Zeck claims that those of us who firmly assert that viruses exist and play an incredibly important role in ecology and biology are merely 'reinforcing and defending the foundations of vaccinology'—but nothing could be further from the truth.
Also: It should not be hard to comprehend that we have been wonderfully and amazingly made/created and do you think God would leave us w/o a backup mechanism such as viruses to cleanse our bodies?!?! 😊
Another thought: A viral breakout is declared, long enough removed from an incident for you not to make the connection (occurrences/accidents/spills/derailments, etc.) used as cover for what the gov’ts/corporations/whomever have done to pollute a certain area of the globe…blame it on virus! YOU can’t see it! YOU can’t prove them wrong. And they know it! When indeed those viruses are simply helping detoxify and clean up the mess they created (but they continue to lie and cover for)…. 😔
Viruses help indirectly because they infect unstable cells that have been weakened from various causes, mainly industrial pollution. The byproduct of that infection is the disintegration of unstable cells, which has the added benefit of helping cells, indirectly.
I frankly do not believe for a moment that any corporations understand or even care about the biological processes of living organisms enough to know that viruses result from their encroachment on nature. All disease is, generally, a result of man's own ignorance and hubris. I do not think it is the grand conspiracy you may think it is insofar as it is pure ignorance. The further man gets away from nature, the more diseases will manifest. At its root: Greed.
As for science itself, it is well aware of the connection between pollution and viral outbreaks, which is why there are so many studies focused on the subject.
Vaccinology/Big Pharma have $imply taken advantage of the fact that viruses are so small, cannot even be seen with a light microscope like bacteria are, and therefore easy to convince and cause fear amongst the ma$$es, for which only they have the ‘cure’. Fortunately, slowly but surely, many more are learning that it is entirely unnatural, yet super toxic, to be injecting these foreign chemicals/animal and fetal tissues/adjuvants, etc. into their bodies BUT to learn and implement healthier ways of taking care of that body and not fear it/nature or sickness that does result from toxin buildup, as it is healing.
Well, this is mainly about the No-Virus movement, which is ignoring fundamental evidence that shows viruses exist. Most of the people who are now vehemently against current vaccines were nowhere to be found years ago when most vaccines contained mercury and aluminum. The toxicity of mercury is unparalleled, with aluminum being a close second.
I also want to clarify that fetal tissue is not in any of the recent vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used a fetal cell line (PER.C6) in the production process, but the final vaccine does not contain these cells. The other vaccines used fetal cell lines during some phases of their development and testing but not in the production of the vaccines themselves. These particular vaccines do not contain adjuvants either.
The existence of viruses, if they cause disease, and if they are transmissible are all separate issues.
Jeff's main critique of the "no-virus" position is that it's denying too much about the existing science, and not based on the truth. It's not much of a truth movement if it escapes an illusion by simply entering into another illusion.
Jeff agrees on the other Terrain Theory tenets about viruses not being contagious or the primary cause of disease.
Jeff's position is perhaps easier to grasp if you get past the word "virus", because this word meaning "poison" is probably not ideal, but Jeff's personally chosen to stick with the orthodoxy here (some have disagreed or have been confused by this choice). These particles exist and have been extensively studied, whatever word we choose. Where Jeff departs from the orthodoxy is that these particles aren't evil (they aren't attacking anyone, as they aren't alive), but that they have an important function in healing, which is to break down dying or dead cells when they get too toxic for other microbes to handle.
The 'no-virus' crowd, in their zeal to combat the vaccine pushers, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and are missing important facts about biology. It sounds like a promising strategy to undercut the vaccine pushers by removing the existence of viruses altogether, but if it's based on a lie, it will only plant the seeds of the destruction for the vaccine skeptic movement.
Gerben is a No-Virus troll who posts on my page, but I will address his comments. The No-Virus stance relies on an outdated definition of "virus", that is over 320+ years old, and predates our understanding of these complex entities. While the term originally referred to 'poison,' modern science recognizes viruses as diverse biological agents. Some are classed as pathogenic and some not, yet they are all classed as viruses.
There is no single universally agreed upon definition for the word "virus" as is used in microbiology. The basic definition is that viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that infect cells. This, again, is a limited definition and does not encompass the many types and complexities present in the virus kingdom.
