I've banned the obnoxious psycho-babbler "James True". Life is too short. Anyone interested in his claims can go read his evidence-free comments directed at me under Craig Hutchinson's evidence-free smear article on the heroic Baileys.
A new virus called Donkeypox is sending a chill up the spines of conservatives across the country. Alternative media pundits say the disease is much more credible and dangerous than Monkeypox.
Jason, you clearly can’t grasp even the basics of scientific method, cell biology and infectious diseases research. The papers you cite bear no relation to what you are talking about. And what you are talking about appears to be a garbled attempt to link together ‘sciencey’ sounding nonsense. But, hey, I could mock up some sketchy emails and cite that as ‘scientific evidence’.
Reviewing these studies, John M. Eyler, PhD in the historical science at the University of Minnesota, said in a 2010 paper: “It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [Spanish flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.
”The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.
The published reports “clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory flora in most influenza fatalities,” says Dr. Morens. Pathologists of the time, he adds, were nearly unanimous in the conviction that deaths were not caused directly by the then-unidentified influenza virus, but rather resulted from severe secondary pneumonia caused by various bacteria. Absent the secondary bacterial infections, many patients might have survived, experts at the time believed. Indeed, the availability of antibiotics during the other influenza pandemics of the 20th century, specifically those of 1957 and 1968, was probably a key factor in the lower number of worldwide deaths during those outbreaks, notes Dr. Morens.“
and yet you have provided nothing to prove a virus has been isolated.. you have came unprepared so please discuss topics that you actually have something to bring to the table because clearly this one is not your topic
Have you every read the isolation process? even a highschooler could see the problems with the official isolation process ... perhaps you need a refresher on this non-sense they call virus isolation
So let's say we have a sample that we want to test for a specific so-called “virus” and we want to isolate[1] this so-called virus. In order to do this we need some type of live medium, such as an organ. They then intentionally create an environment they are looking for by introducing various things that increase the number of exosomes in the medium, by adding fetal bovine serum (FBS) which contains a large number of exosomes[2]. They then add in toxic antibiotics and amphotericin[3] which has specific toxicity to the organ they are working with in the test. This would then cause the live medium they are working with to pump out more exosomes to pull out the toxic matter that was created by adding in these toxins. Once the FBS is added it contaminates the original sample to the point that they can’t separate it from the FBS[4] [5] or distinguish between the two.
Exosomes are essentially garbage collectors of dead cellular matter which have been affected by the environmental toxins[6] , aging[7], and/or lifestyle, but they also carry out many other tasks like regulating skin[8], endocannabinoid lipid transport[9] [10], managing inflammation[11], cell signaling[12] [13], immune system[14] and more[15] [16]. There is research that shows scientists can’t separate so-called viruses from exosomes because they are so much alike in density.[17] [18] They have to create the environment to produce what they are looking for in the isolation experiments. If they did a control without the antibiotics and FBS, they likely wouldn’t get the same results, because the results they are looking for require them to include toxins to get a massive dump of exosomes pulling out toxins, so they then conclude that the sample is what is causing the problem.
Scientists are looking at exosomes and calling them viruses, by looking at the detox mechanisms and the ‘bystander effect’ which is mentioned in a number of radiation studies[19] [20] [21] [22] and making the assumptions that these exosomes are something viral without actually confirming person to person transmission. Many attempts over the last 100+ years have been made to prove “con”-tagion but there is no clear research which meets Koch’s Postulates that can prove such concepts. Where is the control to see if all these FBS & toxins they are adding are creating an environment that is causing the problem with the live medium?
Another example is women living together or being around each other can in some cases sync periods due to something called the alpha uterus. This is a form of detox, but we would never consider menstruation a contagion right? There have also been reports of women's menstrual migraine and cramps syncing to other women. So just because humans may detox at that same time doesn’t mean that something was physically transferred in order to cause a detox response, as both individuals are in the same environment. Or what about couvade syndrome, where men start to experience symptoms like their pregnant partner?
I'm not aware of organs being used, rather they take a sample of fluid (i.e. lung fluid, boogers), tissue or excrement from the patient and add it to a cell line. Also, I'm not aware that "exosomes" have been purified and studied either, and some consider the particles to be cellular debris.
But you seem to understand the basic problems. They can't find the alleged particles directly in the bodily fluid/tissue, and only spot them after the unnatural, unscientific cell culture process. So they are part of the outcome (dependent variable), not the independent variable. Plus they haven't been purified, sequenced, characterized and shown to cause any illness, let alone hijack cell, blah blah.
