For over three years, a group of grifters has been trying to convince a significant part of the public that viruses are not real, and have been making quite a bit of money fooling gullible people in doing so.
The only criticism from the no-virus crowd was that this mosaic disease was rare among plants. So instead of accepting the existence of viruses, they shift the goal post and claim that it is not often related to diseases.
Similar to telling that the flu-virus does not exist, because it only is deadly for old and weak people that also lack vitamin-D. What they are describing is the conditions for a virus to be destructive, instead of the existence of the virus. And then claim that only the conditions are the reason for the disease.
Thank you for your informative comment. I don't agree that viruses are inherently contagious, if that's what you were suggesting, but I do agree with other aspects of your writing. Your last point is accurate and aligns with what I have previously discussed. If the existence of even a single virus can be proven, their entire argument falls apart. Whether or not viruses are contagious becomes irrelevant in this context when considering their actual existence.
What does "contagious" even mean? It might be good to get a better definition.
That a virus is multiplying, beats the immune system and may be able to get outside that organism? Or that a virus is also finding a way to another organism. Find a way to beat also that immune system. Can invade many of its cells. Is able to multiply. And is also able to cause some kind of disease.
Do the immune systems and cells got to have certain weaknesses? Do the organisms need to have intimate physical contact with each other? Does the virus die in open air or in the sun-light?
The functioning of a virus depends very much on the circumstances. It usually hijacks very specific cellular signals (and specific cellular functions). Which are often not available. Also certain conditions are necessary for a lot of viruses to be able to cause some kind of negative health effect. Usually related to food and health. Often the inflammation of the immune system is causing what we call "disease".
All these things (and probably more) need to be considered if we want to discus viruses and their possible "diseases" more exact. And the spreading of such a disease.
From dr Wolfgang Wodarg I learned that there are so many international flights from and to everywhere, that everything is spreading within a day anyway. This means that most people are already immune against the latest viruses. In the beginning of the "pandemic" the people that were most in contact with other people had the smallest chance to get very sick. And the same was for people in 3rd world countries. The immune system needs training.
Contagious, in this sense, refers to a particle making its way from one body to another and being the sole cause of disease. What many do not understand is that viruses activate only when specific receptors of cells are present, allowing the virus to enter the cell. This is an important factor in understanding viruses. Therefore, it is true to say that viruses usually only enter weak cells that present surface receptor proteins due to stress. I also do not like the word "hijack" because it implies a destructive nature, when it is symbiosis with the cell.
Those who have developed coronavirus can experience multiple instances of it. Immunity is a separate subject. I will not disagree that building up adaptability is real, as seen in the case of living bacteria. However, viruses are non-living and cannot act without cellular authority, as I mentioned earlier.
What I contend is that viruses, as a whole, can all potentially become a problem when cells exhibit enough stress signals to elicit widespread replication of viral proteins, resulting in an influx of viruses into the body's fluids. In individuals with compromised health, this can lead to death. Viruses act as enzymes that break down cell membranes and destroy cells, further exacerbating the situation. The body must eliminate waste debris from these breakdown processes, or it will succumb to systemic toxicity.
That is why bacterial illnesses are preferable to viral illnesses. Bacteria have the ability to consume and process material, break it down through digestion, house it, and excrete it in a smaller form than it took in. Viruses, on the other hand, can only dilute toxins using water (hydrolysis), resulting in a toxic mess that circulates freely in the blood. This complicates the cleanup process for white blood cells and phagocytic cells, leading to problems.
Science: to ask the question "why"? But to be rewarded with answers, there is first demanded a purity of heart and a humility of soul where both perspiration and inspiration will be par for the course and there will be no quick answers -but that`s nature for you.
Jeff, please excuse me, as i am, admitidly, just a scientific layman. However, I'm pretty certian that both you and the "No virus" crowd both agree that whatever you are defining as a virus, is not contagious. The No Virus crowd also agree that there are processes that happen within the body that are all internal, that is the bodies way of clearing out decaying cells etc. Your argument is that viruses do exist, but your definition of a virus does not match that of the generally accepted definition of a virus amongst mainstream virologists, as i'm pretty certian they believe viruses are spread from person to person. Therefore, have you not just redefined the term "virus", and are you therefor not denying that viruses (as they are generally accepted) exist yourself, albeit in a different way to the "No Virus" crowd. Your arguments to me, seem pretty well alligned. I ask this question in good faith, and hope it has come across that way.
Hi Rob, I've addressed this many times in the past. I and 'No-Virus' do not share the same principles.
1. 'No-Virus' claims viruses do not exist. If viruses do not exist, then they cannot be contagious.