The No-Virus position lacks logical coherence and does not consider the cause-and-effect dynamics between cells and their external and internal surroundings. When cells become weakened, cells go into survival mode, becoming more vulnerable, leading to the proliferation of viruses within them.
Viruses normally only infect degenerative cells because cells must present specific, compatible protein receptors in order for viruses to infect and enter a cell. These cell receptors become active when under stress. The viral receptors (like spike proteins), and cell receptor proteins, must fit together like a key; their respective shapes must match.
The byproduct of their infection is the systemic disintegration of weak cells through hydrolysis, causing those cells to undergo apoptosis and disintegrate, thereby diluting the toxin(s). The beneficial byproduct of this is that those cells are destroyed, allowing living cells to handle a toxic condition more easily.
The No-Virus position lacks logical coherence and does not consider the cause-and-effect dynamics between cells and their external and internal surroundings. When cells become weakened, cells go into survival mode, becoming more vulnerable, leading to the proliferation of viruses within them.
If No-Virus would stop pandering to conspiracy theorists who do not understand biology, and instead began to understand the science of viruses—instead of falsely claiming they do not exist—they would find that viruses are a necessary byproduct of life itself and would understand the relationship between disease and viruses.
I appreciate your effort to present reasonable arguments with such people on X, but as you're surely aware, people generally believe what is most appealing, not what is most logical. This is even true for me, (though I'd like to think to a lesser degree than most) and I remember initially encountering your perspective and being unsure of your arguments, since on the surface they initially appeared equally valid to those of the "no-virus" perspective. What eventually swayed me was not your arguments against "no-virus" (to be fair, I think this was just before you'd started writing about that) but the details you used to paint a new, clearer picture of what a virus actually is and does. The more my new mental model developed, the more I liked it, because it made more sense, and because it fit with what I already believed: the body knows what it's doing better than we do, and it is intelligent and capable of far more than we realize.
When I read these threads, I feel that what's lacking is the focus on the 'solution' (the new model with all its fascinating details). People are generally less likely to change their views once the conversation has taken on a confrontational tone and they become defensive.
Also: It should not be hard to comprehend that we have been wonderfully and amazingly made/created and do you think God would leave us w/o a backup mechanism such as viruses to cleanse our bodies?!?! 😊
Another thought: A viral breakout is declared, long enough removed from an incident for you not to make the connection (occurrences/accidents/spills/derailments, etc.) used as cover for what the gov’ts/corporations/whomever have done to pollute a certain area of the globe…blame it on virus! YOU can’t see it! YOU can’t prove them wrong. And they know it! When indeed those viruses are simply helping detoxify and clean up the mess they created (but they continue to lie and cover for)…. 😔
Viruses help indirectly because they infect unstable cells that have been weakened from various causes, mainly industrial pollution. The byproduct of that infection is the disintegration of unstable cells, which has the added benefit of helping cells, indirectly.
I frankly do not believe for a moment that any corporations understand or even care about the biological processes of living organisms enough to know that viruses result from their encroachment on nature. All disease is, generally, a result of man's own ignorance and hubris. I do not think it is the grand conspiracy you may think it is insofar as it is pure ignorance. The further man gets away from nature, the more diseases will manifest. At its root: Greed.
As for science itself, it is well aware of the connection between pollution and viral outbreaks, which is why there are so many studies focused on the subject.
Vaccinology/Big Pharma have $imply taken advantage of the fact that viruses are so small, cannot even be seen with a light microscope like bacteria are, and therefore easy to convince and cause fear amongst the ma$$es, for which only they have the ‘cure’. Fortunately, slowly but surely, many more are learning that it is entirely unnatural, yet super toxic, to be injecting these foreign chemicals/animal and fetal tissues/adjuvants, etc. into their bodies BUT to learn and implement healthier ways of taking care of that body and not fear it/nature or sickness that does result from toxin buildup, as it is healing.
Well, this is mainly about the No-Virus movement, which is ignoring fundamental evidence that shows viruses exist. Most of the people who are now vehemently against current vaccines were nowhere to be found years ago when most vaccines contained mercury and aluminum. The toxicity of mercury is unparalleled, with aluminum being a close second.
I also want to clarify that fetal tissue is not in any of the recent vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used a fetal cell line (PER.C6) in the production process, but the final vaccine does not contain these cells. The other vaccines used fetal cell lines during some phases of their development and testing but not in the production of the vaccines themselves. These particular vaccines do not contain adjuvants either.