Thats why its so crazy the FDA tried to block the sale of NAC during the height of the scamdemic ...
The importance of NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) in detox, overdose, and disease. NAC assists in exosome production.
“A potential restorative activity of NAC therapy is the inhibition of age-associated protein oxidation, misfolding, and aggregation by preventing sensitive-cysteine oxidative impairment related to aging. The 3D structures of proteins can suffer conformational changes when they accumulate oxidative damage [383]. The shift from a-helix to b-sheet is typical of amyloid and other protein accumulations. Structural modifications probably occur in proteins with redundant amino acid arrangements, such as polyglutamine in HD. Chaperones assist proteins in reaching their functional structure in physiological situations. However, in aging, the delicate equilibrium among protein synthesis, folding, and clearance can diminish, culminating in the aggregation of misfolded proteins. The assemblage of misfolded proteins contributes to the pathogenesis of age-associated neurodegenerative diseases, such as AD, PD, and HD, which NAC treatment can presumably repair. Cysteine-bearing compounds, such as GSH, NAC, and N-acetyl-cysteine amide (NACA) may preclude exosome production from oxidative and pro-inflammatory triggers through scavenging and preventing thiol-reactive substrates [195,196]. NAC can correct exosome induction, arrangements, and actions to comparable levels of unexposed cells instead of completely inhibiting exosome signaling. Hence, NAC prevents oxidative shifts in exosome signaling without interrupting their physiological roles [195,196].”
Right, but have the particles actually been purified and studied scientifically? I've not looked deeply into it myself, but I believe Mike Stone and some others don't believe the particles labelled "exosomes" have been studied properly to know what they are or what they do either. I could be wrong.
They cant isolate further than exosomes, thats what they are looking at as exosomes pull out the cellular debris and toxins. Even HIV is classified as exosome by researchers researching HIV.
“the virus [HIV] is fully an exosome in every sense of the word“
-Dr. James Hildreth, M.D
President and Chief Executive Officer of MeHarry Medical College
Hi Tony, check my comment on the main thread here... I tried to reply to you but the sign in process removed the sub comment. If you have any other information that I have yet to come across to prove the official narratives, we are all ears but until then please first understand what exactly means to "isolate a virus"
You are taking to the wrong agency. I’d you want to know about the signs, symptoms etc of any disease, you should be talking to CDC and/or NIH. FDA is a food product and drug product safety and efficacy agency.
First of all, my FOIA order was not an attempt to gather info about the signs, symptoms etc of any purported disease.
Secondly, a valid assessment of the accuracy of "tests" and the efficacy of quackcines and other products relating to an alleged "virus" requires a valid gold standard. Without a valid gold standard it's impossible to conduct valid assessments. Yet this is what the FDA falsely claims to be doing - conducting assessments in relation to a purported thing that in fact they can't even show exists (and that no one else can either). FDA agents hold themselves out as having expertise and knowledge on matters of which they actually know nothing and cannot know anything because there is no foundation to the "virus" narrative to begin with. You're free to give them a pass on such fraud and delusion and declare it "wrong" to put them to the test and thereby enable further fraud and delusion if you wish. I choose not to.
Thirdly, immediately after I finished describing my communications with Sarah, I provided a link to "Many more failed FOI responses relating to the fake/false/fraudulent “monkeypox virus”". If you click on the link you will find exactly that, including responses from the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, NIAID, New Zealand‘s crown research institute, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, NZ Ministry of Health, Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada, Sweden’s Public Health Authority Folkhälsomyndigheten, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, etc.
I’m a microbiologist and have look at the studies. FDA evaluates safety and effectiveness through review of supplied documentation. Results of double blind randomized trials. I doubt you have the technical ability to understand these based on what I’ve read from what you’ve shared here. Maybe you should try studying a bit and become truly educated on the science before you start spouting off your opinions as fact. You should be ashamed.
Your background is irrelevant and of zero interest to me, as is your ad hominem approach. I'm quite aware of the evidence passed off by virologists, having looking at many studies over the past 4.5 years. It's pseudoscience by definition. Virologists always rely on indirect evidence and circular reasoning.
The trials do not involve direct evidence of any "virus", nor are the "tests" they rely on validated. And they can't be validated because the alleged "virus" was never shown to exist in the first place. If I'm wrong, cite a valid scientific study. Appeals to authority and attempts to shame me will be a waste of your time.
