Todd asks, Jeff, why has Antoine Bechamp or Gaston Naessens (somatids) not prescribed to viruses as a non-living solvents as separate entities from the living pleamorphic organisms that just change depending on the environment in which they’re in? They seem to adhere to the idea that viruses are a continuous microbe not different.
Thanks Jeff. I understand and think the idea of viruses as solvents makes sense and can see the deception happening in the main stream as far as how viruses enter the body and how they enter cells, is a lie. It would be nice to see others who have his same ideas. Is there any other scientists that believe something, not exactly the same but similar? I’m trying to figure out where your stream of knowledge from the past comes from and why you are the only one in the world that thinks this way. It must be lonely!
What was exactly happening in that video where we were told it was thousands of viruses bursting out of a cell? I presume it was the process of Lysis you described?
As far as the raw milk the fear mongering campaign exists for sure but there is something making the cows sick and if it’s not contagion then it’s a toxin. What toxin?
In this post you claim that “the claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence.”
But in your ‘Viral Misconceptions’ article you hailed about the work of Rife, claiming otherwise, and then even quoting Sean Montgomery from the Rife Research Group saying:
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
… He could sustain the specimen, and by not killing it, he was able to use this method to achieve extreme magnification, extreme resolution, and he was able to see his specimens in a natural state. So he could see viruses going through their processes, which you can see with an optical microscope, but it was his ability to see viruses, which were in a 'living' state, that was his main innovation, and all his other inventions."
So which one is it? And what made you change your stance?
This is quite frustrating to read this article and then read your articles on viruses. They’re virtual opposites. Virus causing cancers? Viruses have got to be the most misunderstood aspect of the human body. Are they uncovering the mechanisms in vitro only? Because as we know from studying microscopes nothing is available today which allows us to view the virus and cell as it is happening in the body in real time.
Scientists Uncover Mechanism Viruses Use to Cause Cancer
Thanks Jeff. I understand and think the idea of viruses as solvents makes sense and can see the deception happening in the main stream as far as how viruses enter the body and how they enter cells, is a lie. It would be nice to see others who have his same ideas. Is there any other scientists that believe something, not exactly the same but similar? I’m trying to figure out where your stream of knowledge from the past comes from and why you are the only one in the world that thinks this way. It must be lonely!
What was exactly happening in that video where we were told it was thousands of viruses bursting out of a cell? I presume it was the process of Lysis you described?
As far as the raw milk the fear mongering campaign exists for sure but there is something making the cows sick and if it’s not contagion then it’s a toxin. What toxin?
In this post you claim that “the claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence.”
But in your ‘Viral Misconceptions’ article you hailed about the work of Rife, claiming otherwise, and then even quoting Sean Montgomery from the Rife Research Group saying:
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
… He could sustain the specimen, and by not killing it, he was able to use this method to achieve extreme magnification, extreme resolution, and he was able to see his specimens in a natural state. So he could see viruses going through their processes, which you can see with an optical microscope, but it was his ability to see viruses, which were in a 'living' state, that was his main innovation, and all his other inventions."
So which one is it? And what made you change your stance?
This is quite frustrating to read this article and then read your articles on viruses. They’re virtual opposites. Virus causing cancers? Viruses have got to be the most misunderstood aspect of the human body. Are they uncovering the mechanisms in vitro only? Because as we know from studying microscopes nothing is available today which allows us to view the virus and cell as it is happening in the body in real time.
Scientists Uncover Mechanism Viruses Use to Cause Cancer
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/scientists-uncover-mechanism-viruses-use-to-cause-cancer-5607511?utm_medium=app&c=share_pos3&pid=iOS_app_share&utm_source=iOS_app_share