Thank you for the clarification of structure/appearance between exosomes, enveloped & non-enveloped viruses, even ‘defective’ viruses! Pretty cool that these lil structures help keep us more efficient as our bodies try to maintain homeostasis... Understanding this sort of complexity is many times intellectually challenging and crazy that many are not even aware; thank you for your ongoing research to expose and open up understanding ... We are wonderfully made!
It seems to me that by process of elimination, the Contagion Theory has to fall before so-called pathogenic diseases can be seen as a problem of toxic overload. It wasn't until widespread practice of public sanitation that pathogenic diseases went into decline. It's just as important for the body to keep itself free of toxic materials.
There is a very simple test that disproves the Contagion Theory based on the scientific method. Select a statistically significant group of infected and healthy subjects. Have the infected subjects try to infect the healthy subjects by breathing, sneezing, spiting, tongue kissing or any other exchange of bodily fluids that comes to mind. The result is always the same. The healthy subjects remain uninfected. See "Virus Mania".
Of course such a test will never emerge into public consciousness. Too much money is riding on the official narrative.
Next, to learn, if possible, which disease states/conditions of the body cause our cells to make the more slowly replicating enveloped viruses versus the non-enveloped ones... how does the body know which kind of virus it needs? Or does it matter?
Jeff, I am new to your newsletter and audios. From what I understand, you believe viruses exists inside of us but they are not contagious. I will now ask a question that someone else asked you on another newsletter of yours (but, for whatever reason, you didn't answer that person). Here is the question:
You said you believe viruses exist. What about those pathogenic viruses, that infect people and make people sick, like the flu, SARS, COVID-19, etc? Do they exist? If so, are they making people sick?
Bacteriophages aren't viruses? And you conclude that based on what evidence? You guys just change definitions as you see fit when exposed, but the moment I do even the smallest refining of a term, you all come out of the woodwork.
Ironically, you believe exosomes can be shown to exist, yet exosomes are far more difficult to differentiate between cell debris than something such as a non-enveloped virus, which is clearly differentiated.
The scientific method has been applied to viruses since they were discovered. I suggest you go study that for yourself and stop pretending to know things you do not really know. As well, you have added numerous criteria to your 'scientific method'.
You, Michael S., who is actively working alongside Massey and others in the "Gang", simply cannot handle the facts and would never be convinced of any evidence of existence. You also conflate existence with pathogenicity to try to prove your point, which are two different observations—the latter being much more open to interpretation.
I have already proven you and your cohort wrong in spades. Learn to read the evidence. I am already well versed in your "evidence" for the erroneous claims of viruses not being real.
Your claim of pseudoscience is laughable, considering it is you and the "Gang" who push pseudoscience day in and day out, and provably so I might add. Such a baseless claim is simply you inverting reality to try to convince the sheeple of the world that you have merit when you have none whatsoever.
You have no foundation in truth, and as a result, you will fail in your agenda.
You're basically just repeating the same comment you made before.
Per your Wiki source:
"There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order."
Source: "The scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process' (AAAS 2000:18)."
And the scheme of the main 4 point of the method can be branched out.
Per your Wiki source:
"While this schema outlines a typical hypothesis/testing method, many philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, including Paul Feyerabend, claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways that science is actually practiced."
When you say "scientific method", you are actually adding your own strict criteria and loopholes so that the scientific method can never successfully be met. This is evident in the "No Virus Challenge" criteria set. As well, you are defining the scientific method too strictly. As stated, the scientific method is a set of principles that are in flux in accordance with the subject matter itself.
Your numbers 4 and 5 require other labs to verify results. This may be fine but is not really part of the "scientific method" as defined and is something you have tacked on. In that case, why not verify it through 3 labs, or even 4, and so on?
In other words, you can add whatever criteria you deem necessary at any time, whether it's really necessary or not, and you claim other researchers must follow it to a tee. In actuality, the true scientific method is to constantly retest findings before making conclusions. This may go on for many years before a reliable conclusion can be drawn, and even then, all possible data does not have to be available to both confirm and infer major parts of a theory, and this can take place early on.
