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.
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."
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.
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."