Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marty Chuzzle's avatar

I'm amused by their insistence on abiding strictly by dictionary definitions! I looked up bacteriophage in the dictionary and it says "a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it." I wonder if they keep several dictionaries around so they can select the definition that best suits their purpose?

Expand full comment
Mark Arrington's avatar

As the Baileys and many others have written and lectured, there's no scientific evidence. Virology theories are full of contradictions. In one of the debates I read a virologist admitted that under electron microscopes (which are not direct pictures and no have capability of video or showing movement so we can't observe a process) exosomes are indistinguishable from viruses. Some virologists still say viruses are alive, a contradiction to basic biology. The "discovery" (there was no discovery) of the tobacco mosaic virus doesn't fit any definition of science - it was a theory. Direct observation IS sensory observation - inference is theory . Censorship by Google is critically important to understanding all topics - they admitted to censoring doctors and scientists going against the government's covid narrative. What I read about the editor of The Lancet is quoted in various books (inaccuracies means bad science). Your bio says you have an interest in history and politics, so I assume you're aware of the Rockefeller monopolizing medical education since the start of the 20th century.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts