THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
heniek1812
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:53 am

Nice work Seneca !!!
Seneca wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:43 am
For the second paper submitted for the prize Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85 I only found the abstract.

Were there any controls?

Even if we would suppose all these questions were properly addressed in the paper, just one case is not enough to prove anything. As they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this doesn't come close. I am not arguing for more animal testing, they should be more creative. If I was paid well enough and I would have enough information about what they would inject, I wouldn't mind volunteering for a double blind study.

So the score is now Stefan Lanka 5, David Bardens 0 with 1 more to go.
Cherry-picking I suspect was practiced so as to get the "expected" results. Lack of any of those other symptoms is also a red flag that the paper is neither here nor there.

I agree, Dr. Lanka is winning.

One would think that after so many years more solid research would be available. :wacko:

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm

To be clear: I wasn't suggesting that the authors of the last study were cherry picking. From what I read they where being quite honest by not calling it measles. It was Stefan Lanka who I thought was cherry picking. From that last article he only used the information that helped him to prove his case. But I was probably too harsh, he wasn't claiming to give a complete rebuttal of the study as I was doing.

Now to conclude here is the third "paper" that was submitted. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

Unlike the other 5, this is not a scientific paper, it is actually a chapter from a book called "Measles Viruses". I can only read the abstract but there is nothing in there that can prove the existence of the measles virus.

So the final score is 6-0 for Stefan Lanka. Since the 6 submitted articles did not contain any proof for the existence of the measles virus the court experts lied or were mistaken when they claimed that "the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens".

Now someone who still wants to believe in viruses could say: "David Bardens" was obviously a moron, since he didn't even know the difference between a book and a scientific publication, was to stupid to understand the conditions of the contest, wasted the courts time when he had already lost. He messed up and didn't submit the right publications. "

If that is the case why didn't Lanka just win the first time? I suspect there just isn't such a publication. If you happen to find it, you can tell us about it. You won't get 100.000 €, but you will do humanity a great service.

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:57 pm

Seneca wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm
To be clear: I wasn't suggesting that the authors of the last study were cherry picking. From what I read they where being quite honest by not calling it measles. It was Stefan Lanka who I thought was cherry picking. From that last article he only used the information that helped him to prove his case. But I was probably too harsh, he wasn't claiming to give a complete rebuttal of the study as I was doing.

Now to conclude here is the third "paper" that was submitted. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

Unlike the other 5, this is not a scientific paper, it is actually a chapter from a book called "Measles Viruses". I can only read the abstract but there is nothing in there that can prove the existence of the measles virus.

So the final score is 6-0 for Stefan Lanka. Since the 6 submitted articles did not contain any proof for the existence of the measles virus the court experts lied or were mistaken when they claimed that "the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens".

Now someone who still wants to believe in viruses could say: "David Bardens" was obviously a moron, since he didn't even know the difference between a book and a scientific publication, was to stupid to understand the conditions of the contest, wasted the courts time when he had already lost. He messed up and didn't submit the right publications. "

If that is the case why didn't Lanka just win the first time? I suspect there just isn't such a publication. If you happen to find it, you can tell us about it. You won't get 100.000 €, but you will do humanity a great service.
You have done Humanity a service explaining what was happening in this case which is invaluable as someone not educated in this area would have very hard time trying to make sense of it all.

Nice job Seneca. :)

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by rusty » Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:53 pm

rusty wrote:
Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:15 pm
We selected 198 samples ... testing yielded no false positive outcomes. In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen but they were negative upon retesting with the same assay.
So we could probably say if you exclude the bias of the testers that there were actually 4 (2%) false positives (this would still be comparatively low if we consider all the samples came from symptomatic patients). However, we must also put this in context with what we already know happened later (end of february) in some laboratories:
Reading up in the paper again I have to stand corrected on these numbers somewhat - It's not just the 198 samples, but the total of 297 samples which were tested, so, it's at most 1.3% false positives. This does not impact the overall interpretation very much.

I plan to elaborate more on the whole RNS/RNA issue and how it dominates modern "virology" in the other thread. It's not an easy topic and it may not be of foremost importance at the moment, but I think it's crucial for any critical researcher of medical topics to get a clear picture of what's going on. So I strongly encourage discussion.

[Admin Note (SCS): Post moved to the “virus” topic.]