2. In contrast, I affirm the existence of viruses and acknowledge their significance alongside diseases and for playing vital roles in living organisms and ecosystems.
3. My definition of a virus closely aligns with the mainstream definition, with the exception of the exclusion of the pathogenic clause, which is present in certain definitions. Otherwise, the fundamental aspects remain unchanged.
Seminars mainly. Tens of thousands per seminar in fact. That would be fine if they were presenting legitimate scientific evidence, but that is hardly the case. They present some truths, and the rest is patently absurd.
I'll refrain from labeling them as cultists when their behavior ceases to resemble that of a cult, which involves incessantly defending their beliefs in aggressive ways across various platforms. Their promotion of expensive, pseudoscientific products, despite knowing their lack of validity, is particularly egregious. Drawing an analogy between selling innocuous items like a book or paid subscriptions and peddling exorbitantly priced items like a $1000 shower head is absurd. It is no comparison to their scheme of selling $16,000 worth of tickets monthly for streams where they propagate ludicrous false claims such as the non-existence of viruses and cells, and so many more false claims.
"The no-virus crowd speaks apples, you are speaking oranges. Just maybe that is the reason they are not interested in a debate with you?"
Perhaps their reluctance to engage in debate stems from previous debates where their deceitful tactics and manipulation of scientific facts have been exposed, particularly evident on platforms like Substack. They fabricate their own 'science' to suit their narrative and peddle it as truth to their followers. Your attempt to align with their perspective by asserting that I misuse the term "virus" mirrors their tactics. Contrary to your claim, I adhere to the basic definition of viruses as obligate intercellular parasites. I merely emphasize that viruses, while often associated with disease, are not the sole causative agents of disease.
To claim viruses do not exist is pure folly and asinine.
As "virus" is a complex term that spans various virus types, some called pathogenic and others not, there isn't a singular, official definition for it. The diversity among viruses means it is difficult to establish a single, all-encompassing definition. Merely referring to a single definition of "virus" that more closely suits your agenda, without taking these factors into account, means you do not care about the truth of your claim.
Clearly, you are unaware of the scientific literature on this topic, and you believe that I am making this claim without any substantiation. The scientific literature in virology is replete with evidence showcasing the benefits of viruses in ecology, the human body, and other living animals and plants.
I won't be providing links as I have written articles on my Substack page. Refer to them for further information.
Dawn Lester and David Parker have already come out early on, dismissing me on this subject because I acknowledge the existence of viruses. I don't believe they are outright untruthful; rather, I think they, like you, are misled. Lying would involve disregarding the evidence and persistently restating the same falsehoods after the fact, which has been the case in every debate the highest members of 'No-Virus' have engaged in. The term "slanderous" is often used by 'No-Virus' when things become uncomfortably close to the truth. If you can find any quotes from me being "slanderous", please provide them.
'No-Virus' tend to launch vicious attacks on everyone and then complain of 'slander' when called out on it. When someone does challenge them, they are met with multiple attacks from members who deny the existence of viruses. As for me, I couldn't care less about it. Their true intentions have been evident for a long time. I won't be intimidated by a group of flat-earthers who deny established scientific facts.
"I have been in this field just 4 years now and all the players I know of, are all very calm, humble, non-aggressive."
Yes, you're right. People like Christine Massey are so humble. In the first debate with Mikovits, Kaufman was literally kicked out of the debate by the moderator for talking over Judy and being very rude. You can look that up yourself. But really, I don't consider either person to be a source of accurate information whatsoever.
Like most members of 'No-Virus', 'Shaz Bacchus' resorted to lashing out with attacks because he couldn't handle the truth and is now permanently banned from commenting.
To address some of the false claims by 'Shaz Bacchus':
1. The first debate between Judy and Andrew is readily available online, and anyone can verify my claims.
2. I have never stated that any specific person refused to debate me; that is a false claim by 'Shaz Bacchus'. However, I have mentioned in multiple articles that I am open to debating any prominent member of 'No-Virus' via video, yet none have accepted my offer, despite reading and commenting on my articles. I have already debated several individuals from 'No-Virus' here on Substack, and they have all been decisively defeated.
The entire point about proteins was that you are attempting to dismantle virology without understanding the basic process of how proteins are made. That is very relevant to what you're attempting to do because you do not understand the basics of biology. If you do not understand the basics, you cannot legitimately call it a fraud.
Why should anyone trust your conclusions when you do not understand the core basics of cellular biology and how proteins are produced by cells?
You and the rest of No-Virus consistently lack honesty, spreading falsehoods despite repeated corrections since 2020. Your primary motive appears to be financial gain, catering to a conspiratorial Substack fanbase that supports you through donations and subscriptions. Genuine integrity is notably absent in your actions.
