxins enter from the tissue into the cellular fluids. These toxins can disrupt the cells' ability to renew and can cause retardation of proper wound healing; scarring, and slow healing.
Non-living entities, like viruses, cannot morph as living organisms are able to. Only living organisms, like bacteria, can engage in readily altering their structure to fit the terrain in which they reside. I call 'viral morphism' the act of a cell altering viral proteins during creation to suit the terrain of the cell that creates them; strains and variants of strains. But after a virus leaves the cell, it cannot be altered, since it has no living functionality to do so.
Excellent I see the light. Thank you. Great stuff!! Are you saying that the damaged tissue in the case of blunt force can cause cell duress within and create a metabolic toxin therefor the body must form a cyst, and are Viruses involved to help push that toxins out? What toxins are they?
The medical web wants to quickly cut it out in fear of infection. They’ve got the whole system bogged down to a gig saw puzzle. Everything seems backward.
Because I literally got to see the inside of my body metabolically changing. I reversed my acidic diet lifestyle while feeling injured in my knee and ankle. I thought my intense pain was structural. I thought I needed a new knee replacement again. But since a mind change, light lymphatic baths and raw egg raw vegetable/ food smoothies I have realized it is mostly all metabolic symptoms as the cause which creates the poor structural environment. Breakthrough.
Yes, basically correct. But it has been my assertion that a specific spike cannot be created by cells since they would have to have the whole blueprint of the virus. It's like trying to put on a roof without first building the walls.
I have said before that the spike is not a spike but is like a toxin in nature that elicits cells to alter their proteins when being synthesized—not that they are producing a spike. So, the mRNA that is chemically bound in a synthetic lipid in the vaccine can enter the cytoplasm (not the nucleus (except Moderna which uses an actual adenovirus tissue) and impart chemicals in order to alter some parts of protein synthesis. In hindsight, many toxins act the same way, causing negative cell and DNA mutations.
How vaccines work in the body:
When a vaccine tissue enters the body, it is treated as foreign debris. The body does not analyze it as its own creation since it came from outside the body and does not have the key to recognizing the DNA/RNA of that tissue. The body initiates an innate immune response and begins to try to cleanse that debris from the body, as it would any other toxin, creating antibodies to regulate the infection. However, the antibodies that are formed in response to this tissue become mutated in the presence of adjuvants/chemicals that are bound with the antigen (tissue). Because of this, antibodies remain mutated for long periods of time (weeks+) as the system is elevated to artificially heightened levels caused by irritation. This loop causes the opening of cell permeability, which allows vaccine toxins to slip into cells more readily where they may affect cell DNA.
The reason vaccines appear to temporarily halt future infection in a population, is because vaccines irritate the body which leads to a cessation of all natural detoxifications that were occurring beforehand. Since the body can only really deal with one major insult at once, it must shift resources over to the newest insult. The same bodily behavior occurs with drugs/stimulants. They irritate the body which leads to a temporary increase in cell activity and energy, but this is not true energy. When that subsides, you have the inevitable down. Vaccines halt detoxifications and prevent the proper reformation of the body by suppressing detoxification.
If people simply allowed their detoxifications to occur, and eat properly during the event, they would strengthen their body. By interrupting those processes, you guarantee the reemergence of detoxifications at a later date where they will be much more severe.
You can surmise that this is why, in part, you have an increase in outbreaks at certain times of the year when climatic conditions signal cells biochemically to dump toxins and begin detoxification.
I remain open to the possibility that there is some component that I am currently missing regarding mRNA. I am still learning about the nature of what they claim mRNA can do.
Please tell us if you know, can, and/or will what convinces you that the physicians in the original two papers reporting a novel coronavirus (n-CoV-19 later renamed as SARS-CoV-2) have carried out the proper investigations for the cause of admission of the patients complaining of respiratory symptoms.
I am referring to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 and,
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
Still waiting for a response. Thank you.
Awesome looking forward!
Jeff, the 'no virus' camp is right.
As in, there is no such thing as a 'virus' defined as a pathogenic particle, which jumps from person to person, and cause a disease.
You are right, and they are right as well.
You are using a completely different definition of a 'virus', than what virologists are using. So in that sense, the 'no virus' camp is 100% correct. There's no such thing.
Now, if you define a virus (like you are doing), as being a defense mechanism of a cell under extreme stress or poisoning, then you may be correct as well.
But they are also correct in what they are claiming.
Virology, in its current form, is wrong. Period.
No, I am not using a completely different definition. I am stating viruses exist and are non-infectious and their actions are a result entirely of the disease process itself, and that they are soap-like solvents with the natural enzymatic ability to dissolve compounds discriminatorily. They do not believe in an intelligent cellularly created entity, so there is absolutely no way that our stances are close to being similar. They do not believe anything as such an intelligent structure exists. Listen to more of what they claim, this time with intent.
