I started out with Lanka. He was the first person I ever came across who made the claim viruses don't exist. I found Cowan and Kaufman later only because people wrote me asking about them.
This viruses-don't-exist take on the science is completely different than the lipid hypothesis, so they are comparable.
I started out with Lanka. He was the first person I ever came across who made the claim viruses don't exist. I found Cowan and Kaufman later only because people wrote me asking about them.
This viruses-don't-exist take on the science is completely different than the lipid hypothesis, so they are comparable.
Here's what I suggest you do. Look up measles on Google and look at all the photos. Then look up varicella (chicken pox) and do the same. Then explain to me how pre-vaccine one infected kid who hasn't yet developed the rash or pox can show up in a classroom and within no time two thirds of the class all come down with the same exact symptoms. Do they all release exosomes at the exact same time? When they look at the tissues with TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy ), which can identify viral particles including the nucleocapsid, and they all look the same, are those just exosomes theyre looking at? And when they sequence the genome of the virus, then use it to make ELISA test materials that bind only to the exact same nucleotide sequence, are those all exosomes? Finally, when scientists grow the virus in some sort of medium, then "kill" the infective part of it, then inject it into kids and they don't get measles or chicken pox, how can that be explained by exosomes.
Well the point I was trying to make is that the validity of the papers claiming to show that viruses exist and the actual reasons for the phenomena seen are logically two distinct and different things. You wish to thrash the ‘viruses-don't-exist take on the science’ and I wish to say that speculations are a secondary issue which is irrelevant in terms of the historic foundational papers for ‘viruses-exist’. If I disprove theory A on its own terms, that doesn’t depend on me waiting until I can prove theory B.
All the microscopy and genomics crumble away if the ‘virus isolation’ papers are not sound science. 'When they sequence the genome of the virus' – how do you know it’s the genome of the virus and not some other entity? 'When they kill the infective part of it' – how do you know the part was infective? These things rest on the existence of the virus and its infectivity being pre-established, but the question is, is that so? These assume what needs to be proved.
Kaufman explains in excrutiating detail how the genome sequencing for sars-cov was started between the two laboratories concerned, the methodology, and how the inputs and results were manipulated. They even have the front to call it an ‘in silico’ genome, one existing only in the workings of computer programs!
And finally, 'when two-thirds of the class come down with symptoms' – why didn’t the other third? Doesn’t that tell you there must be something else here, something that should be researched?
I didn’t mean to imply that the detailed path of the lipid hypothesis and that of viruses-exist are comparable, just that the acceptance at face value of the fundamental error is comparable. The assumption passing from one too-busy-to-read doctor to another. But you personally read plenty and then plenty more. I’ll eat my hat if you can read those virus isolation papers then put your hand on your heart and say that you’re happy the methods used are a scientific way of determining the matter and justify the conclusions reached.
I believe this is the most important medical issue in the world today! It seems Disease X, supposedly caused by Virus X, will be trundled out as an excuse for more authoritarian measures to be implemented and for all us to be bludgeoned into unwarranted medical procedures, tests, injections. So the whole world needs to know, now and for sure, exactly how this virus concept came into our lives.
I started out with Lanka. He was the first person I ever came across who made the claim viruses don't exist. I found Cowan and Kaufman later only because people wrote me asking about them.
This viruses-don't-exist take on the science is completely different than the lipid hypothesis, so they are comparable.
Here's what I suggest you do. Look up measles on Google and look at all the photos. Then look up varicella (chicken pox) and do the same. Then explain to me how pre-vaccine one infected kid who hasn't yet developed the rash or pox can show up in a classroom and within no time two thirds of the class all come down with the same exact symptoms. Do they all release exosomes at the exact same time? When they look at the tissues with TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy ), which can identify viral particles including the nucleocapsid, and they all look the same, are those just exosomes theyre looking at? And when they sequence the genome of the virus, then use it to make ELISA test materials that bind only to the exact same nucleotide sequence, are those all exosomes? Finally, when scientists grow the virus in some sort of medium, then "kill" the infective part of it, then inject it into kids and they don't get measles or chicken pox, how can that be explained by exosomes.
Well the point I was trying to make is that the validity of the papers claiming to show that viruses exist and the actual reasons for the phenomena seen are logically two distinct and different things. You wish to thrash the ‘viruses-don't-exist take on the science’ and I wish to say that speculations are a secondary issue which is irrelevant in terms of the historic foundational papers for ‘viruses-exist’. If I disprove theory A on its own terms, that doesn’t depend on me waiting until I can prove theory B.
All the microscopy and genomics crumble away if the ‘virus isolation’ papers are not sound science. 'When they sequence the genome of the virus' – how do you know it’s the genome of the virus and not some other entity? 'When they kill the infective part of it' – how do you know the part was infective? These things rest on the existence of the virus and its infectivity being pre-established, but the question is, is that so? These assume what needs to be proved.
Kaufman explains in excrutiating detail how the genome sequencing for sars-cov was started between the two laboratories concerned, the methodology, and how the inputs and results were manipulated. They even have the front to call it an ‘in silico’ genome, one existing only in the workings of computer programs!
And finally, 'when two-thirds of the class come down with symptoms' – why didn’t the other third? Doesn’t that tell you there must be something else here, something that should be researched?
I didn’t mean to imply that the detailed path of the lipid hypothesis and that of viruses-exist are comparable, just that the acceptance at face value of the fundamental error is comparable. The assumption passing from one too-busy-to-read doctor to another. But you personally read plenty and then plenty more. I’ll eat my hat if you can read those virus isolation papers then put your hand on your heart and say that you’re happy the methods used are a scientific way of determining the matter and justify the conclusions reached.
I believe this is the most important medical issue in the world today! It seems Disease X, supposedly caused by Virus X, will be trundled out as an excuse for more authoritarian measures to be implemented and for all us to be bludgeoned into unwarranted medical procedures, tests, injections. So the whole world needs to know, now and for sure, exactly how this virus concept came into our lives.