The collective of No-Virus deliberately shapes their message to exploit their audience's basest instincts, promoting absurd anti-science conspiracy theories and providing a haven for trolls, bigots, racists, and those who financially contribute to their cause. Additionally, numerous prominent members profit from the sale of deceptive snake oil products. Given these circumstances, categorizing No-Virus as a scam is more than justified.
Your comments make no sense in light of what you're replying to. My comment about the facts of No-Virus being a group of dishonest people, is just that—a fact. If you cannot accept this fact, this is not the page for you, and I suggest you go find someone that will lie to you.
Virus models are constructed using real-world data. Preexisting RNA is used to amplify itself into logical sequences that can only fit together one way. Those who lack an understanding of the underlying science may mistakenly believe that these models are fabricated. However, at this stage, there is no justification for these individuals to persist in perpetuating this falsehood. If they have not learned the basic processes of RNA sequencing in 4 years, that is their problem.
No, to your first sentence, that is not accurate. You can take viral RNA and sequence it, and it will establish a tangible full sequence that could never be random. Through that process, you can verify the sequence of the virus being studied by amplifying specific RNA parts of the virus. Viral sequencing is actually quite simple in hindsight, despite its deeper complexities. Viruses are not very complex in their RNA, unlike the full genomes of animals, which previously took years to sequence due to technological limitations. Coronaviruses are one of the simplest viruses to sequence because they have small genomes.
The computer model of SARS-CoV-2 is merely a model of a particular type of SARS-CoV. Yes, it is accurate, and it is real. However, that does not mean that same initial 'proxy' virus is being transmitted to everyone globally. Each time a virus is replicated, it's sequence changes minutely when observed. Thus, many variants have been found.
Determining the origin of RNA from a virus involves various investigative methods and techniques.
Due to better technology we learn more about viruses than before. And we know better how they work and how they affect living organisms.
Mind-blowing Discoveries About Viruses and Their Relationship With Us -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x78ip5xhOA
Viruses can also help us. Viruses that are bigger than bacteria. Animals that eat viruses.
Besides viruses we also have even smaller Viroids and Obelisks. -> https://anandamide.substack.com/p/viroids-and-obelisks
A well researched virus is the tobacco mosaic virus. Here is a video where you can actually see how they spread. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0mohioBMxE&t=17s
The only criticism from the no-virus crowd was that this mosaic disease was rare among plants. So instead of accepting the existence of viruses, they shift the goal post and claim that it is not often related to diseases.
Similar to telling that the flu-virus does not exist, because it only is deadly for old and weak people that also lack vitamin-D. What they are describing is the conditions for a virus to be destructive, instead of the existence of the virus. And then claim that only the conditions are the reason for the disease.
Thank you for your informative comment. I don't agree that viruses are inherently contagious, if that's what you were suggesting, but I do agree with other aspects of your writing. Your last point is accurate and aligns with what I have previously discussed. If the existence of even a single virus can be proven, their entire argument falls apart. Whether or not viruses are contagious becomes irrelevant in this context when considering their actual existence.
What does "contagious" even mean? It might be good to get a better definition.
That a virus is multiplying, beats the immune system and may be able to get outside that organism? Or that a virus is also finding a way to another organism. Find a way to beat also that immune system. Can invade many of its cells. Is able to multiply. And is also able to cause some kind of disease.
Do the immune systems and cells got to have certain weaknesses? Do the organisms need to have intimate physical contact with each other? Does the virus die in open air or in the sun-light?
The functioning of a virus depends very much on the circumstances. It usually hijacks very specific cellular signals (and specific cellular functions). Which are often not available. Also certain conditions are necessary for a lot of viruses to be able to cause some kind of negative health effect. Usually related to food and health. Often the inflammation of the immune system is causing what we call "disease".
All these things (and probably more) need to be considered if we want to discus viruses and their possible "diseases" more exact. And the spreading of such a disease.
From dr Wolfgang Wodarg I learned that there are so many international flights from and to everywhere, that everything is spreading within a day anyway. This means that most people are already immune against the latest viruses. In the beginning of the "pandemic" the people that were most in contact with other people had the smallest chance to get very sick. And the same was for people in 3rd world countries. The immune system needs training.
Contagious, in this sense, refers to a particle making its way from one body to another and being the sole cause of disease. What many do not understand is that viruses activate only when specific receptors of cells are present, allowing the virus to enter the cell. This is an important factor in understanding viruses. Therefore, it is true to say that viruses usually only enter weak cells that present surface receptor proteins due to stress. I also do not like the word "hijack" because it implies a destructive nature, when it is symbiosis with the cell.