Another process you left out that is routinely referred to by virus deniers as being a part of the "scientific method", is the purification of a sample taken from a host, which you all claim has never been done.
But alas, it must have been done in order to find cultured and/or in-vivo viruses (purified directly from a host sample), such as bacteriophages and other such viruses, including exosomes, which you have admitted exist. If not, there would exist no micrographs of these entities with clearly defined structures.
And you did not answer my question. What are bacteriophages?
The control experiments are important though. That must be done to establish that something is a pathogen. The change with virus mixture causes more cytopathic effects than without the virus mixture.
If virologists are not doing this, then that is not good science. I'm not saying they are not in some cases, haven't read every paper. But some of them don't do controls.
I described the definition of the scientific method in my last reply. As stated, it is not as strict as you all make it out to be and is a set of principles.
"Does it include a hypothesis, experiments, control experiments, repeatability, and reproduciblity?"
It can. My point apparently went over your head. You claim the scientific method must have those criteria you listed, and in reality, all of those criteria have been met throughout the years. However, you do not believe they have whatsoever, for erroneous reasons. Therefore, you must add to or alter basic definitions of terms and meanings used in the scientific process (method) to try to prove non-existence of something that has already been proven to exist—something which has substantial documented evidence for its existence (not SARS-CoV-2, but all natural past viruses).
This is abundantly clear in the ideology of virus deniers and their lack of acceptance for any actual evidence that goes against their preconceived notions of everything being a lie.
Then, you try to prove your position by claiming pathogenicity and provability of existence itself are one and the same, but they are not. (i.e., that if one is false, then the other is false also.)
"Christianity, Islam, & Judaism were created and used for mind control to accept the enslavement of humans which is being perpetrated onto us via COVID controls."
"Virology is a religion including blood sacrifice rituals. Why do virologist use Fetal Bovine Serum? Is it because it is a part of the blood sacrifice ritual of aborting cow fetus and draining the blood of the cows?"
You guys are confused all the way around. If you cannot even determine why fetal bovine serum is used, you are hopeless.
Thank you for the clarification of structure/appearance between exosomes, enveloped & non-enveloped viruses, even ‘defective’ viruses! Pretty cool that these lil structures help keep us more efficient as our bodies try to maintain homeostasis... Understanding this sort of complexity is many times intellectually challenging and crazy that many are not even aware; thank you for your ongoing research to expose and open up understanding ... We are wonderfully made!
It seems to me that by process of elimination, the Contagion Theory has to fall before so-called pathogenic diseases can be seen as a problem of toxic overload. It wasn't until widespread practice of public sanitation that pathogenic diseases went into decline. It's just as important for the body to keep itself free of toxic materials.
There is a very simple test that disproves the Contagion Theory based on the scientific method. Select a statistically significant group of infected and healthy subjects. Have the infected subjects try to infect the healthy subjects by breathing, sneezing, spiting, tongue kissing or any other exchange of bodily fluids that comes to mind. The result is always the same. The healthy subjects remain uninfected. See "Virus Mania".
Of course such a test will never emerge into public consciousness. Too much money is riding on the official narrative.
Next, to learn, if possible, which disease states/conditions of the body cause our cells to make the more slowly replicating enveloped viruses versus the non-enveloped ones... how does the body know which kind of virus it needs? Or does it matter?
Jeff, I am new to your newsletter and audios. From what I understand, you believe viruses exists inside of us but they are not contagious. I will now ask a question that someone else asked you on another newsletter of yours (but, for whatever reason, you didn't answer that person). Here is the question:
You said you believe viruses exist. What about those pathogenic viruses, that infect people and make people sick, like the flu, SARS, COVID-19, etc? Do they exist? If so, are they making people sick?
Bacteriophages aren't viruses? And you conclude that based on what evidence? You guys just change definitions as you see fit when exposed, but the moment I do even the smallest refining of a term, you all come out of the woodwork.
Ironically, you believe exosomes can be shown to exist, yet exosomes are far more difficult to differentiate between cell debris than something such as a non-enveloped virus, which is clearly differentiated.
The scientific method has been applied to viruses since they were discovered. I suggest you go study that for yourself and stop pretending to know things you do not really know. As well, you have added numerous criteria to your 'scientific method'.