Thanks Christine! I will forward to “my representatives” here in CA, and will share with other people in positions of “authority. These important confessions will be on record. No logic isn’t Sarah’s thing…clearly she is stupid or corrupted by the pharmafia, maybe both.
Sarcasm is a symptom of internal self-hatred. If you can’t be honest with your own throat chakra why are you corrupting people’s ears? Look at how much work you are putting into ignoring me. All of this is a mirror for you. Of course I am wrong and horrible. But that has nothing to do with you and your relationship with your body. You need to work on your ego. Stop hating it. Reconsider yourself and stop being so mean to people you just met.
James, we had much back and forth already under Craig Hutchinson's evidence-free smear piece on the Baileys and JBS. I challenged you many times to cite valid scientific evidence of the "rabies virus" you claim exists and all I got from you was links to your substack... which is not a valid scientific study. I'm not going to tolerate your off-topic psychobabble here. I will simply block you if you continue because I wasted enough time with you already.
I've banned the obnoxious psycho-babbler "James True". Life is too short. Anyone interested in his claims can go read his evidence-free comments directed at me under Craig Hutchinson's evidence-free smear article on the heroic Baileys.
Have you heard about 'Donkeypox' yet?
A new virus called Donkeypox is sending a chill up the spines of conservatives across the country. Alternative media pundits say the disease is much more credible and dangerous than Monkeypox.
https://www.newworldhumor.com/p/donkeypox-virus-strikes-fear-in-conservatives
Who's gonna stop these evil doers?
Jason, you clearly can’t grasp even the basics of scientific method, cell biology and infectious diseases research. The papers you cite bear no relation to what you are talking about. And what you are talking about appears to be a garbled attempt to link together ‘sciencey’ sounding nonsense. But, hey, I could mock up some sketchy emails and cite that as ‘scientific evidence’.
Reviewing these studies, John M. Eyler, PhD in the historical science at the University of Minnesota, said in a 2010 paper: “It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [Spanish flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332
Spanish flu...
”The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line the bronchial tubes and lungs.
The published reports “clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory flora in most influenza fatalities,” says Dr. Morens. Pathologists of the time, he adds, were nearly unanimous in the conviction that deaths were not caused directly by the then-unidentified influenza virus, but rather resulted from severe secondary pneumonia caused by various bacteria. Absent the secondary bacterial infections, many patients might have survived, experts at the time believed. Indeed, the availability of antibiotics during the other influenza pandemics of the 20th century, specifically those of 1957 and 1968, was probably a key factor in the lower number of worldwide deaths during those outbreaks, notes Dr. Morens.“
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic
"Our review found no human experimental studies published delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza."
- CDC
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/37/8/1094/2013282
and yet you have provided nothing to prove a virus has been isolated.. you have came unprepared so please discuss topics that you actually have something to bring to the table because clearly this one is not your topic
from SLAY news :
https://slaynews.com/news/fda-admits-zero-scientific-evidence-monkeypox-virus-exists/
happy to see your work being recognized, Christine
Sweet, thank you for letting me know Malca :) It would be so amazing if this info would go mainstream soon!
Have you every read the isolation process? even a highschooler could see the problems with the official isolation process ... perhaps you need a refresher on this non-sense they call virus isolation
So let's say we have a sample that we want to test for a specific so-called “virus” and we want to isolate[1] this so-called virus. In order to do this we need some type of live medium, such as an organ. They then intentionally create an environment they are looking for by introducing various things that increase the number of exosomes in the medium, by adding fetal bovine serum (FBS) which contains a large number of exosomes[2]. They then add in toxic antibiotics and amphotericin[3] which has specific toxicity to the organ they are working with in the test. This would then cause the live medium they are working with to pump out more exosomes to pull out the toxic matter that was created by adding in these toxins. Once the FBS is added it contaminates the original sample to the point that they can’t separate it from the FBS[4] [5] or distinguish between the two.
Exosomes are essentially garbage collectors of dead cellular matter which have been affected by the environmental toxins[6] , aging[7], and/or lifestyle, but they also carry out many other tasks like regulating skin[8], endocannabinoid lipid transport[9] [10], managing inflammation[11], cell signaling[12] [13], immune system[14] and more[15] [16]. There is research that shows scientists can’t separate so-called viruses from exosomes because they are so much alike in density.[17] [18] They have to create the environment to produce what they are looking for in the isolation experiments. If they did a control without the antibiotics and FBS, they likely wouldn’t get the same results, because the results they are looking for require them to include toxins to get a massive dump of exosomes pulling out toxins, so they then conclude that the sample is what is causing the problem.
Scientists are looking at exosomes and calling them viruses, by looking at the detox mechanisms and the ‘bystander effect’ which is mentioned in a number of radiation studies[19] [20] [21] [22] and making the assumptions that these exosomes are something viral without actually confirming person to person transmission. Many attempts over the last 100+ years have been made to prove “con”-tagion but there is no clear research which meets Koch’s Postulates that can prove such concepts. Where is the control to see if all these FBS & toxins they are adding are creating an environment that is causing the problem with the live medium?
Another example is women living together or being around each other can in some cases sync periods due to something called the alpha uterus. This is a form of detox, but we would never consider menstruation a contagion right? There have also been reports of women's menstrual migraine and cramps syncing to other women. So just because humans may detox at that same time doesn’t mean that something was physically transferred in order to cause a detox response, as both individuals are in the same environment. Or what about couvade syndrome, where men start to experience symptoms like their pregnant partner?
Open letter by many Medical Professionals
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
(Follow-up) https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/virus-debate/
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition)
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition
[1] wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952636/
[3] “miltefosine and amphotericin B; drugs that are far from ideal due to host toxicity,” -
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32628683/
[4] https://inflammation.life/dr_cowan_fbs.jpg
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977539/
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837599/
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8393989/
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254055/
[9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25568329/
[10] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30758141/
[11] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30758141/
[12] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28983919
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25272880
[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885214/
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9961790/
[16] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36834471/
[17] (2020) “However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291340
[18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881422/
[19] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4829325/
[20] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9029583/
[21] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344502/
[22] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/bystander-effect#
My Comment was replying to @Tony, but the sign-in process must have removed it as a sub comment ...
I was wondering why you were lecturing me lol :) Cheers.
Do you have any input from what i wrote above? do you know if there is any additional isolation steps that I missed?
I'm not aware of organs being used, rather they take a sample of fluid (i.e. lung fluid, boogers), tissue or excrement from the patient and add it to a cell line. Also, I'm not aware that "exosomes" have been purified and studied either, and some consider the particles to be cellular debris.
But you seem to understand the basic problems. They can't find the alleged particles directly in the bodily fluid/tissue, and only spot them after the unnatural, unscientific cell culture process. So they are part of the outcome (dependent variable), not the independent variable. Plus they haven't been purified, sequenced, characterized and shown to cause any illness, let alone hijack cell, blah blah.
Thats why its so crazy the FDA tried to block the sale of NAC during the height of the scamdemic ...
The importance of NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) in detox, overdose, and disease. NAC assists in exosome production.
“A potential restorative activity of NAC therapy is the inhibition of age-associated protein oxidation, misfolding, and aggregation by preventing sensitive-cysteine oxidative impairment related to aging. The 3D structures of proteins can suffer conformational changes when they accumulate oxidative damage [383]. The shift from a-helix to b-sheet is typical of amyloid and other protein accumulations. Structural modifications probably occur in proteins with redundant amino acid arrangements, such as polyglutamine in HD. Chaperones assist proteins in reaching their functional structure in physiological situations. However, in aging, the delicate equilibrium among protein synthesis, folding, and clearance can diminish, culminating in the aggregation of misfolded proteins. The assemblage of misfolded proteins contributes to the pathogenesis of age-associated neurodegenerative diseases, such as AD, PD, and HD, which NAC treatment can presumably repair. Cysteine-bearing compounds, such as GSH, NAC, and N-acetyl-cysteine amide (NACA) may preclude exosome production from oxidative and pro-inflammatory triggers through scavenging and preventing thiol-reactive substrates [195,196]. NAC can correct exosome induction, arrangements, and actions to comparable levels of unexposed cells instead of completely inhibiting exosome signaling. Hence, NAC prevents oxidative shifts in exosome signaling without interrupting their physiological roles [195,196].”
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/11/2/416
Many research quotes on exosomes here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jyHyTEsfP_cfEn0vEqtfi6WZsD4izSxEBCE9eKhTnIE/edit#heading=h.l67uon8dcola
Right, but have the particles actually been purified and studied scientifically? I've not looked deeply into it myself, but I believe Mike Stone and some others don't believe the particles labelled "exosomes" have been studied properly to know what they are or what they do either. I could be wrong.
They cant isolate further than exosomes, thats what they are looking at as exosomes pull out the cellular debris and toxins. Even HIV is classified as exosome by researchers researching HIV.