Those who have developed coronavirus can experience multiple instances of it. Immunity is a separate subject. I will not disagree that building up adaptability is real, as seen in the case of living bacteria. However, viruses are non-living and cannot act without cellular authority, as I mentioned earlier.
What I contend is that viruses, as a whole, can all potentially become a problem when cells exhibit enough stress signals to elicit widespread replication of viral proteins, resulting in an influx of viruses into the body's fluids. In individuals with compromised health, this can lead to death. Viruses act as enzymes that break down cell membranes and destroy cells, further exacerbating the situation. The body must eliminate waste debris from these breakdown processes, or it will succumb to systemic toxicity.
That is why bacterial illnesses are preferable to viral illnesses. Bacteria have the ability to consume and process material, break it down through digestion, house it, and excrete it in a smaller form than it took in. Viruses, on the other hand, can only dilute toxins using water (hydrolysis), resulting in a toxic mess that circulates freely in the blood. This complicates the cleanup process for white blood cells and phagocytic cells, leading to problems.
Science: to ask the question "why"? But to be rewarded with answers, there is first demanded a purity of heart and a humility of soul where both perspiration and inspiration will be par for the course and there will be no quick answers -but that`s nature for you.
Jeff, please excuse me, as i am, admitidly, just a scientific layman. However, I'm pretty certian that both you and the "No virus" crowd both agree that whatever you are defining as a virus, is not contagious. The No Virus crowd also agree that there are processes that happen within the body that are all internal, that is the bodies way of clearing out decaying cells etc. Your argument is that viruses do exist, but your definition of a virus does not match that of the generally accepted definition of a virus amongst mainstream virologists, as i'm pretty certian they believe viruses are spread from person to person. Therefore, have you not just redefined the term "virus", and are you therefor not denying that viruses (as they are generally accepted) exist yourself, albeit in a different way to the "No Virus" crowd. Your arguments to me, seem pretty well alligned. I ask this question in good faith, and hope it has come across that way.
Hi Rob, I've addressed this many times in the past. I and 'No-Virus' do not share the same principles.
1. 'No-Virus' claims viruses do not exist. If viruses do not exist, then they cannot be contagious.
2. In contrast, I affirm the existence of viruses and acknowledge their significance alongside diseases and for playing vital roles in living organisms and ecosystems.
3. My definition of a virus closely aligns with the mainstream definition, with the exception of the exclusion of the pathogenic clause, which is present in certain definitions. Otherwise, the fundamental aspects remain unchanged.
Right, and you're a troll.
The grifters are quite annoying, but how do they make quite a bit of money? Shower heads?
Seminars mainly. Tens of thousands per seminar in fact. That would be fine if they were presenting legitimate scientific evidence, but that is hardly the case. They present some truths, and the rest is patently absurd.
Hadn't seen these advertised, let alone attended any, but perhaps so. At least the flat earth seminars are entertaining.
They're advertised all the time to their followers on Twitter and their other channels.
I'll refrain from labeling them as cultists when their behavior ceases to resemble that of a cult, which involves incessantly defending their beliefs in aggressive ways across various platforms. Their promotion of expensive, pseudoscientific products, despite knowing their lack of validity, is particularly egregious. Drawing an analogy between selling innocuous items like a book or paid subscriptions and peddling exorbitantly priced items like a $1000 shower head is absurd. It is no comparison to their scheme of selling $16,000 worth of tickets monthly for streams where they propagate ludicrous false claims such as the non-existence of viruses and cells, and so many more false claims.
"The no-virus crowd speaks apples, you are speaking oranges. Just maybe that is the reason they are not interested in a debate with you?"
Perhaps their reluctance to engage in debate stems from previous debates where their deceitful tactics and manipulation of scientific facts have been exposed, particularly evident on platforms like Substack. They fabricate their own 'science' to suit their narrative and peddle it as truth to their followers. Your attempt to align with their perspective by asserting that I misuse the term "virus" mirrors their tactics. Contrary to your claim, I adhere to the basic definition of viruses as obligate intercellular parasites. I merely emphasize that viruses, while often associated with disease, are not the sole causative agents of disease.
To claim viruses do not exist is pure folly and asinine.
As "virus" is a complex term that spans various virus types, some called pathogenic and others not, there isn't a singular, official definition for it. The diversity among viruses means it is difficult to establish a single, all-encompassing definition. Merely referring to a single definition of "virus" that more closely suits your agenda, without taking these factors into account, means you do not care about the truth of your claim.
