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.
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?
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.
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?