You, Michael S., who is actively working alongside Massey and others in the "Gang", simply cannot handle the facts and would never be convinced of any evidence of existence. You also conflate existence with pathogenicity to try to prove your point, which are two different observations—the latter being much more open to interpretation.
I have already proven you and your cohort wrong in spades. Learn to read the evidence. I am already well versed in your "evidence" for the erroneous claims of viruses not being real.
Your claim of pseudoscience is laughable, considering it is you and the "Gang" who push pseudoscience day in and day out, and provably so I might add. Such a baseless claim is simply you inverting reality to try to convince the sheeple of the world that you have merit when you have none whatsoever.
You have no foundation in truth, and as a result, you will fail in your agenda.
You're basically just repeating the same comment you made before.
Per your Wiki source:
"There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order."
Source: "The scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process' (AAAS 2000:18)."
And the scheme of the main 4 point of the method can be branched out.
Per your Wiki source:
"While this schema outlines a typical hypothesis/testing method, many philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, including Paul Feyerabend, claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways that science is actually practiced."
When you say "scientific method", you are actually adding your own strict criteria and loopholes so that the scientific method can never successfully be met. This is evident in the "No Virus Challenge" criteria set. As well, you are defining the scientific method too strictly. As stated, the scientific method is a set of principles that are in flux in accordance with the subject matter itself.
Your numbers 4 and 5 require other labs to verify results. This may be fine but is not really part of the "scientific method" as defined and is something you have tacked on. In that case, why not verify it through 3 labs, or even 4, and so on?
In other words, you can add whatever criteria you deem necessary at any time, whether it's really necessary or not, and you claim other researchers must follow it to a tee. In actuality, the true scientific method is to constantly retest findings before making conclusions. This may go on for many years before a reliable conclusion can be drawn, and even then, all possible data does not have to be available to both confirm and infer major parts of a theory, and this can take place early on.
Another process you left out that is routinely referred to by virus deniers as being a part of the "scientific method", is the purification of a sample taken from a host, which you all claim has never been done.
But alas, it must have been done in order to find cultured and/or in-vivo viruses (purified directly from a host sample), such as bacteriophages and other such viruses, including exosomes, which you have admitted exist. If not, there would exist no micrographs of these entities with clearly defined structures.
And you did not answer my question. What are bacteriophages?
The control experiments are important though. That must be done to establish that something is a pathogen. The change with virus mixture causes more cytopathic effects than without the virus mixture.
If virologists are not doing this, then that is not good science. I'm not saying they are not in some cases, haven't read every paper. But some of them don't do controls.
I described the definition of the scientific method in my last reply. As stated, it is not as strict as you all make it out to be and is a set of principles.
"Does it include a hypothesis, experiments, control experiments, repeatability, and reproduciblity?"
It can. My point apparently went over your head. You claim the scientific method must have those criteria you listed, and in reality, all of those criteria have been met throughout the years. However, you do not believe they have whatsoever, for erroneous reasons. Therefore, you must add to or alter basic definitions of terms and meanings used in the scientific process (method) to try to prove non-existence of something that has already been proven to exist—something which has substantial documented evidence for its existence (not SARS-CoV-2, but all natural past viruses).
This is abundantly clear in the ideology of virus deniers and their lack of acceptance for any actual evidence that goes against their preconceived notions of everything being a lie.
Then, you try to prove your position by claiming pathogenicity and provability of existence itself are one and the same, but they are not. (i.e., that if one is false, then the other is false also.)
Do you believe the earth is flat?
Your unhinged religious-themed comments on Stone's blog says everything anyone would need to know about you. You are an unhinged bigot, period. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/26/the-virus-of-sin/#comment-4600
Some of your commentary:
"Christianity, Islam, & Judaism were created and used for mind control to accept the enslavement of humans which is being perpetrated onto us via COVID controls."
"Virology is a religion including blood sacrifice rituals. Why do virologist use Fetal Bovine Serum? Is it because it is a part of the blood sacrifice ritual of aborting cow fetus and draining the blood of the cows?"
You guys are confused all the way around. If you cannot even determine why fetal bovine serum is used, you are hopeless.