Clearly, you are unaware of the scientific literature on this topic, and you believe that I am making this claim without any substantiation. The scientific literature in virology is replete with evidence showcasing the benefits of viruses in ecology, the human body, and other living animals and plants.
I won't be providing links as I have written articles on my Substack page. Refer to them for further information.
Dawn Lester and David Parker have already come out early on, dismissing me on this subject because I acknowledge the existence of viruses. I don't believe they are outright untruthful; rather, I think they, like you, are misled. Lying would involve disregarding the evidence and persistently restating the same falsehoods after the fact, which has been the case in every debate the highest members of 'No-Virus' have engaged in. The term "slanderous" is often used by 'No-Virus' when things become uncomfortably close to the truth. If you can find any quotes from me being "slanderous", please provide them.
'No-Virus' tend to launch vicious attacks on everyone and then complain of 'slander' when called out on it. When someone does challenge them, they are met with multiple attacks from members who deny the existence of viruses. As for me, I couldn't care less about it. Their true intentions have been evident for a long time. I won't be intimidated by a group of flat-earthers who deny established scientific facts.
"I have been in this field just 4 years now and all the players I know of, are all very calm, humble, non-aggressive."
Yes, you're right. People like Christine Massey are so humble. In the first debate with Mikovits, Kaufman was literally kicked out of the debate by the moderator for talking over Judy and being very rude. You can look that up yourself. But really, I don't consider either person to be a source of accurate information whatsoever.
Like most members of 'No-Virus', 'Shaz Bacchus' resorted to lashing out with attacks because he couldn't handle the truth and is now permanently banned from commenting.
To address some of the false claims by 'Shaz Bacchus':
1. The first debate between Judy and Andrew is readily available online, and anyone can verify my claims.
2. I have never stated that any specific person refused to debate me; that is a false claim by 'Shaz Bacchus'. However, I have mentioned in multiple articles that I am open to debating any prominent member of 'No-Virus' via video, yet none have accepted my offer, despite reading and commenting on my articles. I have already debated several individuals from 'No-Virus' here on Substack, and they have all been decisively defeated.
The entire point about proteins was that you are attempting to dismantle virology without understanding the basic process of how proteins are made. That is very relevant to what you're attempting to do because you do not understand the basics of biology. If you do not understand the basics, you cannot legitimately call it a fraud.
Why should anyone trust your conclusions when you do not understand the core basics of cellular biology and how proteins are produced by cells?
You and the rest of No-Virus consistently lack honesty, spreading falsehoods despite repeated corrections since 2020. Your primary motive appears to be financial gain, catering to a conspiratorial Substack fanbase that supports you through donations and subscriptions. Genuine integrity is notably absent in your actions.
The collective of No-Virus deliberately shapes their message to exploit their audience's basest instincts, promoting absurd anti-science conspiracy theories and providing a haven for trolls, bigots, racists, and those who financially contribute to their cause. Additionally, numerous prominent members profit from the sale of deceptive snake oil products. Given these circumstances, categorizing No-Virus as a scam is more than justified.
Why don't you explain what the plot is, Steve?
Your comments make no sense in light of what you're replying to. My comment about the facts of No-Virus being a group of dishonest people, is just that—a fact. If you cannot accept this fact, this is not the page for you, and I suggest you go find someone that will lie to you.
Virus models are constructed using real-world data. Preexisting RNA is used to amplify itself into logical sequences that can only fit together one way. Those who lack an understanding of the underlying science may mistakenly believe that these models are fabricated. However, at this stage, there is no justification for these individuals to persist in perpetuating this falsehood. If they have not learned the basic processes of RNA sequencing in 4 years, that is their problem.
No, to your first sentence, that is not accurate. You can take viral RNA and sequence it, and it will establish a tangible full sequence that could never be random. Through that process, you can verify the sequence of the virus being studied by amplifying specific RNA parts of the virus. Viral sequencing is actually quite simple in hindsight, despite its deeper complexities. Viruses are not very complex in their RNA, unlike the full genomes of animals, which previously took years to sequence due to technological limitations. Coronaviruses are one of the simplest viruses to sequence because they have small genomes.
The computer model of SARS-CoV-2 is merely a model of a particular type of SARS-CoV. Yes, it is accurate, and it is real. However, that does not mean that same initial 'proxy' virus is being transmitted to everyone globally. Each time a virus is replicated, it's sequence changes minutely when observed. Thus, many variants have been found.
Determining the origin of RNA from a virus involves various investigative methods and techniques.
If Rappaport said there is no way to know where the source of the RNA came from, then yes, he is wrong.
I stated in this article that viruses appear pathogenic in conditions outside the body, not internally. Try rereading it.