And they are not 100% correct, they are not even 50% correct. They are wholly wrong in their claims, in part, because they have no way to explain the vast evidence and characteristics of such particles which exist and can be seen under microscopy and are clearly not mere cell debris.
Here's an interview with Kaufman. The title of the interview is "Andrew Kaufman on viruses not existing" - starting at around minute 13:00.
https://odysee.com/@jermwarfare:2/Andy-Kaufman:53
I agree.
Yes, you are using a different definition for viruses.
Virology claims there are such things are pathogenic viruses, which spread from human to human, infect people, multiply and cause disease.
That definition is NOT like yours AT ALL!
Your definition says they are NOT pathogenic in nature (don't cause disease), and also they don't spread from people to people, they don't infect anyone (they're just products of the cells when they are poisoned).
Literally the first thing on Google, when you type "viruses":
"A virus is an infectious microbe consisting of a segment of nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein coat. A virus cannot replicate alone; instead, it must infect cells and use components of the host cell to make copies of itself."
That is NOT your definition of viruses.
Science also claims there are non-infectious viruses. That definition is broad and generalistic in a sense. When I wrote 'definition', I meant that my stance is not completely opposite of all that science claims about viruses and how they function. Mainly, only the infectious parts of their theories differ quite a lot from my own.
So how about all those pathogenic viruses, that infect people and give diseases, like the flu, SARS, COVID-19, etc?
Do they not exist?
Not necessarily, no. I was merely pointing out that science claims some viruses are beneficial. I am stating that all viruses are beneficial, even if they at first appear to be infectious. There is a deeper reasoning behind the illusory effect of infectiousness. The same is true for bacteria. If what science claims are true for so-called infectious bacteria, I'd be dead or always sick from consuming raw meat and animal foods. But in 16 years, it has never occurred, and I have only gotten healthier from those foods.
So, I am stating that their infectiousness theories are far more open to interpretation than the isolation/purification of viruses themselves, which is purely a mechanical process.
What they claim as infectious viruses are actually the ones that do the work in dissolving compounds. However, the modes of function of viruses, as appearing in the body itself, are quite different in nature to those in culture, as it is with many entities placed outside the body.
You are getting close! The ‘No Virus’ camp believes there is NO SUCH THING as viruses. Doesn’t matter if pathogenic or non-pathogenic is used in their definition if they claim they do not exist at all! Pretty simple. (In your last reply you also switched from the ‘No Virus’ camp to Virology which are not one and the same.)
Right, and I don't think people who have not extensively studied who I am talking about will admit this because they do not know what they really believe.
I really don't get from Cohen's talks (including this clip) that he literally does not think there is a particle that we can call a "virus." I get that he thinks they are not contagious. He talks about the particles that are being referring to as "virus" in many different videos. I get that his point is that they do not cause illness. I also get that these same particles somehow seem to be present even when using the standard virological protocol to identify "viruses", even when no actual human sample is used in the process. So, yes there are particles. I don't see that he is disputing that there are particles. I get that he's saying that they are not contagious. So the "virus" in terms of the medical establishments' understanding as that of a particle that infects the body from outside and thus causes illness... that "virus" does not exist, is the point. I like your book and your audio recordings, but I think you're misunderstanding just a bit what Cohen's real point is here. I really don't think he would argue that there is literally no particle there that is known as a "virus."
But Cowan and Kaufman have yet to acknowledge viruses as any useful entity other than random genetic material. They’ve left a major gap of knowledge. I agree they are saying viruses are not real as a contagion. What Jeff g has done is corner them logically and scientifically
Yes, Todd, you answered the question for me. They are certainly not claiming the existence of any intelligently created particle. And if they are, where is the evidence of it? If this were true, they would have detailed it already—characterizing, naming, and describing its function. There exists no such documentation on their behalf.
If, however, I am somehow mistaken, someone can steer me toward that information.
They are very careful with their phrasing so as to leave it open-ended. Things are inferred without being said definitely. Their audience certainly believe viruses do not exist, and they do not correct them. Therefore, they give their tacit approval.
This also allows them to backtrack and claim they never said it 'officially'. Which, I believe, is where they may eventually be forced to go.
Great observation, “open ended” and “denialism”. What an escape route! I believe the reason the contradictory main stream has to admit there is some entity which acts enzymatically in both the micro/macro, as you say viruses do, just cannot admit it yet due to the industry slight of hand and germ theory deception. It’ll take a 1000 years.
It’s been confirmed by my wife who works for Fischer Scientific that Monkey Pox is the next thing and the driver is the new “qPCR” machines.
Jeff although viruses don’t mutate like bacteria morph, what makes the virus mutate as you say? What has to go on? And if viruses Replicating once out of the cell by the numbers causes detox symptoms from toxicity of certain kinds what makes cyst appear from blunt force trauma…also the bodies own toxicity by products?
