Spot on mate: it now makes complete sense to me that viruses exist as endogenous and functional entities to assist in the detoxification process. Any theory that alleges they cause disease or can be magically transferred between people is superstition being projected onto them, arising either from biophobia or ill intent (I.e. the germ inversion).
Polymorphism is also crucial: that a virus can actually transform into a different type of virus, or bacteria, or even a parasite depending on the nature and level of toxicity in the body.
Humanity seems to be fixated on war whether it be against each other, microbes, viruses, cancer, street drugs, poverty, terrorism, etc. We must mature to the point that not everything is an adversary.
I'm still open to there being no actual virus entity hiding under all the smoke and mirrors, and I agree it that -- whether it exists or not -- it has not been isolated satisfactorily. But our bodies are incredibly smart, so for them to create such entities to aid in our detox process makes sense.
Makes sense to me as well. The problem is observing life processes is not what current science appears to be capable of, so lots of assumptions are made about what is happening. It could be the complete opposite of what they conclude.
Even if such research were possible, i.e. with a Rife microscope, the economic bias is towards that which maintains the disease/pathogen model so any findings would be marginalized if not outright rejected. The medical/scientific journals are there largely to support the current paradigm, and that which may advance human knowledge/understanding that is in opposition does not get funding.
Do you mean the way science measures things is too limited? I am thinking about properties that they can't measure having an impact on physical properties and/or interaction among things.
I was wondering about this. How does virology come up with all the intricate detail and phylogenetic trees. Is it 10% evidence and 90% speculation or some such ratio?
ha ha. While I think Jeff Green's views make more sense than virology, it will remain speculation given the current medical/scientific paradigm and as you say, limitations of research.
No virus has ever been properly isolated from a human being or proven to cause illness or infection. The particles called “viruses” seem to be dead cells discarded by the lymphatic system, still carrying fragmented DNA.
The symptoms are real, but it is unclear what is causing them. It’s quite certain that they originate from a combination of poisonings.
When and who is going to investigate the sources and those, who created the symptoms?
While I can appreciate Green's idea, what I am amazed is how he and Jeremy Hammond struggle to properly represent those who continue to critique Virology and its lack of scientific principles. For example, Tom Cowan says there is no evidence that viruses exist, that isolation of such viruses was ever done, nor controls in the experiments. Green and Hammond then call him a liar/deciever, because of course the authors of the papers mentioned "isolation/isolate" and "control" in the document. I am lost as to how these two can not even attempt to properly represent Cowan's views - that PROPER isolation and controls which follow the scientific method were never done. Is this truly the level of argumentation we have devolved to?
Add that no virologist has supplied Cowan with any paper that uses the word isolate in the proper way and demonstrates valid controls to meet the Virus Challenge. Instead, they are all written in a similar fashion, using words in a non standard way so as to make it appear they do adhere. Stefan Lanka's work even shows they are invalid, but his work is ignored by virology.
Other substances like glyphosate and enzymes to name two are smaller than viruses and they can be purified. Why are viruses an exception? Green says purification will never be 100%. Ok, perhaps, but why is it that no one is able to produce a very highly purified sample? If the RNA is unstable how is it able to float about in the environment and then infect people? Why are the cell lines used in the lab from different organs of different animals?
Absolutely. My point was that Green can laud his idea about virus/enzymes but them misrepresent Cowan et al when they have clearly defined what their issues are with ViroLIEgy. I have no clue how someone can be so blinded to their own definition that they cannot even grasp the basics of the argument they are supposedly critiquing. It is like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "nah nah boo boo."
Spot on mate: it now makes complete sense to me that viruses exist as endogenous and functional entities to assist in the detoxification process. Any theory that alleges they cause disease or can be magically transferred between people is superstition being projected onto them, arising either from biophobia or ill intent (I.e. the germ inversion).
Polymorphism is also crucial: that a virus can actually transform into a different type of virus, or bacteria, or even a parasite depending on the nature and level of toxicity in the body.
Humanity seems to be fixated on war whether it be against each other, microbes, viruses, cancer, street drugs, poverty, terrorism, etc. We must mature to the point that not everything is an adversary.
Pleomorphism* I should say
That is in intriguing topic that I intend to explore in future articles.
Please proceed. Let's put it on the table for consideration.
I've come across the idea that gold can move from the non physical to the physical, that would relate to your comment on alchemy.
I'm still open to there being no actual virus entity hiding under all the smoke and mirrors, and I agree it that -- whether it exists or not -- it has not been isolated satisfactorily. But our bodies are incredibly smart, so for them to create such entities to aid in our detox process makes sense.
Makes sense to me as well. The problem is observing life processes is not what current science appears to be capable of, so lots of assumptions are made about what is happening. It could be the complete opposite of what they conclude.
Even if such research were possible, i.e. with a Rife microscope, the economic bias is towards that which maintains the disease/pathogen model so any findings would be marginalized if not outright rejected. The medical/scientific journals are there largely to support the current paradigm, and that which may advance human knowledge/understanding that is in opposition does not get funding.
Do you mean the way science measures things is too limited? I am thinking about properties that they can't measure having an impact on physical properties and/or interaction among things.
I was wondering about this. How does virology come up with all the intricate detail and phylogenetic trees. Is it 10% evidence and 90% speculation or some such ratio?
ha ha. While I think Jeff Green's views make more sense than virology, it will remain speculation given the current medical/scientific paradigm and as you say, limitations of research.
There is no credible diagnosis for "covid."
No virus has ever been properly isolated from a human being or proven to cause illness or infection. The particles called “viruses” seem to be dead cells discarded by the lymphatic system, still carrying fragmented DNA.
The symptoms are real, but it is unclear what is causing them. It’s quite certain that they originate from a combination of poisonings.
When and who is going to investigate the sources and those, who created the symptoms?
While I can appreciate Green's idea, what I am amazed is how he and Jeremy Hammond struggle to properly represent those who continue to critique Virology and its lack of scientific principles. For example, Tom Cowan says there is no evidence that viruses exist, that isolation of such viruses was ever done, nor controls in the experiments. Green and Hammond then call him a liar/deciever, because of course the authors of the papers mentioned "isolation/isolate" and "control" in the document. I am lost as to how these two can not even attempt to properly represent Cowan's views - that PROPER isolation and controls which follow the scientific method were never done. Is this truly the level of argumentation we have devolved to?
Add that no virologist has supplied Cowan with any paper that uses the word isolate in the proper way and demonstrates valid controls to meet the Virus Challenge. Instead, they are all written in a similar fashion, using words in a non standard way so as to make it appear they do adhere. Stefan Lanka's work even shows they are invalid, but his work is ignored by virology.
Other substances like glyphosate and enzymes to name two are smaller than viruses and they can be purified. Why are viruses an exception? Green says purification will never be 100%. Ok, perhaps, but why is it that no one is able to produce a very highly purified sample? If the RNA is unstable how is it able to float about in the environment and then infect people? Why are the cell lines used in the lab from different organs of different animals?
Too many question marks for me.
Absolutely. My point was that Green can laud his idea about virus/enzymes but them misrepresent Cowan et al when they have clearly defined what their issues are with ViroLIEgy. I have no clue how someone can be so blinded to their own definition that they cannot even grasp the basics of the argument they are supposedly critiquing. It is like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "nah nah boo boo."