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. Whenever I, or anyone else, try to debate with them, they respond by viciously lashing out with personal attacks and constantly shift their arguments, ignoring the scientific evidence presented.
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.
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.
Dan Wilson, Janssen/J&J agent, gets basic facts wrong about "SARS-COV-2" publications
(while I refused to get distracted with discussions about ME and how proteins are made... which was completely irrelevant to the discussion of the 2 studies in question):
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.
I remember seeing a couple of your videos a few years ago and it seems that you've made a complete 180 since then. Maybe I need to watch them again, but as far as I can recall, you questioned the pathogenicity of viruses per the terrain theory of illness.
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.
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.
Lol, here is me "viciously lashing out with personal attacks":
Response to Jeff Green’s “Challenge”
First published elsewhere JUL 31, 2022
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-greens-challenge/
You gotta ask yourself: why would someone frame the honest, accurate refutation of an official, weaponized narrative as a "scam"?
Dan Wilson, Janssen/J&J agent, gets basic facts wrong about "SARS-COV-2" publications
(while I refused to get distracted with discussions about ME and how proteins are made... which was completely irrelevant to the discussion of the 2 studies in question):
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/dan-and-me-a-love-story
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.
It doesn't hurt the no-virus cult when mainstream virologists build mathematical models of viruses from snippets of RNA/DNA. Such is COVID.
I remember seeing a couple of your videos a few years ago and it seems that you've made a complete 180 since then. Maybe I need to watch them again, but as far as I can recall, you questioned the pathogenicity of viruses per the terrain theory of illness.