Thank you!
The genome of the cell contains all the blueprints for manufacturing proteins. Variants/mutations of viruses occur when cells alter their genomic blueprints by altering snippets of RNA during transcription of the viral genome core. Cells alter their protein creation to accommodate the tissue/environment they reside in. Viruses cannot replicate outside of a host cell.
The reason a trauma will produce cysts is because when tissue is injured or destroyed, it requires the need for white blood cells to rush into the area which helps to initiate the infection and inflammation processes to begin resolving the conflict. Inflammation draws nutrients to the area of damage. This will begin the process of renewing tissue. Dead and/or toxic tissues are engulfed by white cells, which are fat bound, binding with fat to help neutralize them. Those cells begin to push any toxins out through the skin around the wound, or from the wound itself. This is why pus is white—it is mainly fat lipids bound with toxins. Many white cells that do not leave the skin will reenter the body for use once more.
If skin tissue is naturally toxic from poor lifestyle/diet, cells will have to confront this toxicity as tissue is renewed and toxins enter from the tissue into the cellular fluids. These toxins can disrupt the cells' ability to renew and can cause retardation of proper wound healing; scarring, and slow healing.
Well, yes. Correction: Viruses cannot replicate themselves. Cells must replicate viruses. Viruses cannot change their form after creation.
Non-living entities, like viruses, cannot morph as living organisms are able to. Only living organisms, like bacteria, can engage in readily altering their structure to fit the terrain in which they reside. I call 'viral morphism' the act of a cell altering viral proteins during creation to suit the terrain of the cell that creates them; strains and variants of strains. But after a virus leaves the cell, it cannot be altered, since it has no living functionality to do so.
Excellent I see the light. Thank you. Great stuff!! Are you saying that the damaged tissue in the case of blunt force can cause cell duress within and create a metabolic toxin therefor the body must form a cyst, and are Viruses involved to help push that toxins out? What toxins are they?
The medical web wants to quickly cut it out in fear of infection. They’ve got the whole system bogged down to a gig saw puzzle. Everything seems backward.
Because I literally got to see the inside of my body metabolically changing. I reversed my acidic diet lifestyle while feeling injured in my knee and ankle. I thought my intense pain was structural. I thought I needed a new knee replacement again. But since a mind change, light lymphatic baths and raw egg raw vegetable/ food smoothies I have realized it is mostly all metabolic symptoms as the cause which creates the poor structural environment. Breakthrough.
Yes, basically correct. But it has been my assertion that a specific spike cannot be created by cells since they would have to have the whole blueprint of the virus. It's like trying to put on a roof without first building the walls.
I have said before that the spike is not a spike but is like a toxin in nature that elicits cells to alter their proteins when being synthesized—not that they are producing a spike. So, the mRNA that is chemically bound in a synthetic lipid in the vaccine can enter the cytoplasm (not the nucleus (except Moderna which uses an actual adenovirus tissue) and impart chemicals in order to alter some parts of protein synthesis. In hindsight, many toxins act the same way, causing negative cell and DNA mutations.
How vaccines work in the body:
When a vaccine tissue enters the body, it is treated as foreign debris. The body does not analyze it as its own creation since it came from outside the body and does not have the key to recognizing the DNA/RNA of that tissue. The body initiates an innate immune response and begins to try to cleanse that debris from the body, as it would any other toxin, creating antibodies to regulate the infection. However, the antibodies that are formed in response to this tissue become mutated in the presence of adjuvants/chemicals that are bound with the antigen (tissue). Because of this, antibodies remain mutated for long periods of time (weeks+) as the system is elevated to artificially heightened levels caused by irritation. This loop causes the opening of cell permeability, which allows vaccine toxins to slip into cells more readily where they may affect cell DNA.
The reason vaccines appear to temporarily halt future infection in a population, is because vaccines irritate the body which leads to a cessation of all natural detoxifications that were occurring beforehand. Since the body can only really deal with one major insult at once, it must shift resources over to the newest insult. The same bodily behavior occurs with drugs/stimulants. They irritate the body which leads to a temporary increase in cell activity and energy, but this is not true energy. When that subsides, you have the inevitable down. Vaccines halt detoxifications and prevent the proper reformation of the body by suppressing detoxification.
If people simply allowed their detoxifications to occur, and eat properly during the event, they would strengthen their body. By interrupting those processes, you guarantee the reemergence of detoxifications at a later date where they will be much more severe.
You can surmise that this is why, in part, you have an increase in outbreaks at certain times of the year when climatic conditions signal cells biochemically to dump toxins and begin detoxification.
I remain open to the possibility that there is some component that I am currently missing regarding mRNA. I am still learning about the nature of what they claim mRNA can do.