“the virus [HIV] is fully an exosome in every sense of the word“
-Dr. James Hildreth, M.D
President and Chief Executive Officer of MeHarry Medical College
Former Professor at John Hopkins
HIV Researcher
Journal of Cell Biology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2248418/pdf/jcb1620960.pdf
hi Christine, I messaged you... i shared with you my book
Wow, so much misinformation in one place.
Hi Tony, check my comment on the main thread here... I tried to reply to you but the sign in process removed the sub comment. If you have any other information that I have yet to come across to prove the official narratives, we are all ears but until then please first understand what exactly means to "isolate a virus"
Cite valid scientific evidence if I'm wrong.
A Massachusetts is town enforcing curfew due to 1 person supposedly getting equine encephalitis virus from mosquito bite.
What are the chances no health agency has proof of the existence of EEE virus on file?
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1827631451535225274
Hi Brent, that's insane. I've not been able to FOI hundreds of institutions for every alleged virus, but do have the CDC on record:
CDC FOIA confession: no scientific evidence of any encephalitis "virus"
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/cdc-foia-confession-no-scientific
Of course, it’s a very bad joke
You are taking to the wrong agency. I’d you want to know about the signs, symptoms etc of any disease, you should be talking to CDC and/or NIH. FDA is a food product and drug product safety and efficacy agency.
First of all, my FOIA order was not an attempt to gather info about the signs, symptoms etc of any purported disease.
Secondly, a valid assessment of the accuracy of "tests" and the efficacy of quackcines and other products relating to an alleged "virus" requires a valid gold standard. Without a valid gold standard it's impossible to conduct valid assessments. Yet this is what the FDA falsely claims to be doing - conducting assessments in relation to a purported thing that in fact they can't even show exists (and that no one else can either). FDA agents hold themselves out as having expertise and knowledge on matters of which they actually know nothing and cannot know anything because there is no foundation to the "virus" narrative to begin with. You're free to give them a pass on such fraud and delusion and declare it "wrong" to put them to the test and thereby enable further fraud and delusion if you wish. I choose not to.
Thirdly, immediately after I finished describing my communications with Sarah, I provided a link to "Many more failed FOI responses relating to the fake/false/fraudulent “monkeypox virus”". If you click on the link you will find exactly that, including responses from the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, NIAID, New Zealand‘s crown research institute, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, NZ Ministry of Health, Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada, Sweden’s Public Health Authority Folkhälsomyndigheten, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, etc.
I’m a microbiologist and have look at the studies. FDA evaluates safety and effectiveness through review of supplied documentation. Results of double blind randomized trials. I doubt you have the technical ability to understand these based on what I’ve read from what you’ve shared here. Maybe you should try studying a bit and become truly educated on the science before you start spouting off your opinions as fact. You should be ashamed.
Your background is irrelevant and of zero interest to me, as is your ad hominem approach. I'm quite aware of the evidence passed off by virologists, having looking at many studies over the past 4.5 years. It's pseudoscience by definition. Virologists always rely on indirect evidence and circular reasoning.
The trials do not involve direct evidence of any "virus", nor are the "tests" they rely on validated. And they can't be validated because the alleged "virus" was never shown to exist in the first place. If I'm wrong, cite a valid scientific study. Appeals to authority and attempts to shame me will be a waste of your time.
Zero evidence about monkeypox. 100% evidence about moneypox
Thanks Christine! I will forward to “my representatives” here in CA, and will share with other people in positions of “authority. These important confessions will be on record. No logic isn’t Sarah’s thing…clearly she is stupid or corrupted by the pharmafia, maybe both.
Thank you so much Jeff!
Laughing contently
Have you asked the CDC the same??
Yes and many other institutions. See the link I provided in the article to other "monkeypox virus" FOIs, or go to my previous article.
Thank you.
Sarcasm is a symptom of internal self-hatred. If you can’t be honest with your own throat chakra why are you corrupting people’s ears? Look at how much work you are putting into ignoring me. All of this is a mirror for you. Of course I am wrong and horrible. But that has nothing to do with you and your relationship with your body. You need to work on your ego. Stop hating it. Reconsider yourself and stop being so mean to people you just met.
James, we had much back and forth already under Craig Hutchinson's evidence-free smear piece on the Baileys and JBS. I challenged you many times to cite valid scientific evidence of the "rabies virus" you claim exists and all I got from you was links to your substack... which is not a valid scientific study. I'm not going to tolerate your off-topic psychobabble here. I will simply block you if you continue because I wasted enough time with you already.
You’re bored because you don’t read Christine. You don’t read because you don’t respect yourself.
You're so scientific, thanks!