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:49 pm

Thanks to Seneca for going through all those papers! I think we can safely assume now, that no one has ever succeeded in really isolating uniform particles from any clinical sample. At best, you can try to centrifugalize samples from cell cultures and find bands, in which VLPs (Viral Like Particles) of all sorts cumulate.

But, OK, … I think real “virologists” are not bothered by such trifle any more. They probably know this very well. Just because we have all sorts of VLPs in a sample does of course NOT mean that there are no dangerous viruses among them, which could still be accused of causing specific diseases. Just because you can’t separate them from other VLPs physically does not mean they don’t exist and you can’t try to find other means to distinguish them. I mean … if we know or at least assume that cells communicate all the time by using such particles (some of them called “microvesicles”), it does not sound totally improbable that some of these particles are involved in disease processes and might be transferred from one person (or animal) to another and start similar disease processes in them, right? Does it really need to be a big amount of uniform viruses, when a very small amount could be sufficient to cause disease somehow?

I assume that virology was pretty much stuck back in the beginning of the 1990s, because all they had were microscopy and antibody tests like Elisa and Western Blot. Lucky were they with the advent of PCR and synthetic DNA. Now they could start searching for gene sequences in all sorts of samples. I think it is crucial to understand their “operating mode” in order to get to a point where we can say what can be considered to be proven and what not.

Lanka simply states something along the lines of:
  1. Virologists use cell cultures in order to “replicate viruses”, which is bollocks, because they never do any controls with cell cultures without the “viral material”
  2. They knock down these cell cultures, purify them somewhat and search for fragments of gene sequences
  3. They construct whole genomes of viruses artificially out of these fragments and out of thin air. They did this “manually” for the measles virus, which took them many years and discussions until they finally arrived at a consensus. Nowadays, this way of operating is cast into software algorithms, so you can arrive at complete genomes much faster.
I think all of these three points warrant further investigation. After all – these scientists may have their reasons for believing what they do is reasonable, right? Or can we just say it isn’t because we don’t agree on some of their initial assumptions? If they have substantiated data to prove their findings have any value, why dismiss it beforehand?

I strongly encourage everyone interested in the topic to do their own research and report their findings here. I’d welcome very much anyone who has a professional background on this. I know this is not strictly the focus of this forum. But if we can come to common and well-founded conclusions it will be easier to argue scientifically in events such as the current corona crisis.

I’d like to start with point 2, detection of RNA/DNA, because this is purely technical. It may be the least important part of the three. But maybe there’s already something fishy here.

Without further investigation, I assume from an engineering perspective, that it is possible to detect all sorts of gene sequences by using repeated PCR with artificial sequences as primers. I furthermore assume there is no direct way to find ALL or at least the majority of sequences in a sample and quantify them reasonably. If we had such a method, we would not need PCR.

If I had to construct a machine, which does this, no matter the cost, I would combine complex software algorithms with synthesis of sequences and PCR. You can specify the type of sequences to start with, which should be short enough to have a moderate success rate. You create multiple primers at once and do many automated PCRs in parallel. You then go on with the ones you found in the sample and add additional sequences to them or even combine two “successful” overlapping sequences to one longer sequence.

I think that starting with the paper for the corona virus test kit you can get a good idea what those sequences look like. Even though this paper does not describe this kind of “search for unknown sequences".

I hope anyone can either support or refute my assumptions that this is how they do it. To me it looks like messing with these sequences has more or less totally replaced any other way of research in that field.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:03 pm

I am posting this missive on ‘Chatbox’ since I hesitate to put this on any of the other threads regarding the Crown-19 hoax threads for fears of derailing. Sometimes it needs a step back to see the humour/serious or serious/humour of the situations presented to us by the cretinati.

***************************************
Influenza Viruses

According to the C.D.C. (whoever they are or represent…not us!):

Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/types.htm

There are four types of influenza viruses: A, B, C and D. Human influenza A and B viruses cause seasonal epidemics of disease (known as the flu season) almost every winter in the United States. Influenza A viruses are the only influenza viruses known to cause flu pandemics, i.e., global epidemics of flu disease. A pandemic can occur when a new and very different influenza A virus emerges that both infects people and has the ability to spread efficiently between people. Influenza type C infections generally cause mild illness and are not thought to cause human flu epidemics. Influenza D viruses primarily affect cattle and are not known to infect or cause illness in people.

Influenza A viruses are divided into subtypes based on two proteins on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). There are 18 different hemagglutinin subtypes and 11 different neuraminidase subtypes (H1 through H18 and N1 through N11, respectively). While there are potentially 198 different influenza A subtype combinations, only 131 subtypes have been detected in nature. Current subtypes of influenza A viruses that routinely circulate in people include: A(H1N1) and A(H3N2). Influenza A subtypes can be further broken down into different genetic “clades” and “sub-clades.” See the “Influenza Viruses” graphic below for a visual depiction of these classifications.

(In deference to sanity, I have omitted the ‘visual’.)

Below is my examination paper on the above quotation:

Influenza Viruses

Please read the whole list of questions and notes before answering the questions.


1. From whence do all these names and numbers originate?
2. How exactly do they differentiate all these alleged 'viruses'?
3. What exactly do all these numbers (e.g. 'H1 through H18 and N1 through N11') mean and how exactly are these known to exist within a living organism?
4. How exactly do you demonstrate the existence of D.N.A. (or R.N.A.) outside a living organism?
5. How exactly do you demonstrate a 'gene' as an apparent entity which can be examined in its entirety? If not, then what exactly is a ‘gene’?
6. If a 'virus' is supposedly an entity that can replicate, how exactly does it do this if a ‘virus’ is merely a ‘strand’ of D.N.A. or R.N.A.?
7. If D.N.A. (so-called 'genetic material) is a sequence of an atomic/molecular stage (various 'bases' of atomic structure) and not an entity, how does it become a 'virus' which, (according to graphic images of 'viruses') must be a multicellular entity and have the ability to reproduce?

For extra marks:
Please explain ‘protein’ in layman’s English, or other translatable language.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Please append all or any original documents relevant to all these questions otherwise your answers will be null and void.

All answers must be able to be verifiable by the lay public.


***************************************************

One might also (seriously) look at this site I found regarding the notion of ‘infectious diseases’.

https://preventdisease.com/news/13/0524 ... ease.shtml

Be well and keep singing…

[Admin Note (SCS): I moved the excellent post above to this topic on April 2, 2020.]

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:15 am

Dear sharpstuff,

here are my answers to some of your questions:
1. From whence do all these names and numbers originate?
2. How exactly do they differentiate all these alleged 'viruses'?
3. What exactly do all these numbers (e.g. 'H1 through H18 and N1 through N11') mean and how exactly are these known to exist within a living organism?
There are basically two techniques:
a. PCR, which can detect minuscule amounts of small DNA sequences. The sequences you look for (patterns, primers) are constructed artificially. This technique is available since the mid 1990s
b. Much older techniques for distinguishing different proteins. I'm not all too familiar with that, but they're probably unsuspicious

See below for more information on the viruses and my summary.
4. How exactly do you demonstrate the existence of D.N.A. (or R.N.A.) outside a living organism?
The answer to this kind of questions has always three letters: PCR. This is the favorite toy of the virologists. If you look for RNA instead of DNA you have to use RT (reverse transcription) before PCR.
5. How exactly do you demonstrate a 'gene' as an apparent entity which can be examined in its entirety? If not, then what exactly is a ‘gene’?
That's actually a good question. So far, I'm only aware of short DNA sequences which can be confirmed by PCR and of complete "genomes" of viruses which are constructed artificially by guessing how these short sequences might be put together. The same apparently applies for HUGO, the human genome project. I have not yet investigated this in every detail, but it looks like there is a lot of guesswork at play here. Not nearly all of the sequences within the genome have actually been confirmed by PCR.
6. If a 'virus' is supposedly an entity that can replicate, how exactly does it do this if a ‘virus’ is merely a ‘strand’ of D.N.A. or R.N.A.?
Most of the "viral particles" (VLPs) are strands of RNA/DNA coated by proteins. A virus is not "alive". It's just some piece of information. A virus can not replicate by itself, it is produced by cells (ONLY!!!) and can be consumed by other cells which then, in turn, might start producing the same particle or similar ones. Please see my previous post for more information. I think virology today no longer maintains the notion that the infected cell ONLY produces the SAME virus in LARGE amounts and dies. It's sufficient that the virus is produced to some extent by some of the "infected" cells, which somehow triggers the disease program. Apparently, they have no idea how exactly all of this takes place in detail, because you can NEVER demonstrate this in living organisms.
7. If D.N.A. (so-called 'genetic material) is a sequence of an atomic/molecular stage (various 'bases' of atomic structure) and not an entity, how does it become a 'virus' which, (according to graphic images of 'viruses') must be a multicellular entity and have the ability to reproduce?
See above: The virus is not cellular and does not reproduce by itself.

So, in summary, that's how they do it:
  • Take samples from patients, e.g. from the throat
  • If you want more material, optionally try to replicate the virus in cell cultures (which is probably bollocks, see last post and Lanka)
  • Separate DNA from proteins and purify the samples by some sort of technique, e.g. magnetic glass particle technology
  • Use PCR to search for sequences you deem as specific for certain viruses. If you don't know exactly what you are looking for then start an extensive search for different kinds of sequences
  • Use ELIZA, BLOT and other techniques to find and distinguish the proteins
The influenza A,B,C and D are probably distinguished by their DNA using PCR. There seems to be a higher correlation of positive tests with the "A" DNA sequences in patients with more severe symptoms, especially during the winter season. This is taken as a proof that the virus plays an important role in the disease. But just because this DNA is more prevalent in a certain kind of disease does of course not necessarily mean it is also at the root of its cause.
The proteins are distinguished as hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) and there 18/11 different subtypes of them. So there are a total of 29 different proteins they consider in their analysis. As with the DNA, this does not mean that ONLY those proteins can be found and that those specific proteins can ONLY be found if you also find e.g. the "A" DNA. If they decide that a virus is e.g. Influenca A H1N1 (subtypes 1 and 1 of hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) ) this does not mean that they ONLY find those subtypes of proteins. You can always find all types of proteins. But they probably find significantly more proteins of some subtypes in some samples and then they decide which "strain" they declare to be the "virus of the season".

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:08 pm

*

A must, MUST watch :

Do viruses even exist?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpTUlPLVtE0

Video description text:
Karma Singh: "In general there is very little evidence that viruses exist at all and a great deal of good scientific proofs that viruses do NOT exist. Very specifically, the coronavirus does not and has never existed! The work of Gaston Naessens and others makes it very plain that that which the medico-pharmaceutical sickness industry has labelled "viruses" are, in fact, residues from the healing and cleaning activities carried out by your own immune system.

Towards the end of each Winter, before Spring begins to warm your blood, many have a need to discharge "cold" energy in order to keep their organ systems in balance. There are several methods which your body possesses to do this. The most common are a "cold" and 'flu. Please note MOST CAREFULLY; these are natural relief processes which your body initiates itself: There are NO external micro-organisms required nor are any such present. The 'flu "virus" is a waste by-product of this internal process, i.e. it is something which your own body makes and then discharges it as soon as it is used up or its work is completed.

So how does this get carried over from one person to the next?

It's an informational process which you will find described in detail in my book "Tyrannosaurus Pharmaceuticus R.I.P.". " https://www.tprip.com/

Earth's Tiniest Living Organisms: Somatids (Identify: Friend or Foe?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py-hutc5ZNM

Dr. Stefan Lanka, "Dismantling the virus theory" - http://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/art ... Theory.pdf
The 5 biological laws of nature (German with English subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z57uBCcOdvI
My favourite quote from this wonderful woman, Feli Popescu, in the above video (at about 24:05):

"The body is the supreme intelligence. One cell in our body is more intelligent than the whole doctors and the whole experts on the whole planet". :) :) :) :)

I'm sure you'll LOVE it, Patrix ! Please multiply your efforts to get hold of Dr. Stefan Lanka and ask him to be interviewed on Radio Cui Bono !
And next, you should try to get hold of this totally amazing woman, Feli Popescu !

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:40 am

Truly an excellent find, Simon. Well done.
This is exactly what I have been trying to convey in all my years of writing about this subject.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:08 am

As I suspected, the video link Simon posted regarding the 5 rules refers to Dr. Hamer, of whom I researched a number of years ago and I mentioned in my first post on Engineering Disease. Indeed our dear Seneca wrote to me regarding this mention.

Having, amongst other many things, studied embryology, I personally can feel perfectly safe with Dr. Hamer's thesis and my views on biological systems outside the 'main-stream'.

Having said that, I noticed in the comments on the video that an English translation, given the difficulty of following the presentation and the sub-titles might be available. Since the video is now quite 'old' and none has appeared, I offer the links below.

Therefore, in case members and visitors may not have discovered German New Medicine, the following links:

Positive:

https://learninggnm.com/home.html

http://www.newmedicine.ca/

In contrast, we have this site:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-ir ... -quackery/

It is therefore up to individuals to make up their own minds.

'-ave no fear, the truths may be 'ere'.

Be well.

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:01 pm

simonshack wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:08 pm
A must, MUST watch :

Do viruses even exist?
I think this sums up the Lanka point of view pretty nicely, for those of you who are not yet familiar with it. Garnished with a few hints to Hamer and his 5 biological laws.

Alas, the problem with Hamer is the same as with virology and modern medizine in general: Everyone thinks that ONLY their own view of the matter is correct. My opinion is, that you could integrate Hamers laws in a much more general theory that would not totally offend modern medizine. At the core of this theory I'd place the very general concept of adjustment (assimilation, modulation, conformation, alignment, ...) of biological entites to their environment and to new requirements. These "environmental factors" may e.g. be physical or emotional.

One of the problems of the above video is, that it does not address the PCR/DNA topic at all, which is totally at the core of modern virology. No one will take you seriously as long as you don't at least try to understand and explain what's going on there.

I recently had a talk with someone who does genetic fingerprinting (of humans, animals and plants) for the police, using PCR in a laboratory. He's not familiar with viruses, but what I learnt about genetic fingerprinting is interesting. You can find it summed up in the Wickedpedia entry. I also learnt a couple of things about the human genome. The genome is thought to have "coding sequences" (like whether you are male/female, what's your eye color and so on) and other, non-coding sequences, some of which are rather repetitive, like ATATATATATA. The length of theses repetitive sequences differs among humans, but is consistently the same in the same human. As far as I understand, it works like this:
  • You take 8-15 different primers, as an example, one of them could be ATATATATATATATAT (or even longer).
  • If you test person A, who has a sequence like XXXATATATXXXXXXATATATATATXXX, you will end up getting sequences ATATAT and ATATATATAT in large amounts.
  • If you test person B, who has a sequence like XXXXXXATATATATATATATXXXXXXXX, you will only get a large number of sequences ATATATATATATAT
  • You can then use gel electrophoresis to "sort" those sequences according to their weight and get "bands"
If you do this with 15 different primers, you get 15 separate results, each having about 1-4 different bands. Taken together, these are very specific for the individual. But they don't tell you anything about properties of the person, because these are "non-coding" parts of the genome. On a side note, the use of those "coding sequences" is not widespread. Probably they are not half as specific as assumed or at least not all of them are known.

What can we derive from this about the existence of viruses? First of all, it seems that you can always find DNA which is "static", specific for an individual. And then there is "viral" DNA, which may vary over time within the same individual, but might be similar in different individuals. My idea then was, that there might exist something as "viral fingerprinting" as well... but a search did not yield very much. I found this blog article, which provides some insight and is also mildly interesting on its own:
https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2015/12/15/viral-fingerprinting-as-a-method-of-identification.html wrote: Viral Fingerprinting as a Method of Identification

The research project started as a way to identify Finnish bones from World War II, lost for decades in the wilderness of the Soviet Union and finally brought home in the last 17 years. In total, 106 soldiers were recovered and DNA was extracted from their bones in hopes of identifying the unknown men.

Researchers from University of Helsinki and the University of Edinburgh ... wanted to examine the DNA for viral infections ... They selected Parvovirus B19 (which causes Fifth Disease) as it is a fairly prevalent virus and one that, once established, persists within the body. Many viruses are cleared from the body by the immune system following infection, but some viruses, like herpes viruses for example, form life-long latent infections that can be detected years after the initial infection.

Of the 106 subjects, 43 (45%) tested positive for one of two different strains of Parvovirus (there are three genotypic strains in total). In fact, upon further testing, while 41 men tested positive for one strain, the 2 men that tested positive for the second strain were found via mitochondrial and Y chromosome testing to be Russian in origin and not part of the Finnish army at all. Only the Finns tested positive for that specific strain, one that disappeared from Europe in the 1970s, but was known at the time to be a Northern European strain.
This last part raises the question: How were "Northern European strains" identified before the advent of PCR in the mid 1990s? Did they use other techniques, such as RFLP?

The part about the different viruses is interesting as well. I knew they say this about Herpes, HIV and Epstein-Barr that once you get it, it remains in your body. So it can permanently be detected by PCR, with or without having symptoms of a disease. I guess they have at least SOME controls where they could demonstrate that a person tested negative for such a virus in the past, but from a certain point on began testing positive. Which could mean that these sequences became part of his DNA.

Someone claimed that the human genome "contains a lot of viral DNA" - but isn't that a contradiction in itself? How can you truly distinguish "viral DNA"? Just by the fact that you somehow "aquire" it during the course of your life? As far as I know, it's also common knowledge by now, that parts of our DNA change over time or at least certain genes get "activated". Whatever that means.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:38 am

Rusty wrote:
One of the problems of the above video is, that it does not address the PCR/DNA topic at all, which is totally at the core of modern virology. No one will take you seriously as long as you don't at least try to understand and explain what's going on there.
The phrase 'which is totally at the core of modern virology.' is totally redundant if D.N.A. (and thus genes) does not exist as portrayed. It was made perfectly plain that you cannot expect a biological process to be the same if removed from a living body and expect it to behave in the same way outside of it. Even if there was D.N.A. in the first place, it would not be D.N.A. in the second. That is why we have the expressions in vitro and in vivo.

The fact that the so-called extraction may be apparent does not make it a truth in terms of a biological process. Also, I for one, would certainly not care a hoot if some-one does take me seriously because I don't understand the system when it makes no sense to me in the first place. Because we can't tie Nature down to whatever fanciful words or number systems or 'technological' equipment, is too bad. You can take a cell from a living body (perhaps) and put it under a microscope but you can only say: This is what it looks like under a microscope and leave it at that. It does not tell you how it works, that would be pure speculation, whatever you did to it. Once out of the body, it would become denatured and not part of a biological process which would explain it.

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:31 am

sharpstuff wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:38 am
The phrase 'which is totally at the core of modern virology.' is totally redundant if D.N.A. (and thus genes) does not exist as portrayed. It was made perfectly plain that you cannot expect a biological process to be the same if removed from a living body and expect it to behave in the same way outside of it. Even if there was D.N.A. in the first place, it would not be D.N.A. in the second. That is why we have the expressions in vitro and in vivo.
All well and good, but you'd need to elaborate on "why D.N.A. does not exist as portrayed" and what are the consequences of this. Even if D.N.A can't be demonstrated to exist in living cells, and can't be demonstrated to exist as one long string of those molecules, you can still find tiny parts of these structures in vitro and detect specific setups of them, some of which almost perfectly correlate with one person or animal or plant. It's all about correlation of these molecules with other stuff. Of course, correlation does not mean causation, but it may at least be used as an indicator for something (such as sample A originating from you and sample B from me). Do you doubt this?

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:49 am

Dr. Andy Kaufman presents a much more logical explanation to this whole virus idea. Essentially, the "viruses" are simply exosomes, exiting the cell.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kpVGIO5pj8

alovas1980
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:44 am

anonjedi2 wrote:
Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:49 am
Dr. Andy Kaufman presents a much more logical explanation to this whole virus idea. Essentially, the "viruses" are simply exosomes, exiting the cell.
Very interesting video. Great find.
So, it basically says, that RNA containing communication particles called exosomes are identified wrongly as viruses, in this case a coronavirus.
They don’t cause any disease; they are part of the normal operation of a living being.

The most interesting part is when he explains, when exosomes are released by the cells:
What Induces Exosomes?
  • Toxic substances
  • Stress (fear)
  • Cancer
  • Ionizing radiation
  • Infection
  • Injury
  • Immune response
  • Asthma
  • Diseases (unspecified in literature, many)
  • Electromagnetic Radiation (SG) - no research
There is no research about 5G inducing exosomes, but he thinks it can be.
So, Toxins and fear are everywhere now. We have also the flu epidemic, too. So that’s it. They have everything to start this psyop. No new virus, nothing else is necessary just the media.

Post Reply