There is no no-virus movement, just the truth movement. We don't care anymore about the virus nonsense.
Without evidence that any illness is transmissible, no 'vaccine' has ever been proven to be effective.
Thus these are no vaccines but only harmful injections. This scam did not start with covid but is centuries old.
The existence of viruses, if they cause disease, and if they are transmissible are all separate issues.
Jeff's main critique of the "no-virus" position is that it's denying too much about the existing science, and not based on the truth. It's not much of a truth movement if it escapes an illusion by simply entering into another illusion.
Jeff agrees on the other Terrain Theory tenets about viruses not being contagious or the primary cause of disease.
Jeff's position is perhaps easier to grasp if you get past the word "virus", because this word meaning "poison" is probably not ideal, but Jeff's personally chosen to stick with the orthodoxy here (some have disagreed or have been confused by this choice). These particles exist and have been extensively studied, whatever word we choose. Where Jeff departs from the orthodoxy is that these particles aren't evil (they aren't attacking anyone, as they aren't alive), but that they have an important function in healing, which is to break down dying or dead cells when they get too toxic for other microbes to handle.
The 'no-virus' crowd, in their zeal to combat the vaccine pushers, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and are missing important facts about biology. It sounds like a promising strategy to undercut the vaccine pushers by removing the existence of viruses altogether, but if it's based on a lie, it will only plant the seeds of the destruction for the vaccine skeptic movement.
Gerben is a No-Virus troll who posts on my page, but I will address his comments. The No-Virus stance relies on an outdated definition of "virus", that is over 320+ years old, and predates our understanding of these complex entities. While the term originally referred to 'poison,' modern science recognizes viruses as diverse biological agents. Some are classed as pathogenic and some not, yet they are all classed as viruses.
There is no single universally agreed upon definition for the word "virus" as is used in microbiology. The basic definition is that viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that infect cells. This, again, is a limited definition and does not encompass the many types and complexities present in the virus kingdom.
The No-Virus position lacks logical coherence and does not consider the cause-and-effect dynamics between cells and their external and internal surroundings. When cells become weakened, cells go into survival mode, becoming more vulnerable, leading to the proliferation of viruses within them.
Viruses normally only infect degenerative cells because cells must present specific, compatible protein receptors in order for viruses to infect and enter a cell. These cell receptors become active when under stress. The viral receptors (like spike proteins), and cell receptor proteins, must fit together like a key; their respective shapes must match.
The byproduct of their infection is the systemic disintegration of weak cells through hydrolysis, causing those cells to undergo apoptosis and disintegrate, thereby diluting the toxin(s). The beneficial byproduct of this is that those cells are destroyed, allowing living cells to handle a toxic condition more easily.
The No-Virus position lacks logical coherence and does not consider the cause-and-effect dynamics between cells and their external and internal surroundings. When cells become weakened, cells go into survival mode, becoming more vulnerable, leading to the proliferation of viruses within them.
If No-Virus would stop pandering to conspiracy theorists who do not understand biology, and instead began to understand the science of viruses—instead of falsely claiming they do not exist—they would find that viruses are a necessary byproduct of life itself and would understand the relationship between disease and viruses.
I am talking vaccines in general, such as found in the childhood schedule…
These are ALL only harmful.
I appreciate your effort to present reasonable arguments with such people on X, but as you're surely aware, people generally believe what is most appealing, not what is most logical. This is even true for me, (though I'd like to think to a lesser degree than most) and I remember initially encountering your perspective and being unsure of your arguments, since on the surface they initially appeared equally valid to those of the "no-virus" perspective. What eventually swayed me was not your arguments against "no-virus" (to be fair, I think this was just before you'd started writing about that) but the details you used to paint a new, clearer picture of what a virus actually is and does. The more my new mental model developed, the more I liked it, because it made more sense, and because it fit with what I already believed: the body knows what it's doing better than we do, and it is intelligent and capable of far more than we realize.
When I read these threads, I feel that what's lacking is the focus on the 'solution' (the new model with all its fascinating details). People are generally less likely to change their views once the conversation has taken on a confrontational tone and they become defensive.
What would be a virus as no ´disease' (illness) could ever be proven to be transmissible?
No disease could ever be proven to be transmissible.
Thus there is nothing that can be called a virus by definition.
ALL 60+ experiments have the same